The U.S. Government has once more requested that a federal judge in Miami dismiss the lawsuit filed by 992 Cuban nationals holding the I-220A form. This group is seeking legal recognition of their detention and subsequent release as a parole, which would allow them to apply for residency under the Cuban Adjustment Act.
On Friday, October 9th, the latest motion was submitted to Judge Jacqueline Becerra of the Southern District of Florida, documented as item 77 in the Bello-Rubio case (docket 1:25-cv-23665). This motion does not represent a decision by the judge nor does it imply that the lawsuit has been dismissed. The court is still required to evaluate the arguments presented by both parties, as indicated in the public judicial record.
Understanding the Government's Renewed Motion
Why has the government renewed its effort to close the case? This latest attempt follows a September 10th hearing where Judge Becerra denied the government's initial motion to dismiss the litigation. The judicial order 64 issued on September 11th allowed the case to proceed without resolving whether the plaintiffs' releases should be considered as parole.
The judge also granted a request permitting the plaintiffs to amend their filing to explicitly include the legal basis under which they were initially detained. Their attorneys submitted this revised complaint on September 18th, known as document 72.
The October 9th motion responds to this new version, with the government questioning both the court's jurisdiction and the legal sufficiency of the claims made. Essentially, the government is asking the judge to terminate the case before a determination is made on the fundamental issue regarding the nature of these releases.
Previously, CiberCuba reported on the rejection of the government's initial petition and subsequent steps in the litigation process.
Details of the October 9th Submissions
On that date, the federal government filed three separate documents, each addressing related but distinct issues:
Document 77: A renewed motion to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of jurisdiction and on grounds that it fails to state a legally valid claim. Responses are due by October 23.
Document 78: A supplemental brief concerning the plaintiffs' request for judicial protective measures under the All Writs Act. The judge had requested the government to elaborate on alternative legal avenues available.
Document 79: A supplemental brief regarding the petition to certify the lawsuit as a class action. This includes an annexed declaration by a director from the LESA office, related to the immigration authorities' information systems.
The class action aspect is particularly significant. Although known publicly as the case of the 992 Cubans, their attorneys aim for a potential court decision to benefit others in similar legal circumstances. The judge has yet to approve this certification or decide on the potential scope of a ruling.
Next Steps and Upcoming Deadlines
The next specifically noted deadline in the case record is October 23, 2026, when responses to the new dismissal motion are due. The plaintiffs' lawyers will have the chance to counter the federal arguments and argue for the case to proceed.
Additionally, judicial orders 65 and 66 provide a seven-day window for plaintiffs to respond to the supplemental filings concerning the class action and protective measures, initially targeting October 16 as the deadline unless otherwise directed by the court.
Following this, Judge Becerra will need to review the submissions from both sides. She may reject the new motion, accept it in full or in part, or make other procedural decisions. The latest entries in the case file do not include a ruling yet on the rights claimed by the Cubans with I-220A.
Implications for Cubans Holding I-220A
The dispute hinges on a critical legal distinction. The I-220A form documents an individual's release on their own recognizance under specific conditions but does not inherently equate to the immigration parole required under the Cuban Adjustment Act. The Board of Immigration Appeals addressed this distinction in the Matter of Cabrera-Fernandez (2023).
The plaintiffs do not argue that any I-220A should automatically convert to parole. They challenge the legal foundation of their detention and the manner in which authorities released them upon entering the United States. Hence, examining the specific circumstances of their processing is crucial.
To date, neither the government's filings nor the ongoing lawsuit automatically alter the immigration status of those involved or other Cubans with I-220A. They do not grant permanent residency, halt deportations, or replace the obligation to report to ICE or attend immigration court as required.
Even if the plaintiffs were to secure a favorable ruling on the parole issue, each applicant would still have to meet other legal requirements to obtain residency.
Thus, the October 9th submission represents a renewed governmental effort to close the litigation, not the conclusion of the judicial battle. The immediate critical date is October 23, as thousands of Cubans await a definitive answer on the immigration consequences of their I-220A release.
FAQs on the I-220A Legal Dispute
What is the I-220A form?
The I-220A form documents an individual's release from detention under specific conditions, but it does not automatically equate to the immigration parole required for residency applications under the Cuban Adjustment Act.
Why is the U.S. government seeking to dismiss the lawsuit?
The government argues that the court lacks jurisdiction and that the plaintiffs' claims are not legally sufficient, seeking to dismiss the case before the core issues about the nature of the releases are resolved.
What are the next steps in the legal process?
The next step involves the plaintiffs responding to the government's renewed motion by October 23, 2026, after which the judge will review the submissions from both parties.