Cubans entering the United States through the CBP One app are now facing a significant legal hurdle: immigration judges have been formally instructed not to close or terminate cases, regardless of individual circumstances. Immigration attorney Liudmila Marcelo, in a conversation with Tania Costa, shed light on the implications of this directive and outlined possible strategies for those affected.
Understanding the New Directive
Marcelo warned, "About 10 or 11 days ago, judges received a directive prohibiting them from closing cases under any circumstances." This process started in Texas, where some judges expanded a directive against administrative closures to also forbid case terminations, and it has since spread nationwide. This legal restriction stems from a federal ruling issued on June 22, 2026, in the case of State of Texas v. U.S. Department of Justice, which nullified the 2024 Department of Justice rule on efficiently administrating case closures in immigration court.
Who is Affected?
Marcelo highlighted a crucial distinction between two groups of Cubans. Those who entered with humanitarian parole 212-D5 are unaffected since judges have jurisdiction to decide on their residency in court. However, Cubans using CBP-One are directly impacted: "Judges who didn't close cases, as well as those who did, are now prohibited from closing cases for people with CBP," Marcelo noted.
Possible Consequences and Legal Strategies
The practical implications can be severe. If a person with CBP-One is assigned a final individual court date and hasn't filed for asylum, the judge will grant a deadline to submit a withholding of removal application. The situation becomes critical if asylum has been filed but the case is weak: "If the asylum isn't strong, it could result in a deportation order. The individual will need to appeal to buy time until they secure residency," Marcelo explained.
In response, Marcelo advises two specific strategies. First and foremost, request a new master hearing instead of an individual court. "I advise everyone to use this strategy: ask for another master court," she stated. Marcelo mentioned that her firm has successfully obtained additional hearings with a six-month window, providing time for residency to be granted. If an individual court date is imminent, postponement is recommended.
The second option is filing a mandamus, a federal lawsuit to compel the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to act. Marcelo revealed that she has already started filing these for clients and has accelerated the usual timeline. "Previously, I aimed for two and a half to three years. Now, given the circumstances, it has to be two," she said. Filing a mandamus requires preliminary steps—multiple requests to USCIS and a notice of intent to sue—which are time-consuming, making it beneficial to begin the process early.
The mandamus also serves an additional strategic purpose: "It’s essential to have that pending lawsuit so the judge knows there’s something pending in Federal Court that could result in residency," Marcelo emphasized.
These challenges add to the backlog faced by immigration courts in Miami, exacerbated by the prohibition of WebEx hearings.
Key Questions on Immigration Challenges for Cubans Using CBP One
Why can't immigration judges close cases for Cubans using CBP One?
A federal ruling in the case of State of Texas v. U.S. Department of Justice has prohibited judges from closing or terminating cases, impacting those who entered through CBP One.
What strategies can affected individuals use to navigate this legal challenge?
Attorney Liudmila Marcelo recommends requesting a new master hearing and considering filing a mandamus to compel action from USCIS.
What is the impact of a weak asylum case for those using CBP One?
A weak asylum case may lead to a deportation order, necessitating an appeal to extend time for securing residency.