The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) confirmed this Thursday that immigrants entering the United States without authorization and subsequently released should have been legally granted a temporary stay permit, known as parole. In the case of Matter of Q. Li, 29 I&N Dec. 66 (BIA 2025), concerning a Chinese immigrant, the resolution does not explicitly mention Cuba, yet its ramifications could significantly impact thousands of Cubans who crossed the border and were released without receiving formal parole.
Implications of the BIA Decision
The BIA's ruling reaffirms that individuals entering the U.S. without being formally admitted or granted parole, even outside an official port of entry, are classified as "applicants for admission" under section 235(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). This determines that these migrants are subject to mandatory detention and are not entitled to a bond hearing under section 236(a) of the INA. Furthermore, if parole is granted and later rescinded, they must be returned to custody without the right to bail.
Impact on Cubans with I-220A
Many Cubans with an I-220A were released by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) after crossing the border without being formally admitted or receiving parole, and subsequently placed in deportation proceedings (NTA). This ruling could indirectly provide a crucial legal window for them. The decision clarifies that eligibility for bond depends on the nature of entry and detention, not merely the I-220A form. If these migrants were released without formal parole, as is the case for many with I-220A, it might be argued that they fall under section 236(a) rather than 235(b), thus allowing them to request bond or reopen immigration cases.
However, the ruling also reinforces certain limitations. If the government successfully classifies Cubans with I-220A as "applicants for admission" under 235(b), they would be barred from receiving bond, even if they have been free for some time. This decision also opens the door for DHS to attempt to reclassify their status, potentially withdrawing benefits such as parole or other immigration adjustments.
Conclusion: A Legal Debate Reopened
While the decision does not directly grant benefits to Cubans with I-220A, it reignites the legal debate regarding whether they were effectively "paroled" or merely released under supervision. The question remains whether their initial detention allows access to certain rights, such as bond, status adjustment, or asylum. This could be leveraged by attorneys arguing that the I-220A does not equate to detention under 235(b), thus asserting that their clients are entitled to broader legal options.
FAQs on Immigration Ruling Impact
What is the significance of the BIA's ruling for Cubans with I-220A?
The ruling opens a potential legal avenue for Cubans with I-220A, suggesting they might argue for eligibility under section 236(a) instead of 235(b), potentially allowing for bond requests or reopening of cases.
How could DHS reclassify the status of Cubans with I-220A?
DHS might attempt to classify Cubans with I-220A as "applicants for admission" under section 235(b), which would restrict their eligibility for bond and other benefits, potentially altering their immigration status.