Cuban I-220A Lawsuit Faces Second US Bid to Dismiss
IMMIGRATION · CUBA
Key Facts
- —The country Cuba. Its citizens can seek US permanent residence after one year under the 1966 Cuban Adjustment Act, but only if they were admitted or paroled into the United States.
- —Why it matters Many Cubans released at the US border carry Form I-220A, not a parole document. Without parole, the residence route stays closed to them.
- —Why now Judge Jacqueline Becerra refused to dismiss the case on 10 September. The government’s deadline on pending requests was Friday 9 October.
- —What happened On Friday 9 October, the government filed a new motion to dismiss Bello-Rubio v. US Secretary of Homeland Security, a case first brought by 992 Cubans, citing lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
- —What it means for you Nothing changes yet for I-220A holders. The filings grant no residence and close no pending immigration case.
- —Still open Plaintiffs must answer by Friday 23 October. The judge has not ruled on class status, an injunction or merging related cases.
The Trump administration has asked a federal judge in Miami, for the second time, to throw out the Cuban I-220A lawsuit. The motion was filed on Friday 9 October in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The case could decide whether many Cubans living in the United States can apply for a green card.
The suit is Bello-Rubio v. United States Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, case number 1:25-cv-23665. Its lawyers say it was first brought by 992 Cubans who were released at the border with Form I-220A, an Order of Release on Recognizance. They argue that release should have been recorded as parole.
That distinction matters because the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 lets Cubans apply for permanent residence after one year in the country. The law requires that they were inspected and admitted or paroled. The government argues that an I-220A is not parole, and that parole requires an individual assessment.
What the Government Filed on Friday
The court docket, first reported by the Miami outlet Cuba en Miami, shows that the government entered three documents on Friday 9 October.
Document 77 asks the court to dismiss the amended complaint, listed as document 72. It cites two grounds: lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.
Document 78 is a supplement on the plaintiffs’ request for an injunction under the All Writs Act, which the judge put on hold on 11 September pending more briefing. It carries an exhibit labelled “2241 Habeas Grant”, a reference to the federal habeas corpus statute.
Document 79 is a supplement on the request to certify a class action, also on hold pending more briefing. It attaches a declaration from the director of an office the docket calls LESA.
The docket entry sets Friday 23 October as the deadline for the plaintiffs to respond. A motion is a request by one side. It is not a ruling, and the case remains open.
How the Case Got Here
The government already tried once to end the case. On Thursday 10 September, US District Judge Jacqueline Becerra rejected that first request, Directorio Cubano and Telemundo reported.
She found that the court has jurisdiction to examine whether issuing Form I-220A should have been formally recorded as parole. She did not decide that question. At the government’s request, which the plaintiffs did not oppose, she also ordered an amended complaint.
The plaintiffs, represented by lawyers Mark Prada and Anthony Domínguez, filed a second amended complaint on Friday 18 September, the news site Directorio Cubano reported. The government then asked for more time on two pending requests, and the plaintiffs did not object. The judge set 9 October as its deadline.
The judge is also weighing whether to merge this case with three related suits: Morejon, Echazabal-Verdecia and Cabrera Mollinedo. No date for that decision has been announced.
The lead defendant is the US Secretary of Homeland Security, sued in an official capacity. The department oversees border releases and green card applications. The post is now held by Markwayne Mullin, who is named as defendant in the related Morejon case on the same court’s docket.
What It Means for You
For Cubans with an I-220A, the practical position has not changed. The filings do not grant residence, do not recognise the I-220A as parole and do not order anyone removed.
Telemundo cited estimates that 500,000 to 600,000 Cubans with an I-220A could benefit if the plaintiffs win. That figure could not be independently confirmed. Even a favourable ruling would not mean automatic residence, because each applicant must still meet the law’s other requirements.
Class certification is the bigger prize. If the judge certifies a class, a ruling could reach people beyond the named plaintiffs. That is why the case is followed closely in Florida and other states with large Cuban communities.
The stakes have risen as enforcement has tightened. The Rio Times reported on the pressure in ICE Arrests of Cubans Up 463% as US Agents Shift to Quieter, Wider Tactics. Diplomatic contacts remain limited, as covered in Cuba Envoy Denies Formal US Negotiations on Monday.
Telemundo advised I-220A holders to consult an accredited immigration lawyer before filing anything based on this I-220A lawsuit.
What Is Not Known
The full legal arguments in the new motion are not public in the reporting so far. The docket entries describe only the grounds, not the reasoning.
It is not known when Judge Becerra will rule on the motion, on class certification or on the injunction request. A response deadline is not a decision date.
It is also unclear whether the government’s supplements will change the judge’s view of the protections the plaintiffs asked for. An appeal by either side remains possible after any final ruling.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Form I-220A?
It is an Order of Release on Recognizance. US immigration authorities gave it to many Cubans released after arriving at the border, instead of a parole document.
Does the new motion end the I-220A lawsuit?
No. A motion to dismiss is a request by the government. The plaintiffs have until Friday 23 October to respond, and the judge has not ruled.
Who could benefit if the plaintiffs win?
The named plaintiffs first. If the court certifies a class, a ruling could extend to other Cubans in the same position, but no one would gain residence automatically.
Sources: US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, docket of Bello-Rubio v. United States Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, 1:25-cv-23665 (ECF 64–79, via CourtListener/PACER); Cuba en Miami (10 October 2026); Telemundo (11 September 2026); Directorio Cubano (21 September 2026).
This article was drafted with automated assistance and reviewed before publication. How we use AI · Report an error · Editorial responsibility: Matthias Camenzind, Editor-in-Chief