Immigration attorney Willy Allen clarified this Monday, during a live program broadcast by CiberCuba, on Columbus Day, alongside host Tania Costa, that the hearing on October 9 in the case of the 992 Cubans with Form I-220A did not yield any judicial decision. That day simply marked the deadline for the U.S. government to present its arguments, he stated.
"There's still no decision, and there wasn't going to be one that day. Remember that this was the deadline for the government to present their arguments on why it should not be a general action, why it should not be a specific action," explained Allen.
The government presented on October 9 a new motion to dismiss the amended complaint Bello-Rubio v. Noem (case file 1:25-cv-23665), before federal judge Jacqueline Becerra, of the Southern District of Florida, arguing a lack of federal jurisdiction and absence of a legally valid claim.
Allen emphasized that the presentation of that motion does not mean that the lawsuit has been dismissed: the judge still needs to review the arguments from both sides before making a ruling.
Now the ball is in the court of the plaintiffs. According to Allen, attorney Mark Prada and his team have until October 23 to respond to the government's motion: "They have the right, of course they will take it, they will respond to what the government has submitted. Right now, everything is in paperwork."
Regarding the next steps, the lawyer indicated that Judge Becerra will likely not act in isolation. "I suspect that what the judge will do is consolidate all the pending cases and from there make a future decision."
The litigation has an intense procedural timeline. The judge rejected an initial motion to dismiss on September 10, allowing the case to proceed. A week later, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, to which the government responded with this new motion.
The case revolves around whether the I-220A form — a supervision release order issued by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) — can be legally equated to a parole, a requirement that would allow the plaintiffs to apply for permanent residency under the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966.
The government maintains that no court can retroactively convert an I-220A into parole nor has the authority to grant the requested relief. Journalistic estimates place the number of Cubans in a similar immigration situation to that of the plaintiffs between 400,000 and 600,000, although the current lawsuit only represents 992 individuals.
In parallel, Allen warned about the widespread tightening of bonds in immigration detention cases, linked to a recent decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals published on October 7. According to the lawyer, since 2025, immigration judges have begun denying bonds using minor traffic violations as a pretext. "Fines that would never have been taken seriously in the past. Since 2025, they have been used as reasons to deny bond in detention."
The next key date in the case is October 23, when the plaintiffs must file their response to the government's motion, after which Judge Becerra will have the complete arguments from both sides to make a decision.
El caso de los cubanos con I-220A sigue en desarrollo. Para mantenerte al día con todo lo relacionado a procesos migratorios, visas y decisiones judiciales que afectan a la comunidad cubana, sigue la cobertura en
Filed under: