Cubans with an I-220A who are awaiting to obtain residency through the Cuban Adjustment Act are still awaiting several judicial decisions that could influence their cases.
Until this Tuesday, October 27, 2026, no federal ruling of general scope has established that the I-220A, on its own, equates to a migration parole or allows for automatic access to permanent residency.
The courts are examining different issues: whether certain releases of Cuban immigrants can be considered parole, what legal authority the government had to detain them, and whether those who are again detained by ICE have the right to request a bond hearing.
The decisions of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), the Eleventh Circuit, and the Fifth Circuit, along with a case presented to the Supreme Court, help to understand the legal possibilities and limitations for Cubans with I-220A.
What's at stake?: the difference between I-220A and parole
The Cuban Adjustment Act requires, among other criteria, that the individual has been inspected and admitted or granted parole in the United States.
The migratory parole granted under section 212(d)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) may satisfy that requirement.
However, many Cubans who crossed the border between 2021 and 2023 received an I-220A, known as Order of Release on Recognizance, a document of release on recognizance that does not, by itself, constitute a grant of parole.
The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) explained this difference in a February 2022 notice, in which it identified release under section 236 of the INA as a distinct figure from parole.
That notice also addressed the possibility of reopening certain cases of Cubans released between January 12, 2017, and November 17, 2021, without generally recognizing the I-220A as parole.
The distinction between these documents and their immigration consequences is explained in our guide on the differences between the I-220A and the parole under the Cuban Adjustment Act.
What has the BIA decided regarding Cubans with I-220A?
The Board of Immigration Appeals has issued several precedent decisions that influence the interpretation of the requirements for obtaining residency and the conditions of immigrant detention:
Matter of Cabrera-Fernández (September 11, 2023): the BIA determined that release under section 236 of the INA is legally distinct from humanitarian parole. Therefore, such release does not alone satisfy the admission or parole requirement established in the Cuban Adjustment Act.
Matter of Q. Li (May 15, 2025): the Board examined the detention regime for individuals arriving in the United States who are subject to section 235(b). Its interpretation has become significant in litigation discussing whether certain individuals were detained and subsequently released under the appropriate legal authority.
Matter of Roque-Izada (June 20, 2025): the BIA reaffirmed the distinction between conditional release under section 236 and the parole required for the Adjustment Act. It also rejected closing a deportation proceeding solely based on the possibility that USCIS might grant a parole in the future.
These decisions remain relevant for immigration judges, although their application must take into account the binding rulings of federal courts in each jurisdiction.
For Cubans with I-220A, the crucial issue is not only the document they received upon release from custody, but also the legal authority used to detain and release them, as well as the existence of any other documented admission or parole grant.
The Eleventh Circuit returned two Cuban cases to the BIA
On February 23, 2026, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals voided two decisions of the BIA and remanded the cases for further proceedings in the matters of Labrada-Hechavarría and Castillo-Casanova.
The proceedings involved two Cuban family groups who had entered the United States without documentation, were detained by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and were subsequently released.
Immigration judges had determined that those releases did not constitute parole and, therefore, did not satisfy the corresponding requirement of the Cuban Adjustment Act. The BIA initially confirmed that interpretation.
During the judicial review, an important change occurred: in July 2025, the federal government changed its position and acknowledged that the plaintiffs had been subject to the detention authority of section 235(a), instead of section 236(a) that it had previously defended.
Despite that change, the government maintained that the requests should be denied because the applicants had benefited from a mistake made by the DHS.
The Eleventh Circuit concluded that it had jurisdiction to examine the controversy and overturned the decisions of the BIA. It deemed relevant that the Government had changed its interpretation and that the Board itself had subsequently issued new decisions regarding the scope of section 235.
The court did not rule that these releases constituted parole, nor did it order the granting of residency.
He returned the files for the BIA to reexamine them in light of the legal issues raised.
The resolution was issued as an unpublished opinion, so it does not establish a binding precedent for all cases in the Eleventh Circuit.
However, their reasoning may be relevant to other proceedings with similar legal circumstances.
Detention without bail: another controversy affecting immigrants
The discussion about the Cuban Adjustment Act should not be confused with lawsuits regarding immigration detention.
These last ones determine, among other issues, when ICE can keep a person detained during their deportation proceedings and whether they have access to a bail hearing.
In Matter of Yajure Hurtado, dated September 5, 2025, the BIA interpreted that certain individuals present in the United States without having been admitted are subject to the mandatory detention regime under section 235(b)(2)(A), which limits the authority of immigration judges to grant them bail.
Federal courts have maintained differing interpretations regarding the scope of these provisions
Eleventh Circuit (Florida, Georgia, and Alabama): on May 6, 2026, in the case Hernández Álvarez, the court examined the application of sections 235 and 236 to individuals already present in the country. Its decision supported the possibility of requesting a bond hearing under section 236(a) in the legal circumstances analyzed.
Fifth Circuit (Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi): lawsuits related to mandatory detention have resulted in decisions and procedural actions that reflect a different interpretation of the Government's detention powers. In the case Sosnava Rodríguez, the full court has also intervened in proceedings related to these controversies.
Supreme Court: the case Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha, originating from the Second Circuit, raises a controversy regarding the legal regime for the detention of immigrants who are in the United States without having been admitted. Its processing is relevant for determining the scope of federal powers in this matter.
These differences can have practical consequences for immigrants detained in different jurisdictions.
However, access to a bail hearing does not solely depend on the state where the person is located.
Other factors include their immigration history, the legal authority supporting the detention, the existence of a final deportation order, and applicable judicial decisions.
A bail hearing does not guarantee release; it means that the person can request an evaluation to determine if it should be granted.
The consequences of the Fifth Circuit's procedures for Cuban immigrants are explained in our information on detention without bail and Cubans with I-220A.
The demand in Miami: what could happen after October 30
In the Southern District of Florida, the judicial controversy initiated by Cubans with I-220A continues, as they seek for certain immigration releases to be recognized as parole for the purposes of the Cuban Adjustment Act.
The plaintiffs responded to the new request from the Government to dismiss the lawsuit.
The specified procedural calendar sets Friday, October 30, 2026, as the deadline for a new government response.
That deadline corresponds to a procedural action, not to a date set for the judge to issue a ruling.
Once the submission of the documents is completed, the court may resolve the outstanding issues according to the progress of the case.
The filing of the petition does not grant immigration protection to all individuals with an I-220A on its own.
Any collective effect would depend on the decisions made by the court, the scope of the ordered measures, and the individuals legally included in them.
What should Cubans do with I-220A while they wait?
- Comply with ICE appointments and immigration hearings. The existence of legal claims does not automatically suspend individual obligations. Missing a hearing may result in an in absentia removal order, except for the exceptions allowed by law.
- Check the status of the file. El sistema de información de casos de la Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) permite consultar información sobre procedimientos judiciales mediante el número de extranjero o número A.
- Review the entry and release documentation with a lawyer. It is important to determine under what authority the person was detained, what documents they received, and whether there is any record of admission or parole that could affect their eligibility for the Cuban Adjustment Act.
- Keep all immigration documents. Copies of the I-220A, the I-94 if available, court notifications, proof of appearance before ICE, and any application or resolution related to the case should be kept.
- Prepare a family plan in the event of a possible detention. It is advisable for a trusted person to have access to essential documents, the A number, and the contact information of the legal representative.
- Be cautious of promises of automatic residency. No pending litigation guarantees that all Cubans with I-220A will obtain residency. There is also no general procedure that automatically converts that document into parole.
Frequently Asked Questions about the I-220A and the Cuban Adjustment Act
Can I file the I-485 if I have an I-220A?
The I-220A, by itself, does not demonstrate that the admission or parole requirement of the Cuban Adjustment Act has been fulfilled. The possibility of submitting a viable application depends on the complete immigration history and other legal requirements. Those with documented parole or other specific circumstances should consult their situation with an authorized professional before applying for adjustment.
Does the Eleventh Circuit ruling automatically benefit all Cubans with I-220A?
No. The decision of February 23, 2026, pertains to two specific proceedings and orders that the BIA re-examine them. Its arguments may be used in other litigations when the circumstances are comparable, but do not constitute a general grant of parole or residency.
Can I request bail if ICE detains me?
It depends on the legal authority used for the detention, the status of the immigration procedure, and the applicable case law. Some individuals may request a bail hearing before an immigration judge, while others are subject to different detention regimes. Eligibility must be evaluated on an individual basis.
When will there be a definitive answer regarding the I-220A?
There is no single date. The procedures regarding the Cuban Adjustment Act and the litigation concerning immigration detention address different issues. A decision on the right to request bail would not necessarily resolve whether a documented release through an I-220A meets the requirements for parole to obtain residency.
The general requirements, deadlines, and necessary documents to apply for residency are explained in our .
Aviso legal: este artículo ofrece información general y no constituye asesoría jurídica individual. Las normas y decisiones migratorias pueden cambiar. Para evaluar un expediente concreto, se recomienda consultar con un autorizado o un representante acreditado por el Departamento de Justicia.
Related videos:
Filed under: