A federal judge in Miami rejected this Thursday the U.S. government's attempt to dismiss the lawsuit filed by Cubans with form I-220A, so the case will continue to proceed in the courts.
The journalist Alexis Boentes from Telemundo 51 reported from the courtroom that during the hearing, the judge questioned the Government's attempt to end the litigation, while the federal attorneys defended their arguments to have the lawsuit dismissed.
Shortly thereafter, Boentes reported that the federal judge denied the Government's attempt to dismiss the lawsuit and that the case will proceed.
The journalist Daniel Benítez from Univision 23 Miami, provided new details following the hearing and noted, citing lawyers Mark Prada and Anthony Dominguez, that the judge determined that she has jurisdiction to review the fundamental issues raised in the case.
This allows the litigation to overcome one of its initial legal barriers and continue to progress.
According to Benítez, the Government must now address several issues related to the certification of the class action and the request for a protective order for the plaintiffs identified in the process.
The established timeline will be swift: the Government will have seven days to respond and the plaintiffs' attorneys will then have another seven days. Additionally, a new hearing is expected this month, which accelerates the progression of the litigation.
The hearing was held before federal judge Jacqueline Becerra of the Southern District of Florida, in the case Bello-Rubio v. Noem, a lawsuit filed by 992 Cubans seeking a legal avenue for those who were released in the United States with an I-220A form.
The decision to allow the case to proceed marks an important step for the plaintiffs, but it does not mean that Cubans with I-220A have automatically received a parole or that they can obtain permanent residency yet.
The litigation must continue until the substantive issues raised before the court are resolved.
As was reported prior to the hearing, the lawsuit seeks to have the circumstances under which numerous Cubans were processed and released at the border legally recognized as a parole, a condition that could allow them to apply for residency under the Cuban Adjustment Act if they meet the other legal requirements.
The proponents of the litigation believe that a potential favorable decision of national scope could have consequences for between 500,000 and 600,000 Cubans who remain in the United States with a similar immigration status.
The lawyer Mark Prada himself, one of the main representatives of the plaintiffs, has urged caution regarding the scope of the process.
In statements collected by Noticias Telemundo, he explained that a judicial victory would not automatically protect all affected individuals from deportation nor directly grant them residency, although it could provide them with a new legal tool to defend their cases.
The federal government, for its part, maintains that the I-220A form is not equivalent to a parole and had requested the court to dismiss the lawsuit, among other arguments, on the grounds that the court does not have jurisdiction to grant some of the requested remedies.
According to N+ Univision, the Government argued that these Cubans were released while they continued their migration processes under a legal framework different from the parole outlined by immigration law.
He also stated that federal laws limit the ability of the courts to review certain discretionary decisions made by DHS regarding detention and parole.
The administration also rejected the possibility of retroactively and generally recognizing a parole based on the manner in which the migrants were processed.
His position is that the granting of that benefit should be done through an individual assessment, on a case-by-case basis, and that an I-220A cannot automatically be converted to parole.
Prada had explained prior to the hearing that one of the objectives of the litigation is to obtain certification of a national collective of Cubans processed in a similar manner, which would allow any favorable decision to extend its effects beyond the original 992 plaintiffs.
The case has generated great anticipation among thousands of Cuban families because the I-220A, an order of parole, is not currently recognized by immigration authorities as the parole required to qualify for the Cuban Adjustment Act.
Another document that has gained importance in these cases is the I-213 form, prepared by the authorities during the immigration processing and which may contain information about the circumstances under which a person was detained and subsequently released.
Some records may include references to lack of space in detention centers, humanitarian reasons, or other circumstances related to release.
These annotations could be used as evidence in individual cases, although on their own, they do not convert an I-220A into parole nor guarantee access to permanent residency.
The legal battle takes place at a time of increasing migratory pressure on Cubans in the United States.
Noticias Telemundo, citing an analysis from the Cato Institute, reported that the immigration arrests of Cubans increased by 463% during the first year of the current Trump Administration, reaching an average of 1,008 per month, while approvals for residency for this group saw a sharp decline.
Sigue todos los detalles y novedades en nuestra sección de .
Filed under: