The U.S. government has once again urged a federal judge in Miami to dismiss the lawsuit known as that of the 992 Cubans with I-220A forms, who are seeking legal recognition of the circumstances of their detention and subsequent release as a parole that would allow them to apply for residency under the Cuban Adjustment Act.
The new motion was filed on Friday, October 9, before Judge Jacqueline Becerra of the Southern District of Florida, and it was recorded as document 77 in the case Bello-Rubio (file 1:25-cv-23665). This is not a decision by the judge and does not mean that the lawsuit has been dismissed. The court still needs to review the arguments from both parties, as indicated in the public record of the court file.
Why is the Government asking for the case to be closed again?
The new attempt comes a month after Becerra rejected at the hearing on September 10 an initial government motion to end the litigation. That decision, formalized through judicial order 64 on September 11, allowed the case to proceed, but did not resolve whether the releases of the plaintiffs should be considered parole.
The magistrate also granted a request made by the government's lawyers for the plaintiffs to amend their filing and explicitly include the dispute over the legal provision under which they had initially been detained. Their lawyers submitted that second amended complaint on September 18, identified as document 72.
The motion from October 9 responds to that new version. In it, the government once again questions both the jurisdiction of the court and the legal sufficiency of the claims presented. In other words, it requests that the judge close the case before addressing the substantive issue regarding the nature of those releases.
Three legal documents submitted on October 9
On that day, the federal government presented three distinct documents that address related but not equivalent issues:
- Document 77: new motion to dismiss the amended complaint due to lack of jurisdiction and for failing to state a legally valid claim. The file sets October 23 as the deadline for a response.
- Document 78: supplementary writing concerning the request for judicial protective measures submitted by the plaintiffs under the All Writs Act. The judge had asked the Government to provide a more detailed explanation of what other legal avenues it considers available.
- Document 79: supplementary document regarding the request for the litigation to be certified as a class action. It includes as an annex a statement from a director of the LESA office, related to the information systems of the immigration authorities.
The issue of the class action lawsuit is particularly significant. Although the case is publicly known as the lawsuit of the 992 Cubans, their lawyers are trying to ensure that any potential judicial decision could benefit others who find themselves in a similar legal situation. The judge has not yet approved that certification nor has she decided what the scope of a possible ruling would be.
What is happening now and what are the upcoming dates?
The upcoming judicial deadlines are focused in October. Orders 65 and 66 establish a seven-day period for the plaintiffs to respond to the supplementary filings regarding the class action lawsuit and protective measures. Counting from its submission on October 9, that deadline would initially expire on October 16, unless the court provides otherwise.
The record sets October 23, 2026, as the deadline for the plaintiffs to respond to the new motion to dismiss filed by the federal government.
Afterward, Becerra will have to review the presentations from both parties. He could reject the new motion, accept it in whole or in part, or make other procedural decisions. There is no record in the most recent entries of the case file of a judgment that addresses the right claimed by the Cubans with I-220A.
From the 2021 exodus to the current legal battle: five years of uncertainty
The controversy surrounding the I-220A dates back to the successive waves of Cuban migration to the United States. In October 2021, CiberCuba reported on a federal lawsuit filed in Miami aiming to allow Cubans released with that form to apply for permanent residency. The issue affected individuals who arrived after the repeal of the "wet foot/dry foot" policy in January 2017.
In February 2022, a partial advance was made. Following a lawsuit, USCIS adopted a favorable administrative treatment for certain Cubans who had initially been released from DHS custody between January 12, 2017, and November 17, 2021, and met specific requirements. However, the memorandum did not recognize the I-220A as a parole nor did it address the situation of all its holders, particularly those of numerous migrants who arrived later.
On September 11, 2023, a significant legal setback occurred. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), in its decision Matter of Cabrera-Fernandez, established that the conditional release specified in section 236(a) of immigration law does not equate to the parole outlined in section 212(d)(5). This distinction prevents the automatic fulfillment of the admission or parole requirement mandated by the Cuban Adjustment Act.
In January 2024, Cubans with I-220A demonstrated in front of the White House in Washington, demanding a migratory solution. Initiatives were also reported to individually review certain cases, but without establishing a blanket parole concession for all those affected.
In 2025, the decision Matter of Q. Li reignited the legal debate regarding the applicable legal provision to certain detentions at the border, particularly the distinction between sections 235(b) and 236(a) of immigration law. However, that ruling did not establish that receiving an I-220A automatically equated to obtaining a parole.
On August 14 of that year, the Bello-Rubio lawsuit was presented in Miami, now once again challenged by the federal government. Five years after that 2021 complaint, a final judicial response regarding the circumstances of the detention and release of the plaintiffs in this new case is still pending.
What does it mean for Cubans who have I-220A?
The dispute centers on a decisive legal difference. The I-220A form documents the release of a person under their own recognizance and certain conditions, but it does not equate by itself to the migratory parole required in the relevant cases of the Cuban Adjustment Act.
The plaintiffs do not simply argue that any I-220A should automatically convert into parole. They question the legal basis for their detention and the manner in which authorities released them after their arrival in the United States. Hence, the importance of examining the specific circumstances of their processing.
For now, neither the government's presentation nor the continuation of the lawsuit automatically changes the immigration status of its participants or the rest of the Cubans with I-220A. They also do not grant permanent residency, suspend all deportations, or replace the obligations to report to ICE or attend immigration court when applicable.
Even if the applicants received a favorable decision on the parole, each applicant would still have to meet the other legal requirements to obtain residency.
Related videos:
Filed under: