Cuban nationals who entered the United States through the CBP One application are facing a new legal hurdle: immigration judges received a formal directive prohibiting them from closing or terminating their cases, regardless of the circumstances. Immigration attorney Liudmila Marcelo, in an interview with Tania Costa, explained the implications of this measure and the strategies available for those in this situation.
"About 10 or 11 days ago, the judges received a directive stating that they cannot, under any circumstances, close cases," warned Marcelo. The process began in Texas, where some judges issued a directive against administrative closures to also prohibit the termination of files, and from there it spread to the rest of the country. The legal basis for this restriction is a federal ruling issued on June 22, 2026 in the case State of Texas v. U.S. Department of Justice, which overturned the 2024 rule from the Department of Justice regarding the efficient administrative closure of immigration cases.
Marcelo makes a fundamental distinction between two groups of Cubans. Those who entered with the humanitarian parole 212-D5 are not affected, because the judge simply decides residency in court since they have jurisdiction over their case. Cubans with CBP-One, on the other hand, are directly harmed: "Both the judges who did not close cases and those who did close cases are now prohibited from closing cases for those with CBP," the lawyer pointed out.
The practical consequences can be severe. If a person with CBP-One is assigned an individual final court and did not file for asylum, the judge grants a deadline to submit a request for withholding of removal. The most delicate scenario occurs when asylum was filed but the case is not strong: "If the asylum case is not strong, that means a deportation order. That person will have to appeal to buy time until they finally obtain their residency," Marcelo explained.
In light of this situation, the lawyer recommends two specific strategies. The first and most important is to request a new master hearing instead of an individual court. "I advise everyone to use this strategy: to request another master court," he said. According to Marcelo, his firm has succeeded in having judges grant these additional hearings with a six-month margin, which allows time for residency to arrive. If there is already an upcoming individual court, the recommendation is to request a postponement of that date.
The second tool is the mandamus, a federal lawsuit to compel the Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to take action. Marcelo announced that he has already started filing them for his clients and has shortened the usual timeframe for doing so. “Before, I wanted two and a half, three years. From two and a half to three. But given these circumstances, it has to be two.” The lawyer explained that filing a mandamus requires prior steps —multiple requests to USCIS and a letter of intent to file a lawsuit— which take time, which is why it is advisable to start the process sooner.
The mandamus also serves an additional strategic function: "It is now necessary to have that pending request so the judge knows that there is something unresolved in the Federal Court that could potentially affect their residency," Marcelo emphasized.
This context adds to the saturation experienced by the immigration courts in Miami, following the ban on hearings via WebEx.
Filed under: