Three Exceptions to Avoid Deportation to Ecuador in the U.S.

Immigration attorney Liudmila Marcelo has revealed that deportation motions to send asylum seekers to Ecuador dominate 95% of her cases. She warns that prosecutors often file these requests at the last minute, just before the final court hearing.

This tactic can prevent the judge from hearing the asylum defense unless the individual qualifies for specific exceptions.

In an interview with journalist Tania Costa for CiberCuba, Marcelo explained that judges feel bound by a precedent to dismiss an asylum case when a prosecutor files such a motion—unless the immigrant can demonstrate they fall under one of the three recognized exceptions.

Understanding the Three Key Exceptions

Marcelo outlined three primary paths to avoid a deportation motion:

Entry before November 19, 2019: Individuals who arrived in the U.S. before this date are not subject to the deportation motion based on their entry date.

Entry as an unaccompanied minor: This status also exempts individuals from the motion, as explained by Marcelo.

Connection to Ecuador: Being an Ecuadorian national or having resided in Ecuador with valid reasons not to seek asylum there can also serve as an exception. For Cubans, the "Ecuadorian national" exception applies only if dual citizenship is present. Additionally, if someone lived in Ecuador and can provide evidence of past persecution or a credible fear of persecution similar to claims made in the U.S., this can be used to oppose the motion. Marcelo noted that, when responding to the motion, it is not always necessary to present a full case file as would be required in a final asylum defense, but at least some evidence must support the claim.

Why Deportation Motions Threaten Asylum Claims

Marcelo described how these motions can arise at various stages: before or during preliminary hearings, afterwards, and even once a final court date is set. They can appear "at the very last minute," right when asylum defense is due.

In such cases, if the individual cannot prove they fall under one of the exceptions, the judge may close the asylum case. Marcelo emphasized the importance of responding to the motion, stating that there is a 10-day window to reply when it arrives in writing, either to the attorney via email or to the individual by postal mail if they lack legal representation.

Responding is crucial to preserve the right to appeal if the judge rules unfavorably.

Legal Strategies to Counter Deportation Motions

Beyond the exceptions, Marcelo explained that attorneys are presenting several arguments in their cases:

They argue that the measure is being applied retroactively. While the government claims the agreement has been in place since November 2019, Marcelo posited that its reactivation only occurred in November 2025.

Another concern is the lack of a clearly defined mechanism within the agreement for determining eligibility and logistics for transfer to Ecuador.

Marcelo pointed out that Ecuador has stated it would accept only 300 individuals annually, a figure that doesn't align with the number of cases facing deportation to Ecuador.

She argued that this measure should not apply to withholding of removal requests or the Convention Against Torture, yet it is being applied regardless.

Additionally, Marcelo noted that Ecuador is not considered a "safe third country," with the U.S. maintaining travel advisories for the region. Moreover, individuals should be allowed to demonstrate fear of returning to Ecuador, considering past agreements and the current visa requirements for Cubans entering Ecuador.

In some instances, having an alternative immigration relief, such as pending legal procedures, has prevented certain judges from ordering deportation to Ecuador. However, this approach is inconsistent, with some judges accepting it and others dismissing it as "speculative." The most common relief granted is voluntary departure, according to Marcelo.

Regarding the Cuban Adjustment Act, Marcelo stated that it doesn't automatically exempt individuals from the motion; it depends on the judge. Some judges dismiss asylum cases and offer the opportunity to defend residency later in court, while others dismiss the case due to the absence of "parole."

Marcelo shared a specific scenario involving Cubans who entered through CBP One and have already filed for asylum, noting that in certain cases, withdrawing the asylum claim in court can render a motion to preemptively terminate based on that asylum claim "untimely."

Nonetheless, she cautioned that not all judges permit withdrawing the application and, in some jurisdictions like Texas, asylum is often required, leading to orders for deportation to Ecuador. She advised against attending court alone in these situations.