The plaintiffs in the case of Bello-Rubio v. Noem (case number 1:25-cv-23665-JB, Southern District of Florida) have formally opposed the federal government's attempt to dismiss the lawsuit. The public record sets a deadline of October 30, 2026, for government attorneys to file their response.
This development was noted in two entries made on Friday, October 23. First, Judge Jacqueline Becerra issued order 85, allowing the plaintiffs to submit a longer brief with double-spaced lines. Following this, document 86, which opposes the motion to dismiss number 77 filed by the Department of Justice on October 9, was recorded.
Arguments from Both Sides
In motion 77, the federal government presents two main arguments for dismissing the case: that the court lacks jurisdiction to review certain immigration control and custody decisions, and that release under form I-220A pursuant to section INA § 236(a) does not constitute the parole necessary to qualify under the Cuban Adjustment Act.
The plaintiffs, represented by a legal team led by attorney Mark Prada, oppose the dismissal. The lawsuit raises questions about whether the detention and subsequent release of those affected should have been processed under different immigration provisions, such as section INA § 235(b), and the scope of humanitarian parole under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A).
Key Date: October 30
The court record includes an annex titled "Appendix Agency Memoranda," related to federal agency memoranda. The full content of document 86 and its annex was not available at the time of this report, so all arguments in these documents cannot be detailed.
The entry 86 specifies, "Replies due by 10/30/2026," marking Friday, October 30, as the deadline for government attorneys to file their reply, should they choose to do so. The government can submit this document before the deadline, wait until the last day, or opt not to file it at all.
This date does not imply that a judicial decision will be made on that day. Judge Becerra can review arguments from both sides before making a decision on the motion to dismiss. Earlier this month, in an interview with CiberCuba, attorney Willy Allen suggested that the judge might wait to consolidate pending issues before issuing a comprehensive ruling.
Three Legal Paths
The lawsuit is progressing through three procedural avenues: the motion to dismiss, the request for class certification, and the protective measures sought under the All Writs Act. Document 86 pertains only to the first of these issues. Its submission neither grants protective measures to the plaintiffs nor determines whether the lawsuit will affect a broader group of Cuban immigrants.
Following the filing of the brief, some social media posts characterized the action as a judicial victory. However, the specialized portal i220a.org clarified that filing an opposition is part of the legal process and does not equate to a favorable judgment.
Ongoing Uncertainty for Cubans with I-220A
The procedural status of the case remains unresolved regarding its main issues. The motion to dismiss is still pending, the class action has not been certified, and no general protective order against arrests or deportations has resulted from this lawsuit.
Moreover, there has been no judicial recognition that form I-220A equals the parole needed to access the Cuban Adjustment Act, nor have the plaintiffs been granted permanent residency as a result of this lawsuit.
The federal government renewed its dismissal request after Judge Becerra declined a previous attempt in September. While proceedings continue, individuals with I-220A must adhere to their immigration obligations, including scheduled check-ins with ICE. The existence of the lawsuit does not automatically suspend these responsibilities.
Frequently Asked Questions on the I-220A Case
What is the significance of the October 30 deadline?
The deadline indicates the last day for government attorneys to file their reply to the plaintiffs' opposition, but it does not guarantee a judicial decision on that day.
What does the lawsuit challenge regarding I-220A?
The lawsuit questions whether the release under form I-220A is equivalent to the parole required for eligibility under the Cuban Adjustment Act and if different immigration provisions should have been applied.
Has there been any decision on the plaintiffs' status?
No, the case is still pending, and there has been no decision granting permanent residency or recognizing I-220A as equivalent to the necessary parole.