Martha Arias, Leading Immigration Lawyer | Expert Legal Advice | Arias Villa

Third-Country Deportations, Florida License Changes, and the Risks of Misrepresentation

Martha Arias — Tue, 14 Apr 2026 00:12:52 +0000

This morning on Radio Libre, I joined journalist Lourdes Ubieta for an important conversation about several immigration issues that are creating anxiety for many families right now: deportations to third countries, changes tied to Florida driver licenses and identification cards, election-related risks for non-citizens, and the very serious consequences of fraud or misrepresentation in immigration matters.

One of the first issues we discussed was the growing concern over removals to third countries. This is an area where people can become confused very quickly, especially when they hear that someone was not returned directly to his or her country of nationality. In some cases, withholding of removal may protect a person from being sent back to one specific country if that person can show a qualifying future danger there. That form of protection is different from asylum, and the legal standards are not identical. USCIS materials make clear that withholding of removal is tied to a higher standard and focuses on the likelihood that the person’s life or freedom would be threatened if returned.

We also talked about the pressure building inside the immigration court system. That concern is understandable. EOIR has continued announcing additional immigration judges and temporary immigration judges, including a public April 8, 2026 update announcing 15 immigration judges and 17 temporary immigration judges. More staffing does not answer every due process concern, but it does signal continued pressure toward faster case movement.

Another subject that deserves public attention is Florida’s HB 991. In the interview, we discussed driving license and identification changes. The current enrolled text states that by July 1, 2027, Florida driver licenses and identification cards issued to qualified applicants must include the applicant’s legal citizenship status as last recorded in the system. The same legislation also includes election-related provisions that many immigrants and mixed-status families should not ignore.

This is where I always urge extra caution. A person should never claim U.S. citizenship on a license application, voter form, immigration filing, or any government document unless that claim is true and legally supported. These mistakes can create long-term immigration damage. In some situations, the damage may go far beyond a delay. USCIS’s current NTA policy is stricter than many people realize, and an unfavorable decision can now place some applicants into removal proceedings where they are no longer lawfully present after the denial.

I also want parents to take one message very seriously: do not assume that a child who grew up in the United States automatically became a U.S. citizen. I have seen too many painful cases where a young adult believed that he or she could vote, register, or answer “yes” to a citizenship question without fully understanding the consequences. Before anyone registers to vote, signs a form, or answers a citizenship question, that person should know exactly what his or her legal status is.

Another point from the interview remains just as important as ever: be careful who prepares your immigration paperwork. A poorly prepared filing is not a small problem. It can affect timing, eligibility, credibility, and, in some cases, future defense options. The cost of a mistake is often much greater than people expect.

If you heard the interview this morning and you are unsure how these developments may affect your case, take the time to review your history carefully before filing anything new. Truthfulness, consistency, and proper legal guidance matter now more than ever.

Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. It is not legal advice. Immigration outcomes depend on the specific facts of each case, and laws, procedures, and agency policies can change.

FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA

SPANISH TRANSCRIPT

LOURDES UBIETA:
Bueno, dos temas que quería conversar con ustedes, amigos. Hoy en día subió a dos millones de personas el número de auto deportados desde que la administración del presidente Trump, en ejercicio como el número 47, pues… dos millones de personas se han auto deportado del país. De esos millones que entraron, mayoritariamente en el gobierno del presidente Biden, además de esos dos millones que se han auto deportado, que han decidido irse, también hay un número significativo de personas que han sido deportadas.

Y ha comenzado, dentro de todo este proceso migratorio, la deportación de inmigrantes a terceros países. Y muchos ya comenzaron a llegar a uno de nuestros países, a Costa Rica, ¿no? Un primer grupo de inmigrantes deportados desde Estados Unidos a terceros países llegaron a Costa Rica. Fueron unos 25 de ellos, ciudadanos de Albania, de Camerún, de China, de Guatemala, de Honduras, de India, de Kenia, de Marruecos. Toda esa gente había entrado aquí, amigos oyentes, por la frontera sur. Sabíamos quiénes eran: Camerún, Kenia, Marruecos… bueno, deportados, y llegaron a Costa Rica.

Quiero darle la bienvenida a la abogada de inmigración Martha Arias, que está con nosotros a esta hora. Abogada, hace tiempo que no conversábamos. Bienvenida a su casa.

DRA. MARTHA ARIAS:
Sí, sí, Lourdes. Días sin conversar. Un gusto hablar con usted y con toda esa audiencia. Y mejor aún, un gusto verla, porque ahora tenemos…

LOURDES UBIETA:
Ahí tenemos a nuestra abogada de inmigración en pantalla, amigos oyentes. Ya no es solo escucharla, sino que la vemos. Un placer, doctora.

DRA. MARTHA ARIAS:
Sí, lo mismo. Ya le pusimos cara a la voz, eso es.

LOURDES UBIETA:
Bienvenida como siempre a su casa. Sabe que la apreciamos mucho aquí en Radio Libre y le agradecemos que nos haya acompañado por tanto tiempo en todas estas crisis migratorias que hemos tenido en los últimos tiempos. Y bueno, quería, en primer lugar, conocer su opinión, ¿verdad?, porque las cifras que nos han llegado son de dos millones —el número no es redondo, pero casi— de auto deportados, o sea, personas que han decidido irse del país. Y después entiendo que 900.000, corríjame usted, doctora, si estoy mal, es el número de personas que sí han sido deportadas efectivamente de los Estados Unidos.

Proceso que para algunos es lento, para otros, en medio de tantas personas que hay que procesar, pues… no sé cómo lo ve usted, si le parece que vamos rápido, si le parece que va lento, cómo ve usted este proceso.

DRA. MARTHA ARIAS:
Yo veo que esos datos parecen ser reales y un estimado muy cercano. De pronto pienso que las personas deportadas pueden ser incluso más, si sumamos a aquellas que son deportadas directamente de la frontera, más las que están deportando los jueces. Así que estimo que es bastante cercano ese dato, Lourdes. Y lo que también creo es que esas cantidades aumenten aún más próximamente.

La razón es que están contratando más jueces para estos casos, que son los que llaman jueces temporales. La semana pasada, por ejemplo, recibí un comunicado del departamento de Executive Office for Immigration Review, o como nosotros lo llamamos, EOIR, por sus siglas, que decía que se juramentaron 17 jueces temporales y 19 nuevos jueces. O sea que, si usted suma, son más de 30 jueces juramentados en una semana que van a ejercer, obviamente, funciones de jueces de inmigración para ayudar en estos procesos de deportación masiva que el presidente anunció y que está cumpliendo.

LOURDES UBIETA:
Sí. En el año 2025, la cifra que se está manejando de deportados fue de 600.000. Entre el 20 de enero y el 31 de diciembre de 2025. El año fiscal 2026, que está en curso, que suma solo octubre del 25 a febrero del 26, los jueces de inmigración han emitido 262.021 órdenes de deportación y salidas voluntarias.

También hay arrestos de ICE durante el primer año de la administración de Trump, arrestos realizados por haberse… ¿se acuerda?, o aplicado las salidas voluntarias. En fin, hay un tema que también es la nacionalidad de las personas. Básicamente estamos hablando de nacionales de México, de Guatemala, de Honduras, pero también de otros países africanos, etcétera, etcétera, etcétera.

En este proceso que está en plena, digamos, en plena ejecución, y vemos el uso de los terceros países, abogada, en este caso Costa Rica, cuando una persona es deportada a un tercer país, ¿cuál es el objetivo de eso? ¿Por qué no puede ser deportada a…? Porque aquí hay nacionales de Guatemala y de Honduras. En vez de ser deportada a sus propios países, ¿por qué los deportan a un tercer país como Costa Rica?

DRA. MARTHA ARIAS:
Bueno, puede ser que a estas personas les fue aprobado un withholding of removal. La mayoría de esos son los casos. El withholding of removal es una deportación que no se ejecuta, se sostiene, porque la persona puede recibir una persecución futura en su país.

Entonces, esa figura del withholding of removal, que es muy parecida a la del asilo… La diferencia es que en el asilo la persona tuvo una persecución pasada y va a tener una persecución futura. En el withholding, la persona va a tener es una persecución futura.

Cuando le dan el withholding a la persona, la persona puede vivir y trabajar en los Estados Unidos, pero el estatuto sí autoriza que esa persona pueda ser enviada a un tercer país que no sea su país de donde pidió el withholding, donde su vida corre peligro, y esto si ese tercer país lo recibe.

Entonces, históricamente, el withholding… esta es la primera vez, por lo menos en mis 23 años que yo llevo como abogada de inmigración, que veo que el gobierno de los Estados Unidos busca ese tercer país, hace el arreglo con ese tercer país y envía a las personas allá. Porque aunque esto sí ha estado en el estatuto siempre, Lourdes, y déjeme aclararlo, porque a veces las personas piensan que esta es la primera vez que ha ocurrido. Sí es primera vez que ocurre, que se envía y que el gobierno haga la gestión. Pero no es que esto no esté en el estatuto y se haya creado del día a la mañana. Esto siempre ha existido en el estatuto, sobre todo para las personas con withholding.

Ahora, el problema aquí, que es donde viene mucho la queja, es que muchas de esas personas que también están siendo enviadas allá no tienen tampoco un withholding. Son personas que vinieron a pedir aquí asilo y su país no las recibe de regreso. Entonces esa es otra situación por la que están mandando estas personas. Entonces es como una combinación de esas personas que tienen withholding y de los que les han negado alguna petición en los Estados Unidos y su país no los recibe de regreso.

No sé por qué se ve que los países que están mandando a Costa Rica, por ejemplo, ahora estos últimos, son de Albania, Camerún, China, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Kenia, Marruecos. Yo, como usted, me pregunto por qué. ¿Por qué Honduras aquí? Claro, caso de withholding.

LOURDES UBIETA:
Claro, un caso de withholding. Exacto. Bueno, lo interesante es que Costa Rica también está otorgando estatus migratorio a algunos de ellos porque en el 2025 recibieron 200 deportados de Estados Unidos y a 85 les dieron… perdón, de 285, fueron repatriados a sus países de origen, doctora. Es decir, lo que no logro entender es por qué no los repatrian directamente de Estados Unidos a sus países. Imagino que será por lo que usted explica, y no pasar por un tercer país. En definitiva, muchos, en el caso de Costa Rica, se quedan en Costa Rica y les dan un estatus migratorio.

DRA. MARTHA ARIAS:
Exacto. Es lo que Costa Rica… Lo que Costa Rica, creo entender, hizo con Estados Unidos es primero tratarlos humanamente y darles vivienda por una semana, revisar sus casos de asilo a ver si califican y, si no, enviarlos a otros países, pero no a países donde vayan a recibir una persecución.

No me imagino… es que a lo último los que hayan sido repatriados a su propio país es que tal vez al fin hicieron algún arreglo con su país, o la persona dijo: “Bueno, me voy a mi país, prefiero irme a mi país que estar aquí”. Quién sabe cómo fue la situación. El punto es que sí les están revisando peticiones de asilo allá, en Costa Rica, a los que apliquen.

LOURDES UBIETA:
Estamos conversando con la abogada de inmigración Martha Arias, amigos oyentes, a esta hora con nosotros en vivo. Doctora, en la Florida se van a implementar cambios en las licencias de conducir. Amigos oyentes, atención con esto.

A partir del 1 de enero del 2027 comienza la aplicación de la ley HB 991. Lo hemos conversado en otros programas. Esta ley lo que establece es que todas las licencias e identificaciones emitidas en el estado de la Florida indicarán explícitamente si la persona portadora de esa identificación es ciudadana estadounidense o si posee otro estatus legal. Básicamente van a tener unas letricas que dicen “citizen” o “non-citizen”. Doctora, ¿qué le parece esto?

DRA. MARTHA ARIAS:
Me parece… a ver, aquí yo digo: obviamente para el inmigrante que no tenga un estatus legal va a ser problemático, pero no es algo que vaya a causar tanto revuelo, pienso yo, porque hoy en día muchas personas que no tienen un estatus legal igual no pueden obtener la licencia. Los que obtienen la licencia son residentes o ciudadanos o tienen un estatus legal, como alguna visa de turista, digo, de inversionista, de estudiante, cualquier visa que le da ese estatus. Entonces, de pronto no es lo más impactante, porque ya hemos visto que Florida ha sido muy estricta en otorgar licencias a personas sin estatus.

Lo que sí me parece a mí impactante que va a ser es la persona que se haya arriesgado o haya sido tan… bueno, no sé qué palabra usar que no sea una palabra de locura, pero una persona que se haya arriesgado, una persona que tenga la locura de sacar una licencia de conducir diciendo que es ciudadano americano. Ahí sí lo van a coger con una prueba contundente para una posible deportación.

Y déjeme explicarlo, Lourdes. Yo he tenido casos donde la persona ha usado un certificado de nacimiento de una persona de Puerto Rico, por ejemplo, diciendo que es ciudadano americano, y sacan la licencia. Lo que pasa es que a veces es difícil para el gobierno probarle a la persona que hizo eso, porque aunque ese certificado figura en ese archivo de la persona con Florida, con el Departamento de Motores y Vehículos, ahí había formas, sobre todo antes, de lograr una defensa.

Ya cuando usted tiene una licencia de conducir con una foto que diga que es ciudadano americano, si esa persona cometió fraude, ahí sí va a ser súper fácil que el gobierno le pruebe a esa persona el fraude. Entonces aquí yo voy con esto: sí le debería dar mucho temor a aquellos que les gusta hacer esas cosas locas, porque aquí sí va a ser una prueba contundente. Uno.

Dos, otra cosa. Lo que yo pienso: las personas que tienen, sobre todo los jóvenes, Lourdes, los jóvenes, por Dios, o que los papás que nos escuchan les digan a los jóvenes que tengan mucho cuidado en votar en una elección federal, estatal o local sin preguntar siquiera si son ciudadanos o no.

Aunque parezca no lógico, pasa muchísimas veces y lo he visto miles de veces. Porque fíjese usted: un joven llega a los Estados Unidos muy jovencito, de dos años, tres años, qué sé yo. El papá y la mamá son ciudadanos americanos. El joven nunca se hizo ciudadano, pero él tiene en su mente que este es su país, habla inglés perfecto, vive acá y piensa que puede votar. Y llega al colegio y le dicen: “Mira, es hora de registrarse”, no sé qué, y lo registran, como ocurría antes. O quién sabe yo quién lo llama y lo registra, y ese joven vota. Dios mío, ¿cómo le parece? Si ese joven vota, en eso queda registrado como que votó o dijo que era ciudadano americano sin serlo. Y eso es deportación sin derecho a tener un perdón, Lourdes. Eso va deportado de por vida.

LOURDES UBIETA:
Termina en deportación sin derecho a perdón.

DRA. MARTHA ARIAS:
¿Cómo le parece? Entonces aquí es donde digo yo: más aún hoy en día, los jóvenes deben protegerse y tener cuidado, porque ellos van a tener una licencia y no van a poder decir al departamento olímpicamente: “Es que yo soy ciudadano”. Obviamente siempre hay que probarlo, pero tienen que tener todavía más cuidado.

O sea que es una medida que va a impactar muchas cosas en la parte migratoria, pero también aquellos que son amigos de lo no bueno o de lo no correcto tienen que tener todavía más cuidado, porque ahora sí es más difícil.

Lourdes, yo estaba leyendo un resumen de ese proyecto, ese bill, de esa ley que pasó. Fíjese, hay una cosa que me llama la atención dentro de muchas, pero esta tiene que ver también con los inmigrantes, y es que aquellos que vayan a ser candidatos y que tengan doble ciudadanía lo van a tener que expresar también al Departamento de Motores y Vehículos. Eso me suena un poquito complicado. No sé si es que les van a impedir que sean… que sean candidatos. ¿Qué es eso? ¿Por qué se requería? Porque para mí todas las cosas tienen un porqué, ¿cierto? ¿Por qué ese requerimiento?

Yo sé que a nivel federal hay ciertos cargos que una persona que no nació en los Estados Unidos no puede ejercer, como el de la presidencia. Otros cargos sí. Entonces, ¿por qué aquí les van a pedir que publiquen ante el Departamento de Motores y Vehículos su doble ciudadanía?

Otra cosa, eso es para los candidatos que vayan a ser candidatos a un cargo público. Y habla también, dice —y mira, está aquí interesante— a partir de julio 1 se crea un estatuto de limitación de cinco años para las personas que hayan sido acusadas o convictas de una felonía en violación al código electoral. Esto también es algo interesante.

¿Por qué? Porque quiere decir que va a haber un statute of limitations, que quiere decir como una fecha límite en que se pueden presentar cargos en contra de una persona que haya violado el estatuto o el código electoral como felonía. Entonces me parece a mí que en estos cinco años, a partir de julio 1 del 2026 —porque esa parte del bill empieza ahora en julio— las personas que hayan cometido alguna violación en el estatuto electoral van a poder recibir unos cargos de felonía.

Y esto es delicado porque, volviendo al punto de esos jóvenes que no sabían o que no sé qué, pueden recibir esas notificaciones de haber cometido una felonía. ¿Cuál sería el consejo? Hablen con su abogado. Y aquí van a necesitar dos abogados: el abogado penal, el abogado criminalista, y el abogado de inmigración, para que los dos manejen esto de una forma que posiblemente esa persona no tenga unas consecuencias mayores.

Por eso esta empieza a partir de julio. O sea que no solamente tenemos la parte de las licencias de conducir, hay muchas otras cosas que, sobre todo en cuanto a las elecciones y a los candidatos, van a tener también unos efectos muy interesantes, diría yo —no tengo una palabra más específica que “interesantes”— realmente van a ser delicados o sensibles, esa es la palabra, para muchos inmigrantes.

LOURDES UBIETA:
Aquí tengo un oyente que nos dice que la embajada de los Estados Unidos en República Dominicana ha hecho énfasis en decir la verdad y no presentar documentos falsos. Parece que hay casos de fraude de visa de Estados Unidos y dicen que el fraude en solicitudes de visa no solo afecta oportunidades migratorias, sino que también te puede llevar a procesos judiciales y a penas de prisión en República Dominicana.

La embajada de los Estados Unidos —el fraude de visa de Estados Unidos puede cerrar las puertas de por vida— está advirtiendo la embajada de los Estados Unidos en Santo Domingo. Han alertado sobre las graves consecuencias de cometer fraude en esas solicitudes de visa. Volvemos a lo de siempre, al primer punto. Mentir en una solicitud de cualquier tipo de documento en Estados Unidos es una felonía.

DRA. MARTHA ARIAS:
Exacto. Y tiene que tener cuidado porque ahora, más que nunca, con el proceso de desnaturalización —que es otra de las metas del gobierno actual— pueden revisar o revisitar todas esas aplicaciones migratorias de las personas para determinar si esa persona cometió fraude o mintió.

Fíjese lo delicado de esto. Fraude, obviamente, implica un poquito más. Es una conducta todavía que la persona tiene que hacer un poco más. Misrepresentation o mentir es distinto, porque es simplemente algo que la persona haya dicho bajo juramento a un oficial de inmigración o que lo haya puesto en las aplicaciones, que también son bajo juramento.

Entonces, si una persona mintió o cometió algo que se llama misrepresentation, también puede tener esta consecuencia tan fuerte. Ahí es donde vengo yo, como abogada, y le digo a las personas: hoy más que nunca tengan cuidado. ¿A quién le dan su caso de inmigración? ¿A quién? Hay mucha gente que es la señora de la esquina o de allí que llena aplicaciones y que no sé qué. Pues fíjese usted que si esa persona llena mal esa aplicación, va a tener estas consecuencias graves y hasta un proceso de desnaturalización, por lo menos durante esta administración.

LOURDES UBIETA:
Doctora, como siempre, un placer. Martha Arias, amigos oyentes, ustedes necesitan una abogada de inmigración. Martha Arias ahí está, lista para tomar sus consultas. Mis queridos amigos oyentes, si hay algo delicado es precisamente un proceso migratorio en los Estados Unidos, no solamente por los costos económicos —que sería lo de menos— sino lo que se te puede retrasar un proceso, una petición en los Estados Unidos, si haces algo mal. Y digamos, si es de buena fe, aun siendo de buena fe, ¿o no, doctora?, lo que se demora un trámite mal hecho en volver a echar ese trámite para atrás y comenzar nuevamente, deshacerlo… y saben que el tiempo pasa inexorablemente. Eso sí que no se recupera. Así que…

DRA. MARTHA ARIAS:
Si me permiten un segundo, esta nota es importante: la administración actual ha ordenado a todos los oficiales de inmigración que, cuando se niegue una residencia, esa persona sea automáticamente enviada a un proceso de deportación a la corte. O sea que un proceso mal hecho ya no es como antes, que uno simplemente lo presenta otra vez. Ahora te vas para la corte directamente.

LOURDES UBIETA:
Imagínese usted. Bueno, demasiado riesgo. Martha Arias, gracias por acompañarnos en el día de hoy, doctora. Un placer, y un placer verla en streaming.

DRA. MARTHA ARIAS:
Gracias, gracias. Un placer verla a usted y a todo el estudio. Me encantan todas las banderas.

LOURDES UBIETA:
Tiene que venir un día, que tenemos la de Colombia. Mira, ahí está.

DRA. MARTHA ARIAS:
Sí, yo veo la de Colombia allí. Sí, exacto.

LOURDES UBIETA:
Bueno, un gran abrazo, doctora.

DRA. MARTHA ARIAS:
Gracias. Feliz día a todos.

ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT

LOURDES UBIETA:
Well, two topics that I wanted to discuss with you, friends. Today the number of self-deported people has gone up to two million since President Trump’s administration, serving as number 47. Well… two million people have self-deported from the country. Of those millions who entered, mostly during President Biden’s administration, in addition to those two million who have self-deported, who have decided to leave, there is also a significant number of people who have been deported.

And within all of this immigration process, deportations of immigrants to third countries have begun. And many have already begun arriving in one of our countries, Costa Rica, right? A first group of immigrants deported from the United States to third countries arrived in Costa Rica. There were about 25 of them, citizens of Albania, Cameroon, China, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Kenya, Morocco. All those people had entered here, dear listeners, through the southern border. We knew who they were: Cameroon, Kenya, Morocco… well, deported, and they arrived in Costa Rica.

I want to welcome immigration attorney Martha Arias, who is with us at this hour. Attorney, it has been a long time since we talked. Welcome to your home.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Yes, yes, Lourdes. Days without talking. A pleasure to speak with you and with all that audience. And even better, a pleasure to see you, because now we have…

LOURDES UBIETA:
There we have our immigration attorney on screen, dear listeners. It is no longer only hearing her, but now we see her. A pleasure, attorney.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Yes, the same. Now we have put a face to the voice, that is it.

LOURDES UBIETA:
Welcome, as always, to your home. You know that we appreciate you very much here at Radio Libre and we thank you for having accompanied us for so long through all these immigration crises that we have had in recent times. And well, I wanted, first of all, to know your opinion, right?, because the figures that have reached us are two million — the number is not round, but almost — self-deported people, that is, people who have decided to leave the country. And then I understand that 900,000, correct me, attorney, if I am wrong, is the number of people who have indeed been deported effectively from the United States.

A process that for some is slow, for others, in the middle of so many people who have to be processed, well… I do not know how you see it, whether it seems to you that we are going fast, whether it seems to you that it is going slowly, how you see this process.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
I see that those figures appear to be real and a very close estimate. I suddenly think that the deported people may even be more, if we add those who are deported directly from the border, plus those that the judges are deporting. So I estimate that that figure is quite close, Lourdes. And what I also believe is that those quantities will increase even more soon.

The reason is that they are hiring more judges for these cases, which are the ones they call temporary judges. Last week, for example, I received a communication from the department of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, or as we call it, EOIR, by its initials, which said that 17 temporary judges and 19 new judges were sworn in. So if you add them up, there are more than 30 judges sworn in in one week who are obviously going to exercise functions as immigration judges to help in these mass deportation processes that the president announced and is carrying out.

LOURDES UBIETA:
Yes. In the year 2025, the figure being handled for deported people was 600,000. Between January 20 and December 31 of 2025. Fiscal year 2026, which is under way, which counts only October 2025 to February 2026, immigration judges have issued 262,021 deportation orders and voluntary departures.

There are also ICE arrests during the first year of the Trump administration, arrests carried out for having… do you remember?, or having applied voluntary departures. In short, there is a topic that is also the nationality of the people. Basically we are speaking of nationals of Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, but also of other African countries, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

In this process that is in full, let us say, in full execution, and we see the use of third countries, attorney, in this case Costa Rica, when a person is deported to a third country, what is the objective of that? Why can that person not be deported to…? Because here there are nationals of Guatemala and Honduras. Instead of being deported to their own countries, why are they deported to a third country like Costa Rica?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Well, it may be that these people were approved for withholding of removal. Most of those are the cases. Withholding of removal is a deportation that is not carried out, it is held back, because the person may receive future persecution in his or her country.

So that figure of withholding of removal, which is very similar to asylum… The difference is that in asylum the person had past persecution and is going to have future persecution. In withholding, the person is going to have future persecution.

When they give withholding to the person, the person can live and work in the United States, but the statute does authorize that that person can be sent to a third country that is not the person’s country from which he or she asked for withholding, where his or her life is in danger, and this if that third country receives the person.

So, historically, withholding… this is the first time, at least in my 23 years that I have been practicing as an immigration attorney, that I see the government of the United States seek that third country, make the arrangement with that third country, and send the people there. Because although this has indeed always been in the statute, Lourdes, and let me clarify it, because sometimes people think that this is the first time that this has happened. Yes, it is the first time that it happens, that people are sent and that the government makes the arrangement. But it is not that this is not in the statute and that it was created from one day to the next. This has always existed in the statute, especially for people with withholding.

Now, the problem here, which is where much of the complaint comes from, is that many of those people who are also being sent there do not have withholding either. They are people who came here to request asylum and their country will not receive them back. So that is another situation for which they are sending these people. So it is like a combination of those people who have withholding and those whose petition in the United States has been denied and whose country will not receive them back.

I do not know why it is seen that the countries they are sending to Costa Rica, for example, now these latest ones, are from Albania, Cameroon, China, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Kenya, Morocco. I, like you, ask myself why. Why Honduras here? Of course, a withholding case.

LOURDES UBIETA:
Of course, a withholding case. Exactly. Well, what is interesting is that Costa Rica is also granting immigration status to some of them because in 2025 they received 200 deportees from the United States and 85 were given… pardon me, of 285, they were repatriated to their countries of origin, attorney. That is to say, what I cannot understand is why they do not repatriate them directly from the United States to their countries. I imagine it will be because of what you explain and not pass through a third country. In the end, many, in the case of Costa Rica, stay in Costa Rica and are given an immigration status.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Exactly. It is what Costa Rica… What Costa Rica, I understand, did with the United States is first to treat them humanely and give them housing for a week, review their asylum cases to see if they qualify, and if not, send them to other countries, but not to countries where they are going to receive persecution.

I cannot imagine… it is that in the end those who were repatriated to their own country may be that they finally made some arrangement with their country, or the person said, “Well, I am going to my country, I prefer to go to my country than stay here.” Who knows how the situation was. The point is that they are indeed reviewing asylum petitions there, in Costa Rica, for those who apply.

LOURDES UBIETA:
We are speaking with immigration attorney Martha Arias, dear listeners, at this hour with us live. Attorney, in Florida changes are going to be implemented in driver’s licenses. Dear listeners, pay attention to this.

As of January 1, 2027, implementation of law HB 991 begins. We have discussed it in other programs. What this law establishes is that all licenses and identifications issued in the state of Florida will explicitly indicate whether the person carrying that identification is a United States citizen or whether he or she has another legal status. Basically they are going to have little letters that say “citizen” or “non-citizen.” Attorney, what do you think of this?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
It seems to me… let us see, here I say: obviously for the immigrant who does not have legal status it is going to be problematic, but it is not something that is going to cause so much upheaval, I think, because today many people who do not have legal status still cannot obtain the license. Those who obtain the license are residents or citizens or have a legal status, such as some tourist visa, I mean, investor visa, student visa, any visa that gives that status. So, suddenly, it is not the most shocking thing because we have already seen that Florida has been very strict in granting licenses to people without status.

What does seem shocking to me is the person who took the risk or was so… well, I do not know what word to use that is not a word of craziness, but a person who took the risk, a person who has the madness to get a driver’s license saying he or she is an American citizen. There they are really going to catch that person with solid proof for a possible deportation.

And let me explain it, Lourdes. I have had cases where the person used a birth certificate of a person from Puerto Rico, for example, saying that he or she is an American citizen, and they get the license. What happens is that sometimes it is difficult for the government to prove to the person that he or she did that, because although that certificate appears in that file, in that record of the person with Florida, with the Department of Motor Vehicles, there were ways there, especially before, of achieving a defense.

Once you have a driver’s license with a photo that says that you are an American citizen, if that person committed fraud, then it is going to be super easy for the government to prove that fraud to that person. So here is where I go with this: it should give a lot of fear to those who like to do those crazy things, because here it is indeed going to be strong proof. One.

Two, another thing. What I think: the people who have, especially the young people, Lourdes, the young people, for God’s sake, or that the parents who are listening to us tell the young people to be very careful about voting in a federal, state, or local election without even asking whether they are citizens or not.

Even though it may seem illogical, it happens many times and I have seen it thousands of times. Because look: a young person arrives in the United States very young, at two years old, three years old, who knows. The father and mother are American citizens. The young person never became a citizen, but he has in his mind that this is his country, he speaks perfect English, he lives here and thinks he can vote. And he gets to school and they say, “Look, it is time to register,” I do not know what, and they register him, as used to happen before. Or who knows who calls him and registers him, and that young person votes. My God, what do you think? If that young person votes, then it remains recorded that he voted or said that he was an American citizen without being one. And that is deportation without the right to have a waiver, Lourdes. That one goes deported for life.

LOURDES UBIETA:
It ends in deportation without the right to a waiver.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
What do you think? So here is where I say: even more so today, young people must protect themselves and be careful, because they are going to have a license and they are not going to be able to say to the department, with complete ease, “It is that I am a citizen.” Obviously it always has to be proven, but they have to be even more careful.

So it is a measure that is going to impact many things in the immigration part, but also those who are friends of what is not good or not correct have to be even more careful, because now it is indeed more difficult.

Lourdes, I was reading a summary of that project, that bill, of that law that passed. Look, there is one thing that catches my attention among many, but this also has to do with immigrants, and it is that those who are going to be candidates and who have dual citizenship are going to have to express it also to the Department of Motor Vehicles. That sounds a little complicated to me. I do not know if they are going to prevent them from being… from being candidates. What is that? Why was that required? Because to me everything has a reason, right? Why that requirement?

I know that at the federal level there are certain offices that a person who was not born in the United States cannot exercise, like the presidency. Others yes. So why here are they going to ask them to publish before the Department of Motor Vehicles their dual citizenship?

Another thing, that is for candidates who are going to be candidates for public office. And it also speaks, it says — and look, this is interesting — starting on July 1 a five-year statute of limitations is created for people who have been accused or convicted of a felony in violation of the election code. This is also something interesting.

Why? Because it means that there is going to be a statute of limitations, which means like a deadline within which charges can be brought against a person who has violated the statute or the election code as a felony. So it seems to me that in these five years, starting July 1, 2026 — because that part of the bill begins now in July — people who may have committed some violation in the election statute are going to be able to receive felony charges.

And this is delicate because, returning to the point of those young people who did not know or who, I do not know, may receive those notifications of having committed a felony. What would the advice be? Speak with your attorney. And here they are going to need two attorneys: the criminal attorney and the immigration attorney, so that the two of them handle this in a way that possibly that person does not have greater consequences.

That is why this starts in July. So we not only have the driver’s license part, there are many other things that, especially in terms of elections and candidates, are also going to have very interesting effects, I would say — I do not have a more specific word than “interesting” — they are really going to be delicate or sensitive, that is the word, for many immigrants.

LOURDES UBIETA:
Here I have a listener who tells us that the United States Embassy in the Dominican Republic has emphasized telling the truth and not presenting false documents. It seems there are cases of United States visa fraud and they say that fraud in visa applications not only affects immigration opportunities, but can also lead you to judicial proceedings and prison sentences in the Dominican Republic.

The United States Embassy — United States visa fraud can close the doors for life — the United States Embassy in Santo Domingo is warning. They have alerted about the serious consequences of committing fraud in those visa applications. We return to the usual, to the first point. Lying on an application for any type of document in the United States is a felony.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Exactly. And you have to be careful because now, more than ever, with the denaturalization process — which is another of the goals of the current government — they can review or revisit all those immigration applications of people to determine whether that person committed fraud or lied.

Look how delicate this is. Fraud, obviously, implies a little more. It is a conduct that the person has to do a little more. Misrepresentation or lying is different, because it is simply something that the person may have said under oath to an immigration officer or may have placed in the applications, which are also under oath.

So if a person lied or committed something called misrepresentation, that person can also have this very strong consequence. That is where I come in, as an attorney, and tell people: today more than ever be careful. To whom do you give your immigration case? To whom? There are many people who are the lady on the corner or over there who fills out applications and I do not know what. Well, notice that if that person fills out that application badly, it is going to have these serious consequences and even a denaturalization process, at least during this administration.

LOURDES UBIETA:
Attorney, as always, a pleasure. Martha Arias, dear listeners, if you need an immigration attorney, Martha Arias is there, ready to take your consultations. My dear listeners, if there is something delicate, it is precisely an immigration process in the United States, not only because of the economic costs — which would be the least of it — but also because of how much a process or petition in the United States can be delayed if you do something wrong. And let us say, if it is in good faith, even being in good faith, right, attorney?, how long a poorly done filing takes to set that filing back and start again, undo it… and you know that time passes inexorably. That is what cannot be recovered. So…

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
If you allow me one second, this note is important: the current administration has ordered all immigration officers that when a residency is denied, that person is automatically sent to a deportation process in court. So a badly done process is no longer like before, when one simply filed it again. Now you go to court directly.

LOURDES UBIETA:
Just imagine. Well, too much risk. Martha Arias, thank you for joining us today, attorney. A pleasure, and a pleasure to see you on streaming.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Thank you, thank you. A pleasure to see you and the whole studio. I love all the flags.

LOURDES UBIETA:
You have to come one day when we have the Colombian one. Look, there it is.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Yes, I see the Colombian flag there. Yes, exactly.

LOURDES UBIETA:
Well, a big hug, attorney.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Thank you. Happy day to everyone.

The post Third-Country Deportations, Florida License Changes, and the Risks of Misrepresentation appeared first on Arias Villa Law.

USCIS Processing Update and CBP One Parole Relief

Martha Arias — Mon, 06 Apr 2026 20:07:10 +0000

In recent days, two important immigration developments have drawn attention at the same time. First, USCIS announced an update on its “strengthened screening and vetting” policies after earlier internal memoranda had placed certain matters on hold, including asylum applications, benefit requests from high-risk countries, and diversity visa adjustment cases. USCIS has said it is lifting some processing holds, including for asylum applications from non-high-risk countries, while continuing to review other application types.

Second, a federal court in Doe et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security certified a class involving certain CBP One parolees and ordered the government to return class members to the parole status they held before the April 2025 termination email.. The court record available through GovInfo shows that the court certified a class of affected individuals, appointed class representatives, and ordered the government to return class members to the parole status they previously held.

These two developments matter because they affect two different but very practical questions many families are asking right now. One is whether USCIS is moving again on cases or work-permit-related filings that had been delayed by new vetting rules. The other is whether some people who entered through the CBP One appointment process may now have court-ordered protection tied to their prior parole status.

What USCIS Actually Said

USCIS published an alert titled “Update on USCIS’ Strengthened Screening and Vetting” on March 30, 2026. Search results from the official USCIS page show that earlier memoranda had placed asylum applications, benefit requests from high-risk countries, and diversity visa adjustment of status applications on hold. USCIS policy materials also now indicate the adjudication of certain benefit requests, including certain applications for employment authorization.

That does not mean every delayed case has restarted, and it does not mean every applicant will see immediate movement. What it does mean is that USCIS has publicly indicated that at least some categories of paused matters are moving again. For applicants and families, that is an important distinction. A case may be active again without being approved quickly, and a case may still remain subject to additional review or vetting.

What the Federal Court Order Means for Some CBP One Parolees?

The court materials available through GovInfo show that in Doe et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security et al., the certified class includes individuals who scheduled appointments for entry into the United States using CBP One and were later paroled into the country. The same official court entry states that the court ordered defendants to return class members to the parole status they held before.

This is important because parole has real practical consequences. It can affect how a person is treated in government systems, whether a person may still appear to have valid parole for certain verification purposes, and what steps may need to be taken next in an immigration case. At the same time, a court order like this does not automatically solve every immigration problem a person may have. It does not automatically grant asylum, permanent residence, or any other long-term immigration status.

IMPORTANT TIPS

1) Do not assume your case is unchanged just because you have not received a new notice.
USCIS and related immigration systems can change before a person receives a mailed update. If your case had been paused, screened, or delayed, this is a time to review the current posture of the filing carefully.

2) Keep copies of every parole, notice, and work permit document you have.
If your case involved CBP One entry, parole, or later work authorization, keep organized copies of your documents, screenshots of prior case history, and any notices you received. A court order may be very important, but your own records still matter.

3) Do not assume a court order gives you permanent status.
A court ruling can provide major relief, but relief is not the same as a green card, asylum approval, or another permanent immigration benefit. Many people still need individual case review and legal strategy.

4) Be very careful with work authorization assumptions.
USCIS materials now reflect movement in certain benefit requests, including certain employment authorization applications, but that does not mean every person is work-authorized today. Employment questions should be reviewed carefully and case by case.

5) If you entered through CBP One, do not ignore this news.
The official court materials show that the certified class concerns people who scheduled appointments through CBP One and were paroled into the United States. That is specific enough that affected individuals should not dismiss the development as irrelevant without checking whether it may apply to them.

Why These Two Developments Belong in the Same Conversation?

These updates are closely related because they both involve people whose lives and legal planning depend on how the government is treating pending cases, parole records, and work authorization questions. A person may be waiting on a filing with USCIS while also trying to understand whether a court order affects parole history, employment eligibility records, or case strategy. That is why it is so important not to rely on rumor, screenshots, or incomplete social media explanations.

In my view, the safest reading of the current situation is this: some paused USCIS matters are moving again, and some CBP One parolees may be protected by a court order, but nobody should assume that one public headline answers every individual case. Immigration law still turns on the exact filing history, the exact type of benefit requested, and the exact class membership or legal posture of the person affected.

Frequently Asked Questions

Did USCIS restart every paused immigration case?
No. Official USCIS materials show movement in certain pending benefit requests, including certain applications for employment authorization, but they do not say that every paused matter has fully restarted.

Does this mean asylum cases are fully back to normal?
Not necessarily. USCIS materials show that asylum applications were among the case types affected by earlier memoranda. The current update shows movement in certain requests, but not a blanket statement that every asylum matter is back to ordinary processing.

Who is covered by the CBP One court order?
According to the official GovInfo court entry, the class includes individuals who scheduled appointments for entry into the United States using CBP One and were later paroled into the country.

What did the judge order?
The official court entry states that the defendants were ordered to return class members to the parole status they previously held.

Does that court order automatically give someone lawful permanent residence?
No. A parole-related court order is not the same thing as a green card or an asylum grant. It addresses parole status, not every possible immigration benefit.

If I used CBP One, should I travel or make big decisions right away?
Not based on headlines alone. Travel, employment, filing strategy, and document use should be reviewed carefully in light of your exact case history. The public update may be important, but individual facts still control.

Does movement on employment authorization mean I can work now?
Not automatically. USCIS materials show adjudication movement in certain applications, but a person should not assume present work authorization without confirming the actual basis and validity of the document or category.

Why are there still so many uncertainties?
Because immigration updates often involve a mix of agency policy, internal adjudication practices, court orders, and case-specific facts. A headline may be true and still not answer the most important question in your own file.

Disclaimer:

This article is provided for general informational purposes only and reflects a review of official government sources available as of April 6, 2026. It is not legal advice, does not create an attorney-client relationship, and should not be treated as a substitute for reviewing your own immigration history, notices, filings, parole records, or eligibility with qualified legal counsel. Immigration outcomes depend on the specific facts of each case, and government agencies or courts may change procedures, interpretations, or case posture at any time. Before making decisions about employment, travel, filings, or status, you should obtain advice based on your individual situation.

FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA

The post USCIS Processing Update and CBP One Parole Relief appeared first on Arias Villa Law.

A Strong Defense of Birthright Citizenship Before the Supreme Court

Martha Arias — Wed, 01 Apr 2026 19:35:00 +0000

Today’s Supreme Court hearing focused on one of the most important constitutional questions in our country: whether birthright citizenship can be limited by executive action.

In her opening statement, ACLU National Legal Director Cecillia Wang argued that the rule has long been clear: people born in the United States are citizens. She said this principle was firmly protected by the Fourteenth Amendment so that no government official could take it away.

She also pointed to the Supreme Court’s historic decision in Wong Kim Ark, explaining that the Court already rejected a similar effort to deny citizenship based on the status of a child’s parents. According to her argument, that precedent leaves no room for the government’s new theory that a parent’s domicile should control whether a child born here is a citizen.

https://ariasvilla.com/wp-content/uploads/2026-04-01_ACLU_Birthright-citizenship-clippings_Cecillia-Wang-Opening-Statement_RC01.mp4

Wang also stressed that this issue is not only about legal theory. She warned that if the government’s position were accepted, thousands of babies born in the United States could immediately lose recognition of their citizenship, and the status of millions of Americans could be placed into question.

Her message to the Court was direct: the Constitution, history, and long-settled law support a bright-line rule that protects birthright citizenship and prevents manipulation by changing political agendas.

This hearing shows how serious the stakes are. Birthright citizenship has long been understood as a basic constitutional protection, and today’s argument was a forceful defense of that principle.

Disclaimer: This post is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

The post A Strong Defense of Birthright Citizenship Before the Supreme Court appeared first on Arias Villa Law.

The 2026 “Habeas Readiness” Guide

Martha Arias — Tue, 31 Mar 2026 20:02:09 +0000

Beyond Bond: How a Habeas Corpus Petition Can Challenge Unlawful Immigration Detention in 2026

The legal landscape for immigrants in the United States has shifted dramatically in early 2026. Following the March 26, 2026, Eighth Circuit ruling and various administrative enforcement priorities, many individuals who were previously eligible for bond are now finding themselves in “mandatory detention.” This shift has created a crisis where families are told by Immigration Judges (IJs) that their hands are tied by statute. When the Immigration Judge says “no bond” because of a perceived lack of jurisdiction, many families feel they have reached a dead end. However, there is a powerful constitutional tool that exists outside the immigration court system: The Writ of Habeas Corpus.

As we navigate the complexities of 2026 enforcement, it is vital to understand that the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) is not the final word on your physical liberty. While an immigration court is an administrative body under the Department of Justice, the U.S. District Court is a separate, independent judicial branch. By filing a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, we move your case into a forum where the U.S. Constitution—specifically the Due Process Clause—takes center stage over restrictive administrative policies.

What is a Habeas Corpus Petition?

A Writ of Habeas Corpus is a federal court filing submitted to a U.S. District Court that challenges the government’s legal authority to hold a person in custody. Known as the “Great Writ,” it is a centuries-old legal protection designed to prevent the government from holding individuals indefinitely or without a valid legal reason. In the 2026 immigration climate, this is becoming the “last line of defense” for several specific groups of people:

Indefinite Detainees: This applies to individuals held for six months or longer without a clear deportation date. The Supreme Court has previously suggested that six months is a “presumptively reasonable” period; beyond that, the government must provide a strong justification for continued detention.
Statutory Misinterpretations: Often, ICE claims someone is subject to “mandatory detention” under INA § 236(c) based on a minor crime or a status that should not actually trigger such a harsh result. A Habeas petition asks a Federal Judge to review if ICE is correctly interpreting the law.
Constitutional and Due Process Violations: If a detainee is denied a fair hearing, if the conditions of detention are life-threatening, or if the lack of a bond hearing violates the Fifth Amendment, the District Court has the power to intervene.

At Arias Villa Law, we utilize Habeas Corpus to bypass the bottlenecks of the immigration agency. While a USCIS or ICE officer might follow a rigid manual, a Federal Judge follows the Constitution. This distinction can be the difference between months of detention and returning home to your family.

Why 2026 is Different: The Rise of “Mandatory” Holds

As of late March 2026, the intersection of new technology and shifting policies has created a “perfect storm” for detainees. With the recent conclusion of TPS for certain regions and the 2026 “Digital First” vetting initiatives, USCIS and ICE have increased the use of detentions based on “automated risk flags.” These flags are often generated by AI algorithms that scan digital history, social media, and travel patterns. Because these flags are frequently based on errors or outdated information in digital footprints, they can trigger a “mandatory hold” before a human officer even reviews the file.

Furthermore, the 2026 judicial environment has seen several “pro-detention” rulings that limit the power of Immigration Judges to grant bond to “arriving aliens” and those with reinstated removal orders. This has led to a surge in individuals being held in facilities like Krome or Broward Transitional Center without a pathway to release through the standard court calendar.

A Habeas petition allows an Article III Federal Judge—who is appointed for life and independent of the political shifts within the Department of Justice—to review the facts of the case. They can determine if the “automated flag” or the “mandatory hold” actually meets the high legal standard required to deprive a person of their liberty. In 2026, we are finding that many “mandatory” detentions are, in fact, legally flawed and ripe for a Habeas challenge.

WHAT TO DO IF A LOVED ONE IS DETAINED: THE 2026 EMERGENCY CHECKLIST

If an immigration official detains a family member, every hour counts. Contact us to schedule an appointment or follow these steps immediately:

Locate the “A-Number”: This 9-digit Alien Registration Number is essential for tracking. Use the ICE Online Detainee Locator.
Request the “Notice to Appear” (NTA): This document lists the specific charges. We need this to determine if a Habeas filing is the right strategy.
Do Not Sign “Voluntary Departure”: Many detainees are pressured to sign Form I-821D or similar waivers. Instruct your loved one to say: “I wish to speak to my attorney, before signing anything.”
Gather “Community Ties” Evidence: Collect 2026 tax returns, proof of children’s school enrollment, and medical records. These prove that the detainee is not a “flight risk” in the eyes of a Federal Judge.
Audit the Digital Footprint: Ensure you have access to their social media handles, as USCIS vetting now heavily weighs online activity in 2026 detention decisions.

The Constitutional Path to Freedom

Unlike an Immigration Judge, a U.S. District Court Judge has the power to look at the Constitutionality of the detention itself. If the government cannot prove that the individual is a danger to the community or a significant flight risk, or if the government is taking an “unreasonable” amount of time to process a removal, the court may order their immediate release or a specialized “Zadvydas” bond hearing.

For our clients at Arias Villa Law, we focus on identifying these “unreasonable delays” early. With the current 2026 backlog in the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), many detentions are stretching beyond constitutional limits. We believe that no one should be forgotten in a detention center simply because of an administrative backlog.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Can a Habeas Petition stop a deportation?
Technically, a Habeas petition challenges the detention (the physical custody), not necessarily the underlying deportation order. However, winning a Habeas case often results in the person being released under an Order of Supervision while their immigration case continues. This gives us more time to fight the underlying case from the safety of your home.

How long does a Habeas filing take in 2026?
While immigration courts are currently backed up for months or even years, Federal District Courts often move significantly faster on “Emergency Habeas” petitions. We often see an initial response from the court within 30 to 60 days, providing a much-needed acceleration to the legal process.

Is this only for people with criminal records?
No. In 2026, many people with no criminal record are being detained due to expired TPS status, clerical errors in the new “Digital First” system, or administrative processing delays. Habeas is a constitutional right available to anyone held unlawfully by the government.

Attorney Disclaimer:
The information provided in this blog post is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration law is highly complex and subject to rapid change. No attorney-client relationship is formed by reading this post. If you or a loved one is facing detention, please contact a qualified immigration attorney immediately to discuss the specifics of your case.

FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA

LISTEN TO MY PODCASTS

The post The 2026 “Habeas Readiness” Guide appeared first on Arias Villa Law.

New Travel Precautions, OPT, and Immigration Court Fee Payments

Martha Arias — Tue, 24 Mar 2026 22:58:35 +0000

In my recent interview with Orian Brito, I discussed several immigration concerns that many individuals and families are facing right now. Among the most important were domestic travel for people with pending immigration matters, the role of student documents such as the Form I-20, Optional Practical Training for F-1 students, and the current payment rules for certain fees in immigration court.

FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA

One of the most important messages I shared during the interview was this: people should not make decisions from panic, but they should also not make assumptions. Immigration matters are highly fact-specific. A person may feel that a case is “pending” or that a document is “in process,” but the practical risks can vary greatly depending on the type of case, the agency involved, and the person’s current immigration position.

For students, the Form I-20 remains a very important document. DHS explains that Form I-20 is the “Certificate of Eligibility for Nonimmigrant Student Status,” and students need it for important parts of the student process, including entry, status-related benefits, and maintaining their F-1 or M-1 records. DHS also explains that, to maintain status, students generally must remain enrolled in a full course of study at the SEVP-certified school that issued the Form I-20, unless a proper exception applies.

That is why, during the interview, I stressed the importance of keeping immigration documents organized and current. For students in particular, it is not enough to assume that one document tells the whole story. A person should understand what documents reflect the underlying status and whether the person continues to meet the requirements of that status. That is not fear. That is caution.

I also discussed Optional Practical Training, known as OPT. USCIS currently explains that OPT is temporary employment directly related to an F-1 student’s major area of study. USCIS says eligible students may apply for up to 12 months of OPT, and certain students with qualifying STEM degrees may apply for a 24-month STEM extension. USCIS also explains that a designated school official must recommend the OPT on the Form I-20 before the student properly files Form I-765 with USCIS.

This point matters because OPT has been an important bridge for many international students who complete their studies and want to gain practical experience in the United States. In public conversations, people often speak loosely about this benefit, but the official rules matter. The accurate framework, as USCIS currently describes it, is up to 12 months of OPT, with a possible 24-month STEM extension for eligible students, not an additional 36 months beyond the initial OPT period.

Another issue I addressed in the interview was confusion about payments in immigration court. EOIR currently states that, as of February 23, 2026, it no longer accepts checks or money orders for immigration fees paid to EOIR. EOIR also states that immigration fees paid to EOIR must be submitted electronically through the EOIR Payment Portal. The EOIR Payment Portal FAQ further explains that the portal allows parties to electronically pay certain Immigration Court and Board of Immigration Appeals filing fees and obtain a receipt showing proof of payment.

This is an important distinction because not every immigration payment goes to the same agency. Some matters involve USCIS. Some involve EOIR. Some involve the Department of State. The correct agency and the correct payment process depend on the type of filing and where the case is pending. For that reason, people should confirm exactly which agency is handling their matter before making a payment or submitting anything.

I also want to be careful here about broader claims. There is a great deal of discussion, confusion, and concern in the community about paused cases, slowed cases, and delays. But not every public statement about a “pause” is broad enough to support a general conclusion for all case types. For publication, I believe it is better to stay disciplined and accurate: people should review the exact category of their case, verify which agency is handling it, and get legal guidance specific to their situation.

One official development that is current and publicly posted by the Department of State is this: the Department states that, effective January 21, 2026, it paused immigrant visa issuances for nationals of listed countries under that Department announcement, while still indicating that affected immigrant visa applicants may continue to submit applications and attend interviews in certain circumstances. That is one example of why people should not assume that a scheduled appointment or a pending process will unfold exactly as expected without first checking the current rules.

My advice remains straightforward. Keep your records organized. Understand which agency is handling your case. Do not rely on rumors. And if you are thinking about travel, filing, or making a payment while your matter is still unresolved, take the time to understand the legal and practical consequences before you move forward.

If you would like to learn more about your immigration options or need guidance about your case, you may contact my office or call 305-671-0018

Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every immigration matter is different and should be evaluated on its own facts.

Frequently Asked Questions

1) What is Form I-20?
Form I-20 is the “Certificate of Eligibility for Nonimmigrant Student Status.” DHS explains that it is issued by a designated school official at an SEVP-certified school and is used for student visa processing, entry, and certain benefits tied to student status.

2) Does Form I-20 alone prove that a student is fully maintaining status?
Not necessarily by itself in every real-world situation. DHS explains that students generally must maintain a full course of study and continue complying with the rules of their student status. The Form I-20 is important, but continued status also depends on continued compliance with the underlying requirements.

3) What is OPT?
USCIS defines OPT as temporary employment directly related to an F-1 student’s major area of study. Eligible students may apply for OPT before or after completing their studies, depending on the category.

4) How long can OPT last?
USCIS says eligible students may receive up to 12 months of OPT. Students with qualifying STEM degrees may apply for a 24-month STEM extension.

5) Does a student need school involvement before applying for OPT?
Yes. USCIS explains that the student must first obtain a recommendation from the designated school official, and that recommendation must be reflected on the Form I-20 before the student properly files Form I-765 with USCIS.

6) Can immigration court fees still be paid by check or money order?
Not for immigration fees paid to EOIR. EOIR states that, as of February 23, 2026, it no longer accepts checks or money orders for immigration fees paid to EOIR.

7) How are EOIR filing fees paid now?
EOIR states that covered immigration fees must be paid electronically through the EOIR Payment Portal. EOIR also explains that the portal allows users to pay certain filing fees electronically and obtain a receipt.

8) Is every immigration payment made to USCIS?
No. Different immigration matters can involve different agencies, including USCIS, EOIR, and the Department of State. The correct agency depends on the type of filing or proceeding. EOIR’s official pages make clear that certain court-related fees are paid through EOIR, while other immigration processes are handled elsewhere.

9) Should someone with a pending immigration matter travel without first reviewing the case?
That depends on the person’s exact situation. The safest general advice is not to assume. The legal risks can depend on the type of case, the person’s current status, and the agency involved. Because those facts vary, the prudent step is to review the case carefully before traveling.

10) Why is it important to confirm which agency is handling a case?
Because the rules, forms, payment methods, and procedures are not identical across agencies. USCIS, EOIR, DHS student systems, and the Department of State each operate under their own processes. Using the wrong form, the wrong portal, or the wrong assumption can create avoidable problems.

SPANISH TRANSCRIPT

ORIÁN:
Amigos, feliz inicio de semana. Gusto saludarles. Los invito a que presten mucha atención porque hay información importante para muchas personas, especialmente para todos aquellos que tienen un estatus pendiente aquí en Estados Unidos. Y es que la presencia de agentes de ICE en al menos 13 aeropuertos del país ha encendido las alarmas entre miles de migrantes que hoy se preguntan si viajar dentro de Estados Unidos podría convertirse en un riesgo. Aunque las autoridades aseguran que estos agentes no estarán en los controles de seguridad y harían funciones propias del TSA, recordemos que hay un cierre parcial del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional que afecta al TSA. Su despliegue ya genera temor, confusión y muchas dudas legales.

¿Puede un inmigrante ser detenido en un aeropuerto? ¿Qué pasa con quienes no tienen un estatus cierto? Hoy se lo preguntamos a la abogada de inmigración, Martha Arias. Los invito a que se conecten y a que nos acompañen en esta conversación que va a ser instructiva para todos ustedes. Abogada, ¿cómo está?

MARTHA:
Muy bien, muy bien, Orián. Gracias por invitarme a su canal y con mucho gusto para poder contestar sus preguntas y las que tenga su audiencia.

ORIÁN:
Claro. Yo quiero comenzar porque, bueno, ya hay imágenes que comienzan a salir en redes sociales, incluso una que se ha hecho viral esta tarde, y es una supuesta detención que había en un aeropuerto en San Francisco. Esto, repito, no ha sido confirmado. Es información extraoficial, porque me gusta cuando las autoridades nos dan cuenta, a pesar de la opacidad con la que se manejan algunos temas, y nos dicen: “Mira, esto es lo que está pasando”. Lo cierto es que hay mucha incertidumbre por la presencia de funcionarios de ICE en algunos aeropuertos del país. ¿Qué se le puede decir hoy al migrante que no tiene un estatus definido, incluso al que pueda tenerlo?

MARTHA:
A ver, lo primero que yo le diría es que no entre en pánico. Si la persona tiene, por ejemplo, un estatus legal vigente, como por ejemplo si es residente de los Estados Unidos y tiene su residencia, o una persona tiene una visa de estudiante, una visa de inversionista o cualquier otra visa que esté legal, que esté activa, corriente, esa persona no debería tener ningún problema. Sí es aconsejable viajar con su pasaporte, si la visa está sellada en el pasaporte, y con cualquier otro documento de inmigración que demuestre ese estatus migratorio.

Parece que, por ejemplo, los estudiantes, si tienen un permiso de trabajo, obviamente tienen permiso de trabajo, pero lo que muestra el estatus de ellos realmente es la I-20, que es la carta de la universidad que les dice que están admitidos para este período lectivo. Pero la carta en sí sola no debería ser suficiente prueba de estatus porque, si la persona está registrada pero no va al colegio hace una semana o dos semanas, pues técnicamente esa persona se puede considerar que está violando su estatus.

Entonces yo mostraría la prueba de la I-20, descargaría además las clases en las que estoy registrado ese semestre y la prueba de que todavía estoy estudiando. Eso probaría el estatus legal de la persona en los Estados Unidos. Y así, todos aquellos que tengan estatus, tratar de tener ese documento que lo pruebe.

Ahora, hay personas que no tienen un estatus definido porque están pendientes de un asilo, por ejemplo, o están pendientes de un caso de corte. Entonces esas personas también deberían tener la prueba de eso. Si tiene un caso de asilo pendiente en la corte, la prueba de su próxima cita, la prueba de su permiso de trabajo.

Ahora, yo sé que esto es peligroso hoy en día también. Muchas personas tienen un asilo pendiente y han sido detenidas por ICE y puestas en un proceso expedito, rápido, de deportación. Entonces, para esas personas, yo lo que les diría es: si su viaje no es una emergencia, mejor que no viajen. Si su viaje no es una emergencia, es mejor que no se arriesguen porque no sabemos realmente cuál es la intención o el alcance del gobierno con esta acción de enviar oficiales de ICE a los aeropuertos.

ORIÁN:
Sí, incluso voy a poner la imagen, que es la que se ha hecho viral el día de hoy. Este es el arresto de una mujer en el aeropuerto de San Francisco, en presencia, según dicen, de su hija de 10 años que estaba allí, y es un video que se ha hecho viral hoy. No han especificado por qué ella fue detenida.

La cadena NBC hizo una investigación sobre qué están haciendo los funcionarios de ICE, y la información que han dado dice que son al menos 50 miembros del personal de ICE por turno en cada aeropuerto. Otro funcionario de ICE vinculado al área de capacitación de la agencia declaró a NBC News que los oficiales y agentes de ICE no estaban capacitados para el uso de magnetómetros o máquinas de rayos X, y que entre las cosas que harían era supervisar el Real ID, esa estrellita de la licencia.

Los aeropuertos, quiero decir, cuáles son los que están en este momento con oficiales de ICE: el de Chicago, el de Cleveland, el de Atlanta, el de Houston, el John F. Kennedy de Nueva York, LaGuardia de Nueva York, el aeropuerto de Newark, el de Nueva Orleans, el de San Juan de Puerto Rico, el de Filadelfia, el de Pittsburgh, ya dije, el de Philadelphia, el de Phoenix y el de Fort Myers aquí en Florida. Yo conversé hace minutos con una portavoz del aeropuerto de Miami, quien me informó que en el caso de Miami no está previsto, y debo decirlo así, no está previsto, la presencia de funcionarios de ICE por el momento.

MARTHA:
Ah, qué bien. Esa información me parece excelente, Orián, para los que estén escuchando esta entrevista, este documento, porque me parece que es muy informativo, sobre todo esto que usted habla de los aeropuertos. Son bastantes realmente; según la lista que usted menciona, son bastantes. Pero también es un alivio saber que Miami no lo sea. No sé hasta cuándo, porque todos sabemos que Miami es un puerto de entrada muy grande para los inmigrantes, pero bueno. Interesante saber también, por ejemplo, que Fort Myers es un aeropuerto donde vienen muchos, muchos inmigrantes, sobre todo hispanos que viven en esa área del oeste de la Florida.

ORIÁN:
O sea, importante recapitular: si usted no tiene necesidad y tiene un estatus pendiente y puede evitar el viaje, mejor lo hace. Si tiene que hacerlo, los documentos que prueben el trámite que usted está haciendo son como una forma de protección, entre comillas.

MARTHA:
Correcto.

ORIÁN:
Ok. Importante esta recomendación que hace la abogada de inmigración Martha Arias, y ojalá la situación en los aeropuertos cambie, porque hay un cierre parcial del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional y las largas filas en varios aeropuertos este fin de semana. Eso fue tendencia.

Increíblemente hablamos de documentos que pueda tener un migrante, estatus pendientes. Muchos siguen paralizados. Es increíble, ¿no?, cómo esta situación los mantiene a muchos de ellos en un limbo.

MARTHA:
Efectivamente. Pues no solamente son los venezolanos y cubanos que tienen sus casos con USCIS, con Citizenship and Immigration Services, paralizados de acuerdo a esa pausa que ordenó el gobierno o la administración. Es importante resaltar que esa pausa es solamente para los casos que están pendientes con USCIS, no para los casos que están pendientes con la corte. Entonces, los cubanos y los venezolanos que tengan algún caso de corte, una petición de residencia o algo, esos casos en la corte no están paralizados, pero con USCIS sí.

Entonces esa es una cosa que las personas tienen que tener en cuenta. Obviamente incluso peticiones de ciudadanía están paralizadas para cubanos y venezolanos. Ahora, a nivel de los consulados, usted también escuchó que hay una pausa para la emisión de visas de inmigrantes o residencias también para 72 países. Esto fue demandado. Hay una demanda que se presentó en New York, en una corte federal, en contra de esta pausa de las visas de inmigrantes. Eso también debemos estar escuchándolo porque es también muy injusto, sobre todo para las personas que salieron de los Estados Unidos y no habían ido a la cita, o fueron, pero no les habían emitido su residencia y fueron encontrados con esta sorpresa de que no puede ser emitida la residencia por esta pausa.

También para las personas que han hecho perdones, el perdón 601-A, que es el perdón de la presencia ilegal, que llevan tres o cuatro años esperando el perdón, invirtiendo mucho dinero en ese perdón, y fueron a las citas y se encontraron ahora entonces con esta pausa. ¿Qué está pasando con estas personas? O con los que tengan en los próximos meses citas en los consulados. Imagínense ustedes, esas personas lo van a pensar dos veces. ¿Qué va a pasar con sus casos si no van a la cita después de invertir tanto dinero? Pero, pues, es un caos.

Bueno, vamos a ver qué va a pasar con la demanda que se presentó en contra del gobierno por esta pausa. Así que sí, Orián, mucha pausa para estas peticiones, pero sí también tratando el gobierno de agilizar mucho los procesos de deportación. Ya usted escuchó que se nombraron 42 jueces la semana pasada o la semana anterior, y van a seguir nombrando jueces porque, acuérdese, hay ya mucho dinero para financiar estas agencias de ICE, USCIS, CBP, entonces muchos jueces nuevos, muchos nuevos, y los abogados que defienden al gobierno. Y pues vamos a ver una maquinaria mucho más rápida de deportación.

ORIÁN:
Que no pierda tiempo y asesórese correctamente con un abogado porque en este momento es fundamental, aprovechando la pausa que hay, definir en qué situación está usted y evitar un riesgo frente a lo que se está moviendo jurídicamente.

MARTHA:
Exacto. Mucho cuidado.

ORIÁN:
La abogada Martha Arias, cuando definíamos el temario que íbamos a manejar durante nuestra conversación, me decía: “Mira, una noticia importante de la que me gustaría hablar”, y me decía, y tenía especificación en lo que tiene que ver con los OPT, o entrenamiento práctico para estudiantes extranjeros, que la administración estaría buscando eliminar este beneficio, y ya se había presentado un proyecto de ley en el Congreso para codificarlo. ¿Me puede ampliar cuál es la estrategia del gobierno y cómo impactaría este programa en nuestra comunidad?

MARTHA:
Sí, bueno, a ver. El OPT, como usted bien lo dice, es un programa que le permite un entrenamiento práctico opcional a aquellos estudiantes internacionales que vienen aquí a los Estados Unidos. El programa siempre ha existido. Les dan un entrenamiento, un OPT, por 12 meses después de la graduación, o pueden elegir, vamos a decir, seis meses antes de la graduación; entonces usarían los otros seis meses después de la graduación.

Para las carreras que estén en la categoría de STEM, que es tecnología, ingeniería, ciencias y matemáticas, jóvenes o estudiantes tienen 36 meses más. Lo que pasa es que este OPT o este programa es regulatorio, pero no está codificado, no está en el Estatuto de Inmigración.

Entonces, un proyecto bipartita fue presentado en el Congreso de Estados Unidos para codificar este derecho al OPT. Esto es importante porque si llegara a pasar, quiere decir que ese programa de OPT podría continuar.

¿Por qué digo esto? Porque el gobierno actual ha expresado intención de modificar la regulación del OPT, hacerlo, vamos a decir, más difícil, casi imposible para que una persona lo tenga. Entonces el proyecto de ley realmente le beneficiaría a estos estudiantes para poder continuar con este programa que ha sido por muchos, muchos años un programa aquí en los Estados Unidos. Vamos a hacerle seguimiento a ese proyecto de ley. Ya se presentó en la Cámara de Representantes, en proceso de espera. Obviamente empieza todo el proyecto, los debates, y que Dios quiera que podamos lograr este beneficio.

ORIÁN:
Oja, me parece una contradicción porque una de las promesas que hacía el presidente durante su campaña era que a todos esos estudiantes que han invertido tiempo, dinero, creyendo en la educación de este país, ofrecía esa posibilidad de regularizarlo, no de complicar su obtención de esta, por ejemplo, de esta herramienta que existe.

MARTHA:
Exacto. O sea, unas personas que han invertido aquí en los Estados Unidos y que el gobierno ha capacitado, y que muchos de ellos son personas que van a beneficiar enormemente a los Estados Unidos. Yo el otro día estaba, en un fin de semana, revisando unos reportes de los grandes inventores de este país, y la mayoría, Orián, han sido inmigrantes. Solo para mencionar algunos, está Albert Einstein. Está Tesla. El Tesla, Tesla, el señor… Elon Musk. Bueno, son cantidades de personas que podemos mencionar que son talentos que vienen a los Estados Unidos para continuar ese talento que tengan, continuarlo aquí y darle un beneficio al país.

Entonces no sé por qué no se ve esta posibilidad si quiere cerrar la puerta. También tenemos que ser conscientes, y lo han visto, lo han mostrado las estadísticas, que hay mucho joven nacido en los Estados Unidos, ciudadano americano, que en vez de estar aprovechando los beneficios educativos del país, no están estudiando, no están haciendo sus carreras universitarias. Entonces este talento que viene no debería ser despreciado. Pero bueno, vamos a ver.

ORIÁN:
Qué va a pasar con este proyecto de ley. Conversamos con la abogada de inmigración Martha Arias. Ya para concluir, abogada, y le agradezco el contacto, hay muchas dudas que tienen los solicitantes de asilo con el pago de los fees, ¿no? Hay gente que dice: “Bueno, ¿dónde lo pago?, ¿lo tengo que pagar?, ¿cómo se paga?”, etcétera. Quisiera saber si este tipo de casos se están manejando en su oficina y qué recomendación se le está dando a las personas que tienen un asilo pendiente.

MARTHA:
Ok, sí, mira, hubo un poquito de confusión porque sí, el gobierno eliminó el pago de ciertos fees, sobre todo con USCIS, pero los fees de la corte los están obligando a pagar. Entonces, si una persona tiene un caso en la corte de inmigración, un caso de asilo, debe ir a la página de la agencia de inmigración que es de la corte, que es EOIR.

O sea, EOIR, como EOIR, como de escuchar, EOIR. Y hay una parte que se llama E-Pay, o sea, Electronic Payment. Entonces, si quiere el link es E-Pay, o sea: epay.eoir.justice.gov.

ORIÁN:
Justo yo lo voy a pegar en la descripción.

MARTHA:
Exacto. Entonces, epay.eoir.justice.gov, y ahí está el portal de la agencia, de EOIR, donde está el ePay y el portal para donde pueden hacer el pago. Ahí electrónicamente se hace para los que están en la corte. Así que eso sí se los están exigiendo, el pago.

ORIÁN:
Perfecto. Voy a dejar el link en la página por si es su caso, si tiene esto pendiente de la corte, pueda realizar el pago sin problema. Abogada, me gustaría que, aprovechando este momento y medio de tanta incertidumbre, pues comparta con la audiencia su contacto para cualquiera que tenga dudas sobre sus casos en estos momentos.

MARTHA:
Efectivamente, a nosotros nos pueden contactar en mi página web. Es la forma más fácil de ir, y allí están los datos de la oficina, la dirección, los teléfonos, el email y todas las redes sociales.

La página es AriasVilla.com. Arias, mi apellido; Villa, con v pequeña, v-i-l-l-a, ariasvilla.com. Hay una página que realmente no es la página oficial de la oficina, es una página que está en desarrollo, que es marthaarias.com, pero lo puede redirigir a ariasvilla.com si no se acuerdan de Arias Villa, y más fácil se graba en el nombre Martha Arias.

En el teléfono nos pueden llamar al 305-671-0018, 305-671-0018. Ese es el teléfono de nuestra oficina. Ya les dije, en la página web y en Instagram estamos como @Martha_Arias98.

ORIÁN:
Y Martha con H. Con H, correcto. Muchísimas gracias a la abogada de inmigración Martha Arias. Amigos, ante la duda, la información clara es precisa. No caigan en el pánico. Importante informarse, tener los documentos consigo y, por supuesto, tener una excelente asesoría que nos evite cualquier contratiempo en la situación que estamos viviendo.

Les agradezco a ustedes su rato, que se conecten con nosotros, que compartan esta información, que dejen sus preguntas y comentarios, que nos definen la agenda para los próximos días. Y un gusto a la abogada Martha Arias, porque hoy logró conectarse con nosotros. Tenía días tratando de que esta conexión se diera y hoy logramos hacerla realidad. En la descripción ya tengo el enlace que ella me lo acaba de hacer llegar. Usted lo va a encontrar para los pagos de los fees de la corte en caso de que usted tenga un asilo pendiente allí. Muchísimas gracias, abogada, y a todos.

MARTHA:
Gracias, Orián, y a toda su audiencia, todos sus seguidores. Muchísimas gracias por la invitación y sí, disculpe que la semana pasada habíamos quedado de vernos, pero se presentó un percance y bueno, aquí estamos.

ORIÁN:
Aquí estamos, eso es lo importante. El tiempo de Dios es perfecto y aquí nos encontramos. Le agradezco a usted y a todos sus colegas que brindan la interpretación de la ley en medio de tantos cambios que se están dando en materia migratoria aquí en el país. Un gran abrazo.

MARTHA:
Gracias a ustedes. Feliz día. Ciao.

ENGLISH TRANSLATION

ORIAN:
Friends, happy start of the week. It is a pleasure to greet you. I invite you to pay very close attention because there is important information for many people, especially for all those who have a pending status here in the United States. And it is that the presence of ICE agents in at least 13 airports in the country has set off alarms among thousands of migrants who today are asking themselves whether traveling within the United States could become a risk. Although the authorities assure that these agents will not be at the security checkpoints and would carry out functions belonging to TSA, let us remember that there is a partial shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security that affects TSA. Their deployment is already generating fear, confusion, and many legal doubts.

Can an immigrant be detained at an airport? What happens with those who do not have a certain status? Today we ask immigration attorney Martha Arias. I invite you to connect and to join us in this conversation that is going to be instructive for all of you. Attorney, how are you?

MARTHA:
Very well, very well, Orián. Thank you for inviting me to your channel, and with great pleasure to be able to answer your questions and those that your audience may have.

ORIAN:
Of course. I want to begin because, well, images are already starting to appear on social media, including one that has gone viral this afternoon, and it is an alleged detention that took place at an airport in San Francisco. This, I repeat, has not been confirmed. It is unofficial information, because I like it when the authorities inform us, despite the lack of transparency with which some topics are handled, and they tell us, “Look, this is what is happening.” The truth is that there is a lot of uncertainty due to the presence of ICE officers in some of the country’s airports. What can be said today to the migrant who does not have a defined status, even the one who may have one?

MARTHA:
Let’s see, the first thing I would say is do not panic. If the person has, for example, valid legal status, such as being a resident of the United States and having a green card, or a person has a student visa, an investor visa, or any other visa that is legal, active, current, that person should not have any problem. It is advisable to travel with the passport, if the visa is stamped in the passport, and with any other immigration document that shows that immigration status.

It seems that, for example, students, if they have a work permit, obviously they have a work permit, but what really shows their status is the I-20, which is the university letter that says they are admitted for this academic term. But the letter by itself should not be sufficient proof of status because, if the person is registered but has not gone to school for a week or two, then technically that person can be considered to be violating status.

So I would show proof of the I-20, I would also download the classes in which I am registered that semester, and proof that I am still studying. That would prove the person’s legal status in the United States. And so, all those who have status should try to have the document that proves it.

Now, there are people who do not have a defined status because they have a pending asylum case, for example, or they have a pending court case. So those people should also have proof of that. If you have a pending asylum case in court, proof of your next hearing, proof of your work permit.

Now, I know that this is dangerous nowadays as well. Many people have a pending asylum case and have been detained by ICE and placed into an expedited, fast deportation process. So, for those people, what I would say is: if your trip is not an emergency, it is better not to travel. If your trip is not an emergency, it is better not to take the risk because we really do not know what the government’s intention or scope is with this action of sending ICE officers to airports.

ORIAN:
Yes, I am even going to put up the image, which is the one that has gone viral today. This is the arrest of a woman at the San Francisco airport, in the presence, they say, of her 10-year-old daughter who was there, and it is a video that has gone viral today. They have not specified why she was detained.

NBC did an investigation into what ICE officers are doing, and the information they gave says there are at least 50 ICE staff members per shift at each airport. Another ICE official linked to the agency’s training area told NBC News that ICE officers and agents were not trained in the use of magnetometers or X-ray machines, and that among the things they would do would be to supervise Real ID, that little star on the license.

The airports, I mean, which ones are currently with ICE officers: Chicago, Cleveland, Atlanta, Houston, John F. Kennedy in New York, LaGuardia in New York, Newark airport, New Orleans, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, I already said Philadelphia, Phoenix, and Fort Myers here in Florida. A few minutes ago I spoke with a spokesperson for Miami airport, who informed me that in Miami’s case it is not expected, and I must say it that way, it is not expected, for ICE officers to be present for the moment.

MARTHA:
Ah, how good. That information seems excellent to me, Orián, for those who are listening to this interview, this document, because it seems very informative to me, especially all of this that you are saying about the airports. There are really quite a few; according to the list you mention, there are quite a few. But it is also a relief to know that Miami is not one of them. I do not know until when, because we all know that Miami is a very large port of entry for immigrants, but well. It is also interesting to know, for example, that Fort Myers is an airport where many, many immigrants come, especially Hispanics who live in that area of western Florida.

ORIAN:
So, important to recap: if you do not need to and you have a pending status and you can avoid the trip, it is better that you do so. If you have to do it, the documents that prove the process you are carrying out are like a form of protection, in quotation marks.

MARTHA:
Correct.

ORIAN:
Ok. Important recommendation that immigration attorney Martha Arias is making, and hopefully the situation at the airports changes, because there is a partial shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security and the long lines at several airports this weekend. That was trending.

Incredibly, we are talking about documents that a migrant may have, pending statuses. Many remain paralyzed. It is incredible, right, how this situation keeps many of them in limbo.

MARTHA:
Indeed. It is not only Venezuelans and Cubans who have their cases with USCIS, with Citizenship and Immigration Services, paralyzed according to that pause ordered by the government or the administration. It is important to emphasize that this pause is only for the cases that are pending with USCIS, not for the cases that are pending with the court. So Cubans and Venezuelans who have some court case, a residency petition or something, those cases in court are not paralyzed, but with USCIS they are.

So that is one thing people have to keep in mind. Obviously even citizenship petitions are paralyzed for Cubans and Venezuelans. Now, at the consular level, you also heard that there is a pause for the issuance of immigrant visas or residencies also for 72 countries. This was challenged. A lawsuit was filed in New York, in a federal court, against this pause of immigrant visas. We must also be following that because it is also very unfair, especially for people who left the United States and had not yet gone to the appointment, or they went but their residency had not yet been issued, and they were met with this surprise that the residency cannot be issued because of this pause.

Also for people who have done waivers, the 601-A waiver, which is the unlawful presence waiver, who have spent three or four years waiting for the waiver, investing a lot of money in that waiver, and they went to the appointments and then found themselves now with this pause. What is happening with these people? Or with those who will have consular appointments in the coming months. Just imagine, those people are going to think twice. What is going to happen with their cases if they do not go to the appointment after investing so much money? But, well, it is chaos.

Well, let us see what is going to happen with the lawsuit that was filed against the government over this pause. So yes, Orián, a lot of pause for these petitions, but also the government trying to speed up deportation processes a great deal. You already heard that 42 judges were appointed last week or the week before, and they are going to continue appointing judges because, remember, there is already a lot of money to fund these agencies, ICE, USCIS, CBP, so many new judges, many new ones, and the attorneys who defend the government. And so we are going to see a much faster deportation machine.

ORIAN:
Do not waste time and get properly advised by an attorney because at this moment it is essential, taking advantage of the pause that exists, to define what situation you are in and avoid a risk in light of what is moving legally.

MARTHA:
Exactly. Be very careful.

ORIAN:
Attorney Martha Arias, when we were defining the topics we were going to cover during our conversation, was telling me, “Look, important news that I would like to discuss,” and she was referring specifically to OPTs, or practical training for foreign students, that the administration would be seeking to eliminate this benefit, and a bill had already been introduced in Congress to codify it. Can you expand for me on what the government’s strategy is and how this program would impact our community?

MARTHA:
Yes, well, let’s see. OPT, as you rightly say, is a program that allows optional practical training for those international students who come here to the United States. The program has always existed. They are given practical training, an OPT, for 12 months after graduation, or they can choose, let us say, six months before graduation; then they would use the other six months after graduation.

For careers that are in the STEM category, which is technology, engineering, science, and mathematics, young people or students have 36 more months. What happens is that this OPT or this program is regulatory, but it is not codified, it is not in the Immigration Statute.

So, a bipartisan bill was presented in the United States Congress to codify this right to OPT. This is important because if it were to happen, it means that this OPT program could continue.

Why do I say this? Because the current government has expressed an intention to modify the OPT regulation, to make it, let us say, more difficult, almost impossible for a person to have it. So the bill would really benefit these students so they can continue with this program that has been, for many, many years, a program here in the United States. We are going to follow that bill. It has already been introduced in the House of Representatives, in the process of waiting. Obviously the whole process begins, the debates, and God willing, we will be able to achieve this benefit.

ORIAN:
Wow, it seems like a contradiction to me because one of the promises the president made during his campaign was that all those students who have invested time and money, believing in this country’s education, were offered that possibility of regularizing it, not of making it more difficult for them to obtain, for example, this tool that exists.

MARTHA:
Exactly. In other words, these are people who have invested here in the United States and whom the government has trained, and many of them are people who are going to benefit the United States enormously. The other day, over a weekend, I was reviewing some reports about the great inventors of this country, and the majority, Orián, have been immigrants. Just to mention a few, there is Albert Einstein. There is Tesla. Tesla, Tesla, the gentleman… Elon Musk. Well, there are so many people we can mention who are talents that come to the United States to continue that talent they have, continue it here, and give a benefit to the country.

So I do not know why this possibility is not seen if the intention is to close the door. We also have to be aware, and statistics have shown it, that there are many young people born in the United States, American citizens, who instead of taking advantage of the country’s educational benefits, are not studying, are not pursuing their university degrees. So this talent that comes should not be disregarded. But well, we will see.

ORIAN:
What is going to happen with this bill. We are speaking with immigration attorney Martha Arias. To conclude, attorney, and I thank you for the contact, there are many doubts that asylum applicants have about paying the fees, right? There are people who say, “Well, where do I pay it? Do I have to pay it? How is it paid?” and so on. I would like to know whether these kinds of cases are being handled in your office and what recommendation is being given to people who have a pending asylum case.

MARTHA:
Ok, yes, look, there was a little bit of confusion because yes, the government eliminated the payment of certain fees, especially with USCIS, but court fees are being required. So, if a person has a case in immigration court, an asylum case, they must go to the immigration agency’s page that is for the court, which is EOIR.

That is, EOIR, like EOIR, like hearing it, EOIR. And there is a section called E-Pay, that is, Electronic Payment. So, if you want the link, it is E-Pay, that is: epay.eoir.justice.gov.

ORIAN:
I am just going to paste it in the description.

MARTHA:
Exactly. So, epay.eoir.justice.gov, and there is the agency’s portal, EOIR, where the ePay and the portal are, where they can make the payment. It is done there electronically for those who are in court. So yes, they are requiring that payment.

ORIAN:
Perfect. I am going to leave the link on the page in case that is your situation, if you have this pending in court, so you can make the payment without problem. Attorney, I would like you, taking advantage of this moment and the uncertainty, to share your contact information with the audience for anyone who has doubts about their cases at this time.

MARTHA:
Indeed, people can contact us on my website. It is the easiest way to go, and there are the office details, the address, the phone numbers, the email, and all the social media.

The page is AriasVilla.com. Arias, my last name; Villa, with a small v, v-i-l-l-a, ariasvilla.com. There is a page that really is not the office’s official page, it is a page that is under development, which is marthaarias.com, but it can redirect you to ariasvilla.com if you do not remember Arias Villa, and the name Martha Arias is easier to remember.

By phone, you can call us at 305-671-0018, 305-671-0018. That is our office phone number. As I already told you, on the website and on Instagram we are @Martha_Arias98.

ORIAN:
And Martha with an H. With an H, correct. Thank you very much to immigration attorney Martha Arias. Friends, when in doubt, clear information is precise. Do not fall into panic. It is important to get informed, to keep your documents with you, and of course to have excellent legal guidance that avoids any setback in the situation we are living through.

I thank you for your time, for connecting with us, for sharing this information, for leaving your questions and comments, which define our agenda for the coming days. And it is a pleasure to have attorney Martha Arias because today she managed to connect with us. I had been trying for days for this connection to happen and today we made it a reality. In the description I already have the link that she just sent me. You will find it for the payment of court fees in case you have a pending asylum case there. Thank you very much, attorney, and to everyone.

MARTHA:
Thank you, Orián, and to all your audience, all your followers. Thank you very much for the invitation, and yes, sorry that last week we had planned to see each other, but something came up, and well, here we are.

ORIAN:
Here we are, that is what matters. God’s timing is perfect and here we meet. I thank you and all your colleagues who provide interpretation of the law in the middle of so many changes that are taking place in immigration matters here in the country. A big hug.

MARTHA:
Thank you all. Have a happy day. Bye.

The post New Travel Precautions, OPT, and Immigration Court Fee Payments appeared first on Arias Villa Law.

Complete 2026 Naturalization Interview Checklist

Martha Arias — Tue, 17 Mar 2026 22:04:30 +0000

What to Bring to Your USCIS Citizenship Interview

If your citizenship interview is coming up, the best thing you can do is show up prepared, calm, and organized.

In my experience, many applicants focus almost entirely on the civics questions and the English portion of the process. That matters, of course. But the interview is not only about the test. It is also a review of your application, your background, your travel history, and the documents that support your eligibility. USCIS explains that during the naturalization interview, the officer reviews your Form N-400 with you and, unless an exemption or waiver applies, also administers the English and civics test. [1]

For that reason, I always tell people to prepare in two parts: first, your documents; second, your interview readiness.

What you should bring to the interview

Start with the essentials. USCIS’s current guidance says you should bring your interview appointment notice, your Permanent Resident Card, a state-issued photo identification, and all valid and expired passports and travel documents that show your absences from the United States since becoming a lawful permanent resident. USCIS also directs applicants to Form M-477, Document Checklist, for any additional records that may be needed depending on the case. [2]

That is your core interview folder. From there, the rest depends on your individual history.

For many applicants, it is wise to also have original civil documents ready. USCIS specifically says applicants may need original records such as birth certificates and marriage certificates at the naturalization interview. If your eligibility depends on marriage to a U.S. citizen, or if your case involves name changes, prior marriages, or other family-history questions, this becomes especially important.

If you are applying based on marriage to a U.S. citizen, you should also be prepared to show evidence connected to that basis for eligibility. USCIS’s naturalization materials for marriage-based applicants reference proof of the spouse’s U.S. citizenship and marriage-related records as part of the supporting evidence.

Tax records can also matter more than many people realize. USCIS naturalization materials state that, on the day of the interview, applicants should bring certified tax returns or IRS tax transcripts for the last 5 years, or 3 years if applying based on marriage to a U.S. citizen.

If Selective Service applies to you, do not ignore that issue. USCIS guidance says that if a person was required to register and did not, the applicant should bring both a written explanation and a letter from the Selective Service System.

How I recommend organizing your folder

I suggest keeping your documents in a very simple order.

Put your interview notice first. Behind that, place your Green Card and photo identification. Next, keep your passports and travel documents together. After that, add your original civil records and any extra evidence that may apply to your case, such as tax transcripts, marriage documents, Selective Service records, or anything else tied to your eligibility.

This may sound basic, but organization matters. A naturalization interview tends to go more smoothly when you can immediately put your hands on the document the officer asks for.

Useful tips before your naturalization interview

1. Read your own N-400 again before the interview
One of the most common problems I see is that people forget exactly what they wrote on their own application. USCIS states that the officer will review the responses on your Form N-400 with you during the interview. Before your appointment, go back through the form carefully so you can answer consistently and confidently.

2. Study the correct civics test version
This is a very important 2026 point. USCIS says applicants who filed Form N-400 on or after October 20, 2025 will take the 2025 naturalization civics test. Anyone who is preparing for the wrong version is creating an unnecessary problem for themselves.

3. Do not treat travel history as a minor detail
Your trips outside the United States matter in a citizenship case. That is one reason USCIS specifically instructs applicants to bring all valid and expired passports and travel documents showing absences since becoming a permanent resident. If there were long trips, frequent trips, or any uncertainty about dates, review them before the interview.

4. If you move, update your address right away
A pending N-400 does not pause your obligation to keep USCIS informed. USCIS says noncitizens generally must report a change of address within 10 days of moving. Missing an interview notice because an address was never updated is a completely avoidable problem.

5. Avoid rescheduling unless it is truly necessary
Sometimes rescheduling cannot be avoided. But when it can be avoided, I usually advise people to keep the original date. USCIS states that rescheduling a naturalization interview may add several months to the process.

6. Remember that passing the interview is not the final step
Even after approval, the process is not finished until the oath ceremony. USCIS makes clear that a person does not become a U.S. citizen until taking the Oath of Allegiance at a naturalization ceremony.

Frequently Asked Questions

What happens at the citizenship interview?
The officer reviews your N-400 with you, asks questions about your background, and, unless an exemption or waiver applies, gives the English and civics test.

What are the most important documents to bring?
At a minimum, bring your interview notice, Green Card, state-issued photo ID, and all valid and expired passports and travel documents covering your time as a permanent resident.

Should I bring original birth and marriage certificates?
Yes, if they are relevant to your case. USCIS states that applicants may need original documents such as birth and marriage certificates at the naturalization interview.

Which civics test applies in 2026?
If you filed Form N-400 on or after October 20, 2025, USCIS says you will take the 2025 naturalization civics test.

What happens if I fail part of the English or civics test?
USCIS policy says you are given a second opportunity to pass the failed portion of the naturalization test, and that re-examination is generally scheduled between 60 and 90 days after the first examination.

Should I bring tax transcripts to the interview?
In many cases, yes. USCIS naturalization materials say applicants should bring certified tax returns or IRS tax transcripts for the last 5 years, or 3 years if applying based on marriage to a U.S. citizen.

What if I miss my interview or need to reschedule?
Try not to miss it. USCIS says rescheduling may add several months to the process.

Do I become a U.S. citizen as soon as the interview is approved?
No. Approval is not the final step. USCIS says you become a U.S. citizen only after taking the Oath of Allegiance at the naturalization ceremony.

Footnotes:

[1] USCIS – Naturalization: What to Expect (interview process, documents to bring, oath requirement).

[2] USCIS – The Naturalization Interview and Test (English and civics testing overview).

[3] USCIS – Commonly Asked Questions About the Naturalization Process (review of Form N-400, original documents, test retake framework).

[4] USCIS – 2025 Civics Test / Check for Test Updates (2025 civics test applies to N-400 filings on or after October 20, 2025).

[5] USCIS – AR-11 / How to Change Your Address (address changes generally must be reported within 10 days).

[6] USCIS Policy Manual – Naturalization Testing / Results of the Naturalization Examination (second opportunity to pass within 60 to 90 days).

[7] USCIS – 10 Steps to Naturalization (rescheduling may add several months).

[8] USCIS – M-477 Document Checklist / G-1151 Thinking About Applying for Naturalization (supporting evidence, tax records, marriage-based items, Selective Service issue).

Disclaimer:

This article is provided for general informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Immigration cases can turn on details that may not appear in a general article, including travel history, taxes, marital history, prior filings, criminal records, and other facts specific to the applicant.

Final thought

A naturalization interview usually goes best when there are no surprises. When you know your own application, bring the right documents, study the correct civics test, and arrive organized, the process becomes far more manageable.

That is the goal. Not panic. Not guessing. Preparation.

The post Complete 2026 Naturalization Interview Checklist appeared first on Arias Villa Law.

5 Immigration Mistakes That Could Hurt Your Case in 2026

Martha Arias — Mon, 09 Mar 2026 10:26:04 +0000

In my work as an Immigration Law Attorney, I often see people try to handle immigration matters with good intentions but outdated information. In 2026, that can be dangerous. Immigration rules are shifting, filing requirements are being updated, and small misunderstandings can lead to larger problems than many people expect.

Very often, the issue is not carelessness. It is reliance on old advice, incomplete information, or assumptions that no longer match current government guidance. A wrong fee, an incorrect belief about TPS, a poorly planned trip, or an ignored notice can create delays, denials, or even the loss of important benefits.

1. Filing With the Wrong Fee

One of the most common mistakes I am seeing in 2026 is filing with the wrong USCIS fee. USCIS announced an FY 2026 inflation increase for certain immigration-related fees effective January 1, 2026. USCIS also maintains Form G-1055, Fee Schedule, which applicants should review before filing.

This matters because many people still rely on older fee charts, screenshots, or prior filing experiences. That is risky. If the fee is incorrect, the filing can be rejected or delayed, depending on the filing type and circumstances.[1][2]

Before submitting anything to USCIS, it is wise to confirm the exact form, category, and current fee directly through the official USCIS fee schedule.

2. Assuming TPS Automatically Renews

Another serious mistake is assuming that Temporary Protected Status, or TPS-related work authorization, renews automatically in every case. That is not how it works. USCIS explains that DHS may extend a TPS beneficiary’s employment authorization either through a Federal Register notice or by an individual notice sent to the beneficiary.[3]

This is especially important because TPS rules vary by country and by the specific government notice in effect. For Venezuelans, USCIS has published guidance tied to current court orders, including a notice that certain TPS Venezuela beneficiaries who presented qualifying EADs must be reverified before they start work on April 3, 2026.[4]

That is exactly why no one should assume that a work permit or TPS benefit continues automatically without checking the current USCIS guidance for that country and category.

3. Traveling Without Proper Documentation

Travel is another area where people make costly mistakes. Some individuals believe that a pending immigration case by itself protects them if they leave the United States. Others believe they can return using documents that do not actually authorize reentry.

For adjustment of status applicants, USCIS states that if an applicant fails to obtain advance parole before departing the United States, USCIS deems the adjustment application abandoned.[5]

USCIS also makes clear that advance parole does not guarantee reentry into the United States.[6]

This is one of the most painful mistakes because it can interrupt a pending case and create serious complications at the border. Before leaving the United States, a person should review whether travel is permitted in that specific case and whether a particular travel document is required.

Quick Practical Tips

If you are dealing with an immigration matter in 2026, a few simple habits can protect you from bigger problems later.

Keep copies of your most important documents with you.
If you go out regularly, it is wise to have a copy of a photo ID, any current immigration receipt notice, work permit, or other proof of lawful process or status that applies to your case.

Open every government letter immediately.
Do not leave USCIS, DHS, or immigration court notices sitting unopened. A short deadline can become a serious problem very quickly.

Check before you travel.
Do not assume a pending case allows you to leave and return safely. Travel rules depend on the exact type of case and document involved.

Verify filing fees before sending anything.
Never rely on an old screenshot, an old checklist, or what someone else paid before. Check the current USCIS fee schedule first.

Get legal guidance early if something looks unclear.
Waiting rarely makes an immigration problem easier. Early review can help prevent mistakes that are much harder to fix later.

4. Ignoring USCIS, DHS, or Immigration Court Notices

Ignoring a government notice is one of the most damaging mistakes a person can make. USCIS explains that Requests for Evidence and Notices of Intent to Deny come with response deadlines, and USCIS states that the maximum response time for a NOID is 30 days.[7]

EOIR also states that respondents must update their contact information with the immigration court or Board of Immigration Appeals within five working days of a change.[8]

That means a missed notice can become a missed deadline, a denial, or a missed hearing. Government correspondence should always be treated as time-sensitive.

5. Delaying Legal Advice Until the Situation Becomes Urgent

A final mistake I see too often is waiting too long to get legal advice. Immigration law is highly procedural. Once a deadline passes, a filing is rejected, a hearing is missed, or a travel mistake is made, the situation can become much harder to fix.

The official government sources themselves show how deadline-driven immigration cases are. USCIS sets response windows for important notices, and EOIR requires prompt updates to contact information so respondents do not miss official correspondence.[7][8]

That is why early legal review matters. In many cases, prompt advice can help prevent a rejection, clarify travel risks, confirm document validity, or explain what a notice really means before the problem grows.

Conclusion

In 2026, some of the most serious immigration problems begin with very ordinary mistakes: filing with the wrong fee, assuming TPS auto-renews, traveling without proper documentation, ignoring notices, or delaying legal advice.

These are often preventable problems. But they are preventable only if people are working with current, accurate information. Immigration law does not reward assumptions. It rewards careful attention to detail and timely action.

If you or a loved one may be affected by one of these issues, this is a good time to review your situation carefully before taking the next step.

Disclaimer:

This article is provided for general educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration law changes frequently, and every case depends on its own facts. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. To schedule a confidential consultation, call 305-671-0018.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does USCIS reject a filing if I use the wrong fee?

It can. USCIS requires applicants to use the correct current fee, and using the wrong amount can create filing problems, including rejection.[1][2]

Does TPS always automatically extend my work permit?

No. Automatic extensions depend on official government action, the country involved, and the specific notice in effect.[3][4]

Can I travel if I have a pending immigration application?

Not always. For adjustment of status applicants, USCIS states that departing without advance parole can result in the application being deemed abandoned. USCIS also states that advance parole does not guarantee reentry.[5][6]

What happens if I miss a government notice?

That depends on the notice, but it can lead to missed deadlines, denials, or missed hearing information. USCIS and EOIR both make clear that deadlines and updated contact information are important.[7][8]

How quickly do I need to update my address with immigration court?

EOIR states that respondents must update their contact information within five working days of the change.[8]

[1] USCIS, USCIS Announces FY 2026 Inflation Increase for Certain Immigration-Related Fees: https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/alerts/uscis-announces-fy-2026-inflation-increase-for-certain-immigration-related-fees

[2] USCIS, Form G-1055, Fee Schedule / Forms Updates: https://www.uscis.gov/g-1055
and https://www.uscis.gov/forms/forms-updates?items_per_page=50

[3] USCIS, Temporary Protected Status: https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/temporary-protected-status

[4] USCIS, Update: Ninth Circuit Court Order TPS Venezuela: https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/form-i-9-related-news/update-ninth-circuit-court-order-tps-venezuela
and https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/form-i-9-related-news/update-ninth-circuit-court-order-tps-venezuela-0

[5] USCIS Policy Manual, Chapter 12 – Travel Outside the United States: https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-3-part-b-chapter-12

[6] USCIS, Keeping Families Together: https://www.uscis.gov/keepingfamiliestogether

[7] USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 1, Part E, Chapter 6 and related USCIS policy text on NOID response times: https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-1-part-e-chapter-6
and https://www.uscis.gov/es/book/export/html/68600

[8] EOIR Respondent Access, Change Contact Info: https://respondentaccess.eoir.justice.gov/en/

The post 5 Immigration Mistakes That Could Hurt Your Case in 2026 appeared first on Arias Villa Law.

A Federal Judge Blocks Third-Country Deportations

Martha Arias — Sat, 28 Feb 2026 00:28:10 +0000

Yesterday, I spoke with journalist Orian Brito about a very important federal court decision issued in Massachusetts on February 25. The judge halted a key deportation practice: sending immigrants to a third country without first attempting removal to the country listed on the final order of removal, and without giving the person meaningful notice and a real opportunity to object.

This matters because it is not only a legal issue — it is a due process issue.

FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA

SPANISH TRANSCRIPT | ENGLISH TRANSLATION

What the judge said (in practical terms)

The decision explains that when someone has a final order of deportation, that order typically specifies where the government must remove the person, and sometimes also lists an alternative country. The problem addressed by the judge is that, under the policy being challenged, people could be sent to completely different countries — places where they have no ties, no support network, and in many cases, serious fear of harm.

The court found that this policy was being applied without meaningful notice and without a real chance to challenge the removal to a third country. In other words, a person could be placed on a path toward being sent somewhere unexpected, without time to prepare or defend themselves.

The 15-day window

The judge’s order includes a 15-day pause, which means that for a limited period, the government could still attempt to continue implementing this policy while the case progresses. After that, we must watch what happens next, including whether there is an appeal and whether additional court orders follow.

A practical step for people in detention

For those who are detained — especially those who do not have a lawyer — I shared a very practical recommendation: put your fear in writing immediately. Even a handwritten letter is better than silence. If you fear being sent to a third country, communicate that fear clearly and document your objection.

In the interview, I referenced the case name as: DVD v. Department of Homeland Security (D–V–D).

Domestic travel while you have a case pending

Orian also raised a question many people are asking right now: “Can I travel within the United States if I have a pending case, like asylum?” My recommendation remains cautious: if the trip is not urgent, avoid travel for now. Enforcement activity has been increasing and can be unpredictable. If travel is unavoidable, it is important to carry proof of your pending case and any valid documentation you have.

A final reminder about social media

We also discussed something that too many people underestimate: social media matters. Immigration processes — including consular matters — can involve review of online presence. Even if someone deletes a post, it may still be retrievable. I strongly recommend staying respectful, avoiding threats or violent language, and treating every post as permanent.

If you have questions about your situation, please do not rely on rumors or “what happened to a friend.” Every case is different, and a small detail can change the outcome.

Contact my office:

Office: (305) 671-0018
WhatsApp: (305) 233-3110

Legal disclaimer: This post is general information and does not create an attorney-client relationship. For legal advice, you must schedule a consultation and receive guidance based on your specific facts.

Spanish Transcript

ORIAN BRITO:
Hola, hoy es un buen día, amigos. Gracias por estar allí, por conectarse con este espacio. Así que los invito a todos a que se conecten porque hay buenas noticias. Un juez federal en Massachusetts acaba de frenar una práctica clave en materia de deportaciones. La corte dictaminó que el gobierno de Trump no puede enviar inmigrantes a un tercer país sin antes intentar deportarlos al país que figura en su orden final de expulsión y sin otorgarles la oportunidad de defenderse.

La decisión de este juez establece que las autoridades deben dar una notificación sustancial antes de cualquier expulsión a un tercer país. Recordemos que hay varios… Ecuador, incluso países de África, que están en la lista, garantizando así el debido proceso y la posibilidad de impugnar la deportación.

¿Qué significa eso en la práctica? ¿A quién protege esta decisión? Puede cambiar la forma en la que se está ejecutando las deportaciones actualmente. Hoy me acompaña la abogada de inmigración Martha Arias, que me alegra muchísimo tenerla. Tenía días buscándola, pero bueno, ha estado muy full; se logró y aquí estamos. Abogada, un placer.

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Gracias, Orian. Un saludo para usted y toda su audiencia. Y sí, bueno, un poco ocupadita. Como dicen en Colombia, palabra que me parece chistosa, “un poco escasa, pero aquí estoy”.

ORIAN BRITO:
Bueno, pero está…

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Esa es una palabra cómica para aplicarla a las personas.

ORIAN BRITO:
Y aplica cuando las personas están bastante ocupadas, cuando ya… Y por supuesto, estos cambios en materia migratoria tienen a muchos profesionales como usted corriendo de aquí para allá con sus clientes. Pero me alegra que hoy nos reencontremos con una buena noticia. ¿Cómo evalúa la decisión de este juez y cómo podría impactar a esos migrantes que tienen orden de deportación, por ejemplo?

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
A ver, ¿cómo puede impactar a los que tienen orden de deportación, dice usted?

ORIAN BRITO:
Sí, y sobre todo, bueno, recordemos que también esta estrategia de que migrantes vayan a un tercer país también, y usted puede corregirme, afectaba a las personas que están solicitando asilo, que los llevaban a un tercer país a esperar.

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Exacto. Bueno, ¿cómo los afecta? En este momento lo que hizo este juez de Massachusetts del día de ayer, febrero 25, como usted lo dijo, fue número uno, anular esa política administrativa actual de DHS, Department of Homeland Security, de ICE, de deportar personas a terceros países. La anula. Sin embargo, da una pausa de 15 días. Es decir, dentro de los próximos 15 días, a partir de esta decisión, el gobierno puede implementar o continuar implementando esta política. Después de 15 días, vamos a ver si se apela y si se daría una medida cautelar mientras está la apelación.

Entonces, en 15 días podemos ver todavía estas deportaciones. Después de 15 días vamos a esperar a ver. La buena noticia, como dice usted, es que la política es anulada. A ver, ¿cuáles son las razones por las que el juez anula esta política? Hay dos cosas importantes. Una, la considera ilegal y dos, inconstitucional. Ilegal porque viola derecho a ley federal. E inconstitucional, obviamente, porque viola la Constitución y específicamente el debido proceso.

La orden dice el juez que a estas personas no se les da una notificación significativa de que van a ser deportados a un tercer país, eso es lo primero. Lo segundo es que tampoco se les da una oportunidad real de desafiar u objetar esa remoción a un tercer país; y ahí es donde no sé si quiere que le explique… La situación que está pasando con estas deportaciones a terceros países, como usted lo dijo, es si una persona tiene una deportación porque ha tenido una deportación de tiempo atrás y lo coge a ICE, pues lo puede deportar no a su país, sino a ese tercer país. Como usted bien lo dijo, muchas personas que están aplicando para asilo, tenían un asilo pendiente, también pues obtenían esta deportación o lo podían deportar a terceros países.

¿Qué pasa, Orian? Cuando una persona tiene una orden final de deportación, la orden final de deportación dice el juez a dónde se va a deportar la persona y si hay un país alternativo. Le doy un ejemplo: una persona va y pide asilo. La persona es, por decir algo, de Venezuela. El juez dice: se ordena la deportación a Venezuela y en el alternativo a Italia, si la persona también es ciudadana de Italia. Y si fuera así, si no se ordena a Venezuela, ¿qué pasa? Pues viene y coge esta persona y la manda para Sudán, para Uganda, por allá, al fin del mundo. Eso es una.

No tiene contacto, no tiene lazos, ni nunca ha estado en Uganda o en Sudáfrica o en no sé dónde y la está mandando para allá. Pero el juez cuando ordenó la deportación dijo que la persona era deportada a Venezuela. Entonces ahí ya tenemos un problema, porque es que el juez no dijo que la deportaran a Sudáfrica, Uganda o al fin del mundo. Dijo: deporten a Venezuela o en el alternativo a X país.

Entonces ahí tenemos un problema porque se está violando la ley, la ley dice que la persona debe ser deportada a ese país.

Segundo, la persona tiene derecho a objetar o a que se le dé notificación. Entonces, si a la persona la cogen y la mandan para Uganda sin que le diga: “Mire, señor fulano, a usted no lo van a mandar para Venezuela, lo van a mandar al fin del mundo”, esa persona tiene derecho a decir: “No, es que a mí me van a matar en el fin del mundo también o tengo miedo de ir al fin del mundo, ¿sabe qué?, mándeme para Venezuela”.

Esa es… sencillamente no es ni siquiera que el gobierno está diciendo… este gobierno está diciendo: “usted no lo puede deportar”. En términos generales lo que está diciendo es: se le debe dar notificación con anterioridad significativa y se le debe dar la oportunidad a que objete.

Eso es lo que da esta decisión. Las agencias sin ánimo de lucro que están demandando estos casos son agencias que están haciendo, vamos a decir, todo el trabajo, poniendo el músculo, como dicen en inglés, para ayudar a los inmigrantes en esta situación tan difícil como son las deportaciones a terceros países.

ORIAN BRITO:
¿Por qué se utilizaba esto como política? Y me llama la atención su apreciación porque fíjese, por ejemplo, en el caso de países como Venezuela existe ya una conexión y una deportación que no sólo se ha intensificado desde la salida o la captura de Nicolás Maduro, sino previamente veíamos el envío de migrantes. De hecho hay un plan que se llama, en Venezuela lo llaman “Vuelta a la Patria”, algo así, que los reciben con bombos y platillos, con videos, con regalos, etcétera. ¿Por qué, por ejemplo, un migrante… se toma esta decisión de que vaya a un tercer país? ¿Es inclusivamente porque su país no lo acepta o es una política que busca más como marcar un precedente de los riesgos que puedes acarrear si estás aquí en el país y enfrentas una orden de deportación o tienes un asilo pendiente?

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Pueden ser varias de esas razones que usted menciona. Por ejemplo, le voy a leer exactamente, la decisión del juez dice: esto aplica para personas que estén en deportaciones bajo la sección 240, que es un proceso de deportación regular; bajo la deportación 241, que son los que están en expedited removal, que están poniendo ahora en expedited removal; y 238, personas que están, por ejemplo, en withholding of removal o withholding-only cases. ¿Qué quiere decir eso? Mire, hay personas que… le doy un ejemplo práctico para que la gente entienda, porque es bastante técnico, pero les puedo explicar muy sencillito.

Si una persona entró a los Estados Unidos hace 30 años y hace cinco años, con esta maravilla de notario, de paralegal o de defraudador, que le dijo: “No, venga, usted sí califica para un asilo”, y le presenta una petición de asilo…

Si esa persona entra en una petición de asilo después de estar ya hace 25, 30 años acá, esa petición, lo único que puede entrar es como se la van a negar y lo van a mandar a la corte, y la persona puede pedir un withholding of removal. O puede ser también personas que ya tienen una deportación y surgió la posibilidad de pedir un withholding, que es un beneficio para quedarse en el país porque su vida corre peligro en el país de origen.

Entonces, esta decisión aplica a cualquier persona que esté en esas circunstancias. Entonces, si es por ejemplo el caso de un withholding que a la persona se lo aprobaron y está… si a la persona le aprobaron un withholding quiere decir que la persona tiene una deportación, pero no la van a ejecutar, y se va a quedar aquí. La persona puede pedir permiso de trabajo, puede quedarse en los Estados Unidos. Pero el gobierno puede deportarlo a un tercer país. No lo puede deportar al país del que le dieron el withholding.

No puede regresar a Perú o a Colombia, Venezuela, qué sé yo. Pero entonces le dieron un withholding y el gobierno dice: “Ah, a mí… tú no puedes mandarme allá, pero yo te voy a mandar a Honduras o te voy a mandar a Zoda y te voy a mandar a…”

ORIAN BRITO:
Ecuador, Ecuador, que es otro país que también ha actuado, ha estado en este acuerdo de recibir inmigrantes. Guatemala también.

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Entonces, lo pueden enviar a esos terceros países, pues, aunque la persona… o aunque tenga este beneficio de lo que… Entonces es… es… es una situación un poco complicada.

ORIAN BRITO:
Bueno, pero también habla un poco de la independencia judicial que hay en el país y cuando el juez falla. Son una de las cosas ricas de esta nación. Cuando vemos decisiones que los tribunales levantan su voz y dicen: “Esto no puede ocurrir”, brindan cierta confianza al país y a la gente que está enfrentando estos procesos. ¿Qué recomendación se les puede dar? Como estamos hablando de un periodo de 15 días que todavía podemos ver estos casos, usted me lo dice, estamos a la espera, por supuesto, de la palabra clave que es apelación, donde el gobierno ya dice: “Ah, ya va, yo estoy en contra de esta decisión del juez”. ¿Cuál sería la actitud más inteligente que cualquier migrante que pueda estar pasando por este proceso debe tomar tras conocer esta decisión?

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Yo pienso que lo primero que va a hacer esa persona, sobre todo los que estén en detención, es, aunque no tengan abogado, hacer una carta, aunque sea a mano, con su puño y letra, pasársela a su deportador o al centro donde está de detención, y que diga: “Yo tengo miedo de ser enviado a un tercer país. A mí no me envíen a un tercer país. No quiero que me envíen a un tercer país”, aunque de acuerdo a este fallo lo pueden hacer dentro de los 15 días siguientes. O conseguir un abogado que lo haga.

Pero si no tiene la plata, si ya está cansado de pagar abogado o no tiene el dinero, pues haga una carta, infórmese, mándesela al deportador, trate de comunicarse con ese deportador si está todavía detenido y diga: “Yo tengo miedo de ir a ese tercer país. Yo no quiero que me deporten a un tercer país. Yo soy ciudadano de tal parte y me opongo a que me deporten a tal país y me quiero proteger con la decisión del caso del juez de Massachusetts”. Ese caso es DVD versus Department of Homeland Security. D de dedo, V de Víctor, D de dedo. DVD.

ORIAN BRITO:
Perfecto, perfecto. Muchísimas gracias por aclarar esto. Y quiero aprovechar que la tengo porque tengo preguntas que me hacen muchas personas sobre procesos que ya tienen en curso. Ejemplo, ayer una persona me decía… oye, bueno, para ser sinceros, dos me indicaban: “Oye, tengo un proceso de asilo pendiente y frente a todos los cambios que se está dando, tengo miedo de viajar, tengo miedo de montarme en un avión, aunque tengo un proceso pendiente en USCIS”.

Por otra parte, conozco gente que sí se atreve, se monta y viaja y no ha pasado nada. Enhorabuena. Me refiero a personas que tienen algún tipo de caso pendiente y me decían: “No sé qué hacer. No sé si dejarme llevar por la suerte”. Y aunque es una decisión muy particular, no sé qué hacer cuando un cliente le presenta a usted esa duda. ¿Qué le dice?

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Que no viajen. Yo les estoy recomendando a mis clientes que la verdad, si se pueden abstener de un viaje porque no sea apremiante, no sea urgente, no viajen. En este momento estamos en una situación difícil donde hay redadas en cualquier ciudad, en cualquier parte, en cualquier momento, y no sabemos cuándo le va a tocar a la persona.

Por ejemplo, recientemente, le digo, Orian, hay muchas redadas en los Cayos de aquí de la Florida. Muchas, muchas. Y en la oficina ya he tenido más de tres casos en una semana, digo, tres casos en una semana, de personas arrestadas en el sur de la Florida, en los Cayos. Los Cayos está siendo un sitio muy fácil para hacer redadas, y está pasando. Entonces las personas tienen que tener cuidado. Así como puede ser aquí en Miami en las calles, puede ser en otro… en nuestro estado. Los estados como Chicago, los estados como California, son estados donde hay muchas redadas.

En New York han parado un poquito, pero hubo muchas redadas. Entonces, mi consejo para las personas es: si su viaje no es urgente, si no es obligatorio por su trabajo, no viaje. Ahora, si es por trabajo, si es urgente, tiene que viajar: trate de viajar con sus jefes, con un grupo, trate de tener toda su documentación al día, que sería la prueba de que su asilo está pendiente, su permiso de trabajo, su licencia de conducir, su pasaporte vigente. Trate de tener toda la documentación que pruebe que la persona tiene algún tipo de estatus o está pendiente de algo, porque no creo que la situación esté tan… agradable como para que la gente esté viajando en este momento.

ORIAN BRITO:
No, yo no lo comprendo porque, por ejemplo, muchas personas aquí trabajan, todos trabajamos, quiero decir, hay momentos donde dice: “Bueno, necesito este fin de semana quizás me voy a Nueva York a disfrutar algo distinto, a disfrutar del Times Square, no sé, comerme algo, visitar un familiar que tengo en Carolina del Norte”, y vi los pasajes baratos y quiero ir a visitarlo. Entonces es una situación complicada.

Por ejemplo, yo vivo en Miami, pero hay momentos que mi Miami me ahoga. O sea, siento que voy a Kendall, subo a Fort Lauderdale y es lo mismo. Entonces siempre busco uno, uno, uno… un escape. Pero si la recomendación es esa, es importante.

Si tiene que hacer el viaje, bueno, lo ha dicho la abogada Martha Arias: lleve todos sus documentos, lleve su pasaporte, lleve su asilo pendiente y encomiende… Yo creo que me sorprende porque cuando he estado en aeropuertos recientemente todavía no he visto en el aeropuerto que se lleven a alguien. Eso no lo he visto yo. Pero claro, yo no estoy todo el día en el aeropuerto ni en los aeropuertos del país. Entonces para evitar un susto, es lo más sensato, ¿no?

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Bueno, yo le voy a decir una cosa: yo tampoco personalmente he visto a nadie siendo arrestado en un aeropuerto. Tampoco creo que lo vayan a hacer tan a la vista. Si lo hacen, de pronto lo hacen de forma más diplomática. Sin embargo, sin embargo, sí le puedo decir que hay colegas, abogados de inmigración, que me han dicho que se han bajado vuelos nacionales y al bajarse hay oficiales de ICE al bajarse del avión. Los identifican. No están con chaleco ni nada, pero son abogados que llevan años haciendo esto, identifican a ciertos oficiales, y se les han acercado y les han dicho: “¿Usted qué hace aquí? ¿Usted está trabajando?” No sé qué, y los oficiales están trabajando.

Entonces, puede que sí haya oficiales de ICE al bajar de los aviones locales. Puede que nosotros ni nadie hayamos visto nada porque no están con chalecos, no están marcados.

ORIAN BRITO:
Sí, sí, sí, era lo que yo le decía. Es que yo le decía a una amiga —y lo digo con parte de esa conversación— yo le decía ayer: “Bueno, es que conozco gente que había viajado…” y en más gente que no tiene estatus y que puede salir sin problemas, gente con asilo pendiente y ha viajado. No puedo reportar que en la práctica yo haya recibido más… Si alguien ve este video y me dice: “Sí, estuve en este aeropuerto y la situación es complicada”, le agradezco eso. Nutre, brinda información de cómo se está viviendo porque no tenemos los ojos en los 50 estados.

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Eso es lo que ve la gente: empezar a dar esa información.

ORIAN BRITO:
Claro, para conocer dónde está el sorteo, o sea, es decir, en qué aeropuerto donde se ve mayor presencia de estos oficiales y así la gente que esté en una situación vulnerable evite algún tipo de situación compleja. Es lo que podemos decir por ahora.

Abogada, me gustaría que dé un número de contacto, por supuesto, porque en estos momentos donde es importante tener algo que te ate al país —y ojo, cuando digo algo que te ate, quiero decir hay muchas alternativas; no tiene que ser exclusivamente el asilo— de repente hay una empresa que te quiere pedir, de repente tienes una… no sé, hay muchos trámites. Yo no soy abogado, pero tiene que sentarse con uno para que le explique cuál es el mejor camino, y usted yo sé que puede orientar.

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Efectivamente, pues varias cosas. Uno, mi página web es www.ariasvilla.com
. Arias, mi apellido; Villa, todo junto; AriasVilla… el nombre del bufete de abogados: AriasVilla.com. El teléfono es (305) 671-0018. Ese es el teléfono de la oficina. Y hay otro número que es (305) 233-3110; es el celular de la oficina donde pueden llamar, incluso que si están en otra parte pueden contactarnos por WhatsApp: (305) 233-3110. Y AriasVilla.com. En Instagram estamos como @Martha_Arias98.

ORIAN BRITO:
Además, la abogada Martha Arias preside… Yo sé que sus opiniones en este espacio —y lo aclaro— tiene que ver con su experiencia como abogada, pero ya preside en la asociación de abogados de inmigración, ¿no?

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Correcto. Mi término es 25-26. También, oye, mi término pronto… en mayo.

ORIAN BRITO:
¿Estás satisfecha con el trabajo que se ha hecho?

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Sí, mucho. Estoy muy satisfecha con mi trabajo. La mayoría de la membresía me ha expresado su gratitud.

ORIAN BRITO:
Sí, yo he escuchado, yo he preguntado a colega suyo y me dice: “Sí, no, ya está allí trabajando activamente”, y le tiene mucho aprecio, me lo han dicho.

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Exactamente. Así que bueno, habrá alguno que otro que de pronto no le gustamos, como toda la vida. Pero el grupo, la mayoría, sí, están todos muy contentos. Y bueno, yo también estoy muy satisfecha con mi labor.

ORIAN BRITO:
Igual aquí me pasa lo mismo en este canal: hay mucha gente muy amable que me mandó un correo, lo agradece, me deja bendiciones, lo valoro. Me escriben por Instagram también cuando por aquí no respondo y buenísimo. Y hay otros u otras personas que, bueno, se me quieren poner casi que en el paredón, pero bueno, es parte de la vida, es parte de la vida. No pasa nada.

Yo acepto lo que sí acepto: son las críticas constructivas. A gusto, pongo una banderita aquí para que se vea algo. Pues bueno, esto lo quiero condicionar para que por supuesto se crezca mucho más. Pero hay gente que me pide: “Pon una banderita para que no sea tan blanco”, o “Deja hablar más”. Esas críticas… yo las acepto. Ya cuando me quieren para el paredón, ya la cosa cambia.

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Exacto. Sí. O sea, todo lo que es positivo vale. Y lo que yo considero siempre también lo tomo así: es en las redes sociales, todos, todos, no importa quién, todos tenemos que tener cuidado con lo que publicamos, porque en las redes sociales nada desaparece. Aunque las personas borren lo que escribieron, en el futuro eso le puede causar un problema.

Y aprovecho esa oportunidad también para decirlo porque, por ejemplo, usted sabe muy bien que la inmigración y sobre todo el Departamento de Estado está pidiendo la información de las redes sociales de las personas, y la persona cree que no va a pasar nada o que si borra no va a existir. Claro, lo que queda en las redes va a quedar y las redes sociales es un gran mecanismo de investigación de las autoridades. Sean más cuidadosos, sobre todo personas que ponen comentarios violentos o amenazantes, porque aunque se estén desahogando… en el futuro esa información no sabe si le va a salir, le va a ser perjudicial.

ORIAN BRITO:
Y al final hay que tener responsabilidad con todo lo que hacemos. Hay que tener responsabilidad al momento de actuar. Podemos expresar abiertamente nuestro desacuerdo con algunas cosas. No pasa absolutamente nada. Yo lo hago: cuando algo no me gusta digo: “No estoy de acuerdo con esto”, “Esto sí lo apoyo”, pero siempre tiene que hacerse con responsabilidad y respeto. Las dos ERRES son fundamentales.

No, al momento: “No estoy de acuerdo con esta precisión”, perfecto, “No estoy de acuerdo”, pero ya aprovechar… y además que la gente es muy valiente cuando está a través de una red, pero frente a frente no creo que exista la misma… el mismo guáramo, como dicen en Venezuela, el embalentonamiento para tratar, ser embalentonado y atacar al otro. Pero bueno, es lo que hay. Hay que tener responsabilidad.

Y parte de esa responsabilidad implica, amigos, que si usted tiene alguna duda, consulte con un profesional. No tenga miedo, tenga la confianza, actúe con certeza. Los pasos firmes son en este momento fundamentales para evitar cualquier tipo de complicación.

Deje sus preguntas, comentarios. Igualmente está el contacto de la abogada Martha Arias, abogada de inmigración, para que usted, si tiene alguna duda, pues se comunique con ella. Y ahí está en su oficina, como la pueden ver, esperándolo para que usted lo atienda. Muchas gracias.

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Gracias a usted, Orian.

ORIAN BRITO:
Y no se me pierda, que yo sé que estamos y que vamos a tratar de conectarnos un poquito más. A ustedes un fuerte abrazo y gracias. Será hasta la próxima. Cuídense mucho.

English Translation

ORIAN BRITO:
Hello, today is a good day, friends. Thank you for being there, for connecting with this space. So I invite everyone to connect because there is good news. A federal judge in Massachusetts has just stopped a key practice in deportations. The court ruled that the Trump administration cannot send immigrants to a third country without first trying to deport them to the country listed in their final order of removal and without giving them the opportunity to defend themselves.

The decision by this judge establishes that the authorities must give substantial notice before any removal to a third country. Let’s remember that there are several… Ecuador, even countries in Africa, that are on the list, thus guaranteeing due process and the possibility of challenging the deportation.

What does that mean in practice? Who does this decision protect? It can change the way deportations are currently being carried out. Today I am joined by immigration attorney Martha Arias, and I am very happy to have her. I had been looking for her for days, but well, she has been very busy; we managed it and here we are. Attorney, a pleasure.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Thank you, Orian. Greetings to you and your entire audience. And yes, well, a bit busy. As they say in Colombia, a word that I find funny, “un poco escasa, pero aquí estoy” (“I’ve been a little busy, but here I am.”)

ORIAN BRITO:
Well, but you are…

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
That is a comical word to apply to people.

ORIAN BRITO:
And it applies when people are quite busy, when already… And of course, these changes in immigration matters have many professionals like you running from here to there with your clients. But I’m glad that today we reconnect with good news. How do you evaluate this judge’s decision and how could it impact those migrants who have a deportation order, for example?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Let’s see, how can it impact those who have a deportation order, you say?

ORIAN BRITO:
Yes, and above all, well, let’s remember that this strategy of sending migrants to a third country as well, and you can correct me, also affected people who are requesting asylum, that they would take them to a third country to wait.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Exactly. Well, how does it affect them? At this moment, what this Massachusetts judge did yesterday, February 25, as you said, was, number one, to overturn that current administrative policy of DHS, Department of Homeland Security, of ICE, of deporting people to third countries. He overturns it. However, he gives a pause of 15 days. That is, within the next 15 days, starting from this decision, the government can implement or continue implementing this policy. After 15 days, we will see if it is appealed and whether an injunction would be granted while the appeal is pending.

So, in 15 days we can still see these deportations. After 15 days we will wait and see. The good news, as you say, is that the policy is overturned. Now, what are the reasons the judge overturns this policy? There are two important things. One, he considers it illegal, and two, unconstitutional. Illegal because it violates federal law. And unconstitutional, obviously, because it violates the Constitution and specifically due process.

The order says, the judge says, that these people are not given meaningful notice that they are going to be deported to a third country; that is the first thing. The second is that they are also not given a real opportunity to challenge or object to that removal to a third country; and that is where I don’t know if you want me to explain… The situation that is happening with these deportations to third countries, as you said, is that if a person has a deportation because they have had a deportation from a long time ago and ICE catches them, well, they can deport them not to their country, but to that third country. As you said, many people who are applying for asylum, who had a pending asylum, also then received this deportation or could be deported to third countries.

What happens, Orian? When a person has a final order of deportation, the final order of deportation says, the judge says, where the person is to be deported to and if there is an alternative country. I’ll give you an example: a person goes and asks for asylum. The person is, for example, from Venezuela. The judge says: deportation is ordered to Venezuela and, alternatively, to Italy, if the person is also a citizen of Italy. And if it were like that, if it is not ordered to Venezuela, what happens? Well, they come and take this person and send them to Sudan, to Uganda, out there, to the end of the world. That is one.

They have no contact, they have no ties, they have never been in Uganda or in South Africa or in I don’t know where, and they are sending them there. But the judge, when he ordered the deportation, said the person was deported to Venezuela. So there we already have a problem, because the judge did not say to deport them to South Africa, Uganda, or the end of the world. He said: deport to Venezuela, or alternatively to X country.

So there we have a problem because the law is being violated; the law says the person must be deported to that country.

Second, the person has the right to object or to be given notice. So, if they take the person and send them to Uganda without telling them: “Look, Mr. so-and-so, they are not going to send you to Venezuela; they are going to send you to the end of the world,” that person has the right to say: “No, it’s that they will kill me at the end of the world too,” or “I am afraid to go to the end of the world; you know what, send me to Venezuela.”

That is… essentially it is not even that the government is saying… this government is saying: “You cannot deport them.” In general terms, what it is saying is: they must be given notice with meaningful advance time and they must be given the opportunity to object.

That is what this decision gives. The nonprofit agencies that are suing these cases are agencies that are doing, let’s say, all the work, putting in the muscle, as they say in English, to help immigrants in this very difficult situation, which is deportations to third countries.

ORIAN BRITO:
Why was this used as a policy? And your view catches my attention because look, for example, in the case of countries like Venezuela there is already a connection and a deportation that has not only intensified since the exit or the capture of Nicolás Maduro, but previously we were seeing the sending of migrants. In fact, there is a plan that is called, in Venezuela they call it “Return to the Homeland,” something like that, where they receive them with fanfare, with videos, with gifts, etcetera. Why, for example, would a migrant… would this decision be made that they go to a third country? Is it even because their country does not accept them, or is it a policy that seeks more to mark a precedent of the risks you can face if you are here in the country and you face a deportation order or you have a pending asylum?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
It can be several of those reasons you mention. For example, I am going to read you exactly: the judge’s decision says this applies to people who are in deportations under section 240, which is a regular deportation process; under deportation 241, which are the ones that are in expedited removal, that they are now placing in expedited removal; and 238, people who are, for example, in withholding of removal or withholding-only cases. What does that mean? Look, there are people who… I will give a practical example so people understand, because it is quite technical, but I can explain it very simply.

If a person entered the United States 30 years ago and five years ago, with this wonderful notary, paralegal, or fraudster, who told them: “No, come, you do qualify for asylum,” and files an asylum application for them…

If that person files an asylum application after already being here 25, 30 years, that application, the only thing that can happen is that they are going to deny it and send them to court, and the person can request withholding of removal. Or it can also be people who already have a deportation and the possibility arose to request withholding, which is a benefit to remain in the country because their life is in danger in the country of origin.

So, this decision applies to anyone who is in those circumstances. So, if it is for example the case of a withholding that was approved for the person and is… if the person was approved for withholding, it means the person has a deportation, but they are not going to execute it, and they are going to stay here. The person can request a work permit, can stay in the United States. But the government can deport them to a third country. It cannot deport them to the country from which they were granted withholding.

They cannot go back to Peru or to Colombia, Venezuela, who knows. But then they were given withholding and the government says: “Ah, to me… you cannot send me there, but I will send you to Honduras or I will send you to Zoda and I will send you to…”

ORIAN BRITO:
Ecuador, Ecuador, which is another country that has also acted, has been in this agreement to receive immigrants. Guatemala as well.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
So, they can send them to those third countries, well, even though the person… or even though they have this benefit of what… So it is, it is, it is a situation a bit complicated.

ORIAN BRITO:
Well, but it also speaks a bit about the judicial independence that exists in the country and when the judge rules. They are one of the rich things of this nation. When we see decisions where the courts raise their voice and say, “This cannot happen,” they provide a certain confidence to the country and to the people who are facing these processes. What recommendation can be given to them? Since we are talking about a period of 15 days in which we can still see these cases, you tell me, we are waiting, of course, for the key word which is appeal, where the government already says, “Ah, hold on, I am against this judge’s decision.” What would be the smartest attitude that any migrant who may be going through this process should take after learning of this decision?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
I think the first thing that person is going to do, especially those who are in detention, is, even if they do not have a lawyer, to make a letter, even handwritten, with their own hand, give it to their deportation officer or to the detention center where they are, and that it says: “I am afraid of being sent to a third country. Do not send me to a third country. I do not want to be sent to a third country,” even though according to this ruling they can do it within the next 15 days. Or get a lawyer to do it.

But if they do not have the money, if they are already tired of paying a lawyer or do not have the money, then make a letter, inform yourself, send it to the deportation officer, try to communicate with that deportation officer if you are still detained and say: “I am afraid to go to that third country. I do not want to be deported to a third country. I am a citizen of such-and-such place and I object to being deported to such-and-such country and I want to protect myself with the decision in the Massachusetts judge case.” That case is DVD versus Department of Homeland Security. D as in finger, V as in Victor, D as in finger. DVD.

ORIAN BRITO:
Perfect, perfect. Thank you very much for clarifying this. And I want to take advantage since I have you because I have questions that many people ask me about processes they already have underway. Example, yesterday a person was telling me… hey, well, to be honest, two were telling me: “Hey, I have a pending asylum process and faced with all the changes that are happening, I am afraid to travel, I am afraid to get on a plane, even though I have a pending process in USCIS.”

On the other hand, I know people who do dare, they get on and travel and nothing has happened. Great. I am referring to people who have some kind of pending case and they told me: “I don’t know what to do. I don’t know whether to let myself be guided by luck.” And although it is a very particular decision, I don’t know what to do when a client presents you with that doubt. What do you tell them?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
That they should not travel. I am recommending to my clients that honestly, if they can refrain from a trip because it is not pressing, it is not urgent, they should not travel. Right now we are in a difficult situation where there are raids in any city, anywhere, at any moment, and we do not know when it will be that person’s turn.

For example, recently, I tell you, Orian, there are many raids in the Keys here in Florida. Many, many. And in the office I have already had more than three cases in one week, I mean three cases in one week, of people arrested in South Florida in the Keys. The Keys is becoming a very easy place to do raids, and it is happening. So people have to be careful. Just as it can be here in Miami on the streets, it can be in another… in our state. States like Chicago, states like California, are states where there are many raids.

In New York they have slowed down a little, but there were many raids. So my advice to people is: if your trip is not urgent, if it is not mandatory for your work, do not travel. Now, if it is for work, if it is urgent, you have to travel: try to travel with your bosses, with a group, try to have all your documentation up to date, which would be proof that your asylum is pending, your work permit, your driver’s license, your valid passport. Try to have all the documentation that proves the person has some kind of status or has something pending, because I do not think the situation is that… pleasant for people to be traveling at this moment.

ORIAN BRITO:
No, I understand it because, for example, many people here work, we all work, I mean, there are moments where you say, “Well I need this weekend, maybe I go to New York to enjoy something different, to enjoy Times Square, I don’t know, eat something, visit a relative I have in North Carolina,” and I saw cheap tickets and I want to go visit. So it’s a complicated situation.

For example, I live in Miami, but there are moments when my Miami suffocates me. I mean, I feel like I go to Kendall, I go up to Fort Lauderdale and it’s the same. So I always look for an escape. But if the recommendation is that, it is important.

If you have to make the trip, well, attorney Martha Arias has said it: bring all your documents, bring your passport, bring your pending asylum and entrust yourself… I think it surprises me because when I have been in airports recently, I still haven’t seen at the airport that they take someone away. I haven’t seen that. But of course, I am not at the airport all day nor in all the airports in the country. So to avoid a scare, it is the most sensible thing, right?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Well, I will tell you one thing: I also personally have not seen anyone being arrested at an airport. I also don’t think they are going to do it so visibly. If they do it, perhaps they do it in a more diplomatic way. However, however, I can tell you that there are colleagues, immigration attorneys, who have told me that they have gotten off domestic flights and when getting off there are ICE officers when they get off the plane. They identify them. They are not wearing vests or anything, but they are attorneys who have been doing this for years, they identify certain officers, and they have approached them and told them, “What are you doing here? Are you working?” I don’t know what, and the officers are working.

So, it may be that there are ICE officers when getting off local flights. It may be that neither we nor anyone has seen anything because they are not wearing vests, they are not marked.

ORIAN BRITO:
Yes, yes, yes, that’s what I was telling you. It’s that I was telling a friend —and I say it as part of that conversation— I was telling her yesterday: “Well, it’s that I know people who had traveled…” and more people who don’t have status and who can go out without problems, people with pending asylum and they have traveled. I cannot report that in practice I have received more… If someone watches this video and tells me, “Yes, I was at this airport and the situation is complicated,” I appreciate that. It feeds, it provides information on how it is being lived because we do not have eyes in all 50 states.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
That is what people see: starting to give that information.

ORIAN BRITO:
Of course, to know where the draw is, meaning, in which airport where there is greater presence of these officers, and thus people who are in a vulnerable situation avoid some kind of complex situation. That is what we can say for now.

Attorney, I would like you to give a contact number, of course, because in these moments where it is important to have something that ties you to the country —and attention, when I say something that ties you, I mean there are many alternatives; it does not have to be exclusively asylum— maybe there is a company that wants to petition you, maybe you have a… I don’t know, there are many procedures. I am not a lawyer, but you have to sit down with one so they can explain what the best path is, and I know you can guide.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Exactly, well, several things. One, my website is www.ariasvilla.com
. Arias, my last name, Villa all together; AriasVilla… the name of the law firm: AriasVilla.com. The phone is (305) 671-0018. That is the office phone. And there is another number which is (305) 233-3110; it is the office cell where you can call, and even if you are elsewhere you can contact us by WhatsApp: (305) 233-3110. And AriasVilla.com. On Instagram we are @Martha_Arias98.

ORIAN BRITO:
Also, attorney Martha Arias presides… I know that your opinions in this space —and I clarify it— have to do with your experience as an attorney, but you already preside in the immigration attorneys association, right?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Correct. My term is 25-26. Also, hey, my term soon… in May.

ORIAN BRITO:
Are you satisfied with the work that has been done?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Yes, very much. I am very satisfied with my work. The majority of the membership has expressed their gratitude to me.

ORIAN BRITO:
Yes, I have heard it, I have asked a colleague of yours and he tells me, “Yes, no, she is already there working actively,” and they have a lot of appreciation for you, they have told me.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Exactly. So well, there will be one or another who maybe doesn’t like us, like in all of life. But the group, the majority, yes, they are all very happy. And well, I am also very satisfied with my work.

ORIAN BRITO:
The same happens to me here on this channel: there are many very kind people who sent me an email, they thank me, they leave me blessings, I value it. They write to me on Instagram too when I don’t respond here, and great. And there are other people who, well, they want to almost put me before a firing squad, but well, it’s part of life, it’s part of life. Nothing happens.

I accept what I do accept: constructive criticism. With pleasure, I put a little flag here so that something can be seen. Well, I want to condition that so that of course it grows much more. But there are people who ask me, “Put a little flag so it won’t be so white,” or “Let people talk more,” or those criticisms… I accept them. When they want to put me before a firing squad, that’s when things change.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Exactly. Yes. I mean, everything that is positive is worth it, and what I always consider, I also take it that way: on social media, everyone, everyone, no matter who, we all have to be careful with what we publish, because on social media nothing disappears. Even if people delete what they wrote, in the future that can cause them a problem.

And I take advantage of that opportunity also to say it because, for example, you know very well that immigration, and especially the Department of State, is asking for people’s social media information, and the person thinks nothing will happen or that if they delete it, it won’t exist. Of course, what remains on social media will remain, and social media is a great investigation mechanism for the authorities. Be more careful, especially people who post violent or threatening comments, because even if they are venting… in the future that information, you don’t know if it will come up, it will be harmful.

ORIAN BRITO:
And in the end we have to have responsibility with everything we do. We have to have responsibility at the moment of acting. We can openly express our disagreement with some things. Nothing happens at all. I do it: when I don’t like something I say, “I don’t agree with this,” “I do support this,” but it always has to be done with responsibility and respect. The two R’s are fundamental.

No, at the moment: “I don’t agree with this point,” perfect, “I don’t agree,” but then to take advantage… and also people are very brave when they are behind a network, but face to face I don’t think the same exists, the same “guáramo,” as they say in Venezuela, the boldness to try to be emboldened and attack the other. But well, that’s what there is. We have to have responsibility.

And part of that responsibility implies, friends, that if you have any doubt, consult a professional. Do not be afraid, have confidence, act with certainty. Firm steps are at this moment fundamental to avoid any type of complication.

Leave your questions, comments. Likewise, there is the contact for attorney Martha Arias, immigration attorney, so that if you have any doubt, you contact her. And there she is in her office, as you can see her, waiting for you so that she can assist you. Thank you very much.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Thank you, Orian.

ORIAN BRITO:
And don’t disappear on me, because I know we are here and we are going to try to connect a bit more. A big hug to you all and thank you. Until next time. Take good care.

The post A Federal Judge Blocks Third-Country Deportations appeared first on Arias Villa Law.

TPS for Venezuelans After the Court Decision

Martha Arias — Wed, 04 Feb 2026 18:58:09 +0000

What This Means in Real Life and What You Should Do Next

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to speak on Unión Radio Noticias with journalist—and fellow attorney—Eduardo Rodríguez Giolitti, to discuss the current legal landscape for Venezuelans after the most recent federal court decision related to TPS.

During our conversation, I emphasized one key point: even though TPS is not currently in effect as it was before, the litigation surrounding its termination has continued to produce important legal consequences. In practical terms, one of the most meaningful impacts of this decision appears in detention situations, particularly when a person may need to request habeas corpus relief. When someone with TPS history is detained, a decision like this can become a valuable legal tool to challenge detention and protect due process rights.

We also discussed how politics and diplomacy can influence legal strategy. In my view, one realistic possibility—especially considering shifting conditions and diplomatic dynamics—is a form of deferred protection known as “Deferred Action.” Many people remember that something like this was used before TPS was granted in prior years. Deferred Action is typically granted for one year and can allow a person to apply for a work permit. While nothing is guaranteed, it remains a pathway that could be considered at the government level.

If you would like a confidential consultation, you can call my office at (305) 671-0018. You can also follow my updates on social media, where I share information whenever immigration news changes.

Most importantly, I repeated the same recommendation I have shared before: keep pursuing a lawful immigration status if you are eligible, and do so through proper legal channels—without fraud and without shortcuts that can cause serious consequences later.

As I explained on air, there are very limited groups of people who may still have TPS coverage through October, depending on whether they properly filed and obtained approval during the specified re-registration window. For everyone else, the situation can become legally delicate—especially for those who do not have a pending asylum case—because unlawful presence may begin to accumulate, and that can create future immigration barriers.

If you are Venezuelan and you are unsure of your current status, your expiration dates, or what options may still be available, this is not a moment to guess. It is a moment to get clarity.

Disclaimer: This post is for general informational purposes and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case is different and should be evaluated individually.

FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA

SPANISH TRANSCRIPT:

Host:
Martha Arias, siempre colaboradora de este espacio, abogada de inmigración, está de nuevo con nosotros desde Miami, en los Estados Unidos. Bueno, Martha, ayúdanos a entender qué significa esto, en qué cambia el panorama. Buenos días.

Abogada Martha Arias:
Buenos días. Un saludo para usted, Saúl y Eduardo. Muchísimas gracias por invitarme.
A ver, ¿en qué cambia esto el panorama? Yo diría que el mayor impacto —y lo dicen también los legal advisories, o sea, los consejos o las sugerencias que hacen otros abogados, expertos en estos litigios federales— el mejor beneficio de esta decisión es en casos de detención, cuando se vaya a pedir un habeas corpus. ¿Por qué?
Porque sabemos que ya el TPS no existe, pero el litigio continúa. Entonces, si una persona que tiene TPS es detenida, esa persona puede invocar el habeas corpus y este tipo de decisión es el que le va a ayudar o le va a servir para ese caso de detención. Yo diría que este es el mayor impacto que puede tener esta decisión.

Host:
Ahora, doctora, pensando un poquito más allá, ¿cómo puede impactar el tema político en las decisiones del derecho, en este caso TPS? Porque estamos hablando de un estatus de protección. Podríamos hablar también de asilos para venezolanos, pero con esta nueva etapa de relaciones diplomáticas entre Venezuela y Estados Unidos, ¿hacia dónde se podría pensar, incluso en cambios en alguna de las instancias o por lo menos de las figuras legales que se aplican a los venezolanos?

Abogada Martha Arias:
Yo pienso que, en términos políticos, una de las cosas que yo veo posible que le otorguen a los venezolanos en este momento es tal vez un estatus de protección diferida que se llama Deferred Action. No sé si usted se acuerda: en el primer mandato del presidente Trump, el Deferred Action fue concedido por el presidente Trump a los venezolanos antes de que llegara el TPS.
Yo veo este litigio del TPS —que no sé cuándo tenga fin— porque a pesar de esta decisión, a pesar de la decisión de la Corte Suprema, el litigio continúa. Entonces, no sabemos cuándo realmente tenga fin este litigio y si va a ser un éxito para los venezolanos, y podrán tener su TPS antes de octubre de este año, que vamos a decir que se vencerían las extensiones que fueron dadas por el presidente Biden.
Entonces, yo pienso que la acción diferida es viable; es algo que el gobierno puede dar. Dada la situación, los cambios que hay en Venezuela y las relaciones que hay en este momento, no sería imposible que el gobierno de los Estados Unidos otorgara una acción diferida. Normalmente una acción diferida se otorga por un año y le da derecho a la persona a tener un permiso de trabajo.

Host:
Amigo, estamos conversando desde Miami, Estados Unidos, con Martha Arias, abogada de inmigración. Esto da cuenta de la independencia o separación de poderes, o autonomía institucional en los Estados Unidos, porque ¿cómo asociar lo que ha sido la posición de Donald Trump como presidente de los Estados Unidos ante el tema migratorio y esta decisión de una Corte Federal que pareciera, con su decisión, dar una buena noticia a quienes están afectados por no contar con el TPS?

Abogada Martha Arias:
A ver, es un tema muy… a mí me apasiona este tema. Es un tema muy interesante. Es cierto: aquí hay como lo que se llama la revisión o los controles de los poderes públicos, ¿sí? Entonces, el Ejecutivo, el Legislativo y el Judicial, entre ellos se controlan. En este caso, el Judicial está tratando de controlar esas decisiones. El Ejecutivo está, vamos a decir, empujando, peleando, dando la pelea, y pues siguen las cortes tratando de dar una decisión.
Lo que pasa es que hay unos requisitos legales de cómo, cuándo se otorga un TPS y también unos requisitos legales de cómo, cuándo y en qué momento se puede terminar ese TPS.
El TPS de Venezuela… las partes están argumentando por la forma como se terminó: que hubo una transición de un presidente a otro y fue en ese mismo momento cuando las personas ya habían pagado su re-registración, habían hecho toda la documentación necesaria para una re-registración; viene la nueva administración y en menos de 15–20 días lo termina. Esto crea una cierta violación, y allí es donde se están enfocando las partes.
Eso, la decisión del juez Chen —el juez federal de California— lo dijo antes y quedó ratificada ahora por la decisión del 29 de enero de la Corte de Apelaciones. Dijo que la terminación fue ilegal, que la terminación no podía haberse hecho; pero pues precisamente por el procedimiento, la forma como se hizo, es lo que las partes demandantes están alegando como violación a la ley.

Host:
Doctora, en algún momento, cuando conversamos, nos decía la recomendación legal para todos los venezolanos que tienen este estatus o incluso tienen dudas de cuál es su estatus legal: asesórense legalmente, valga la redundancia. Hoy, 3 de febrero, ¿es la misma recomendación? ¿Siente que pudiera haber mayor tranquilidad para los venezolanos? ¿O básicamente sigan buscando su estatus legal, independientemente de lo que pase de la política entre Venezuela y Estados Unidos?

Abogada Martha Arias:
Sí. Yo les aconsejo que sigan tratando, si es posible bajo la ley, buscar un estatus legal. Obviamente, teniendo en cuenta todo lo que son las vías legales, sin cometer fraude, sin hacer cosas indebidas: eso es lo que deben estar haciendo.
Es complicado, es muy complicado, porque si bien el TPS técnicamente ya terminó desde noviembre, son unos pocos, muy pocos, que lo tienen hasta octubre. Los que tienen el TPS de Venezuela hasta octubre son los que sí presentaron su petición de re-registración entre enero 17 del año pasado, 2025, y febrero 15. Los que tienen la re-registración durante ese período y la presentaron, y se las aprobaron: esas personas son las que todavía tienen el TPS hasta octubre de este año. Entonces son muy pocas.
¿Quién entonces es el resto? ¿Qué está haciendo el resto? El resto está fuera de estatus, a no ser que tenga un asilo pendiente. Entonces, mi preocupación con los que no tienen asilo pendiente es que ya están incurriendo en presencia ilegal a partir de noviembre. Técnicamente terminó el TPS y empezaron a incurrir en presencia ilegal, y esto los puede afectar en el futuro.

Host:
Martha, muchísimas gracias siempre por tu disposición y tu aporte. Mucho éxito. Un fuerte abrazo y nos mantenemos en contacto.

Abogada Martha Arias:
Gracias a ustedes. Feliz resto de semana.

Host:
Gracias, doctora. Gracias. Martha Arias, abogada de inmigración, vía Zoom desde Miami, Estados Unidos. Volveremos.

ENGLISH TRANSLATION:

Host:
Martha Arias, always a collaborator of this segment, an immigration attorney, is again with us from Miami, in the United States. Well, Martha, help us understand what this means, how the landscape changes. Good morning.

Attorney Martha Arias, Esq.:
Good morning. Greetings to you, Saúl, and Eduardo. Thank you very much for inviting me.
Let’s see, how does this change the landscape? I would say the greatest impact—and the legal advisories say it too, meaning the advice or the suggestions that other attorneys, experts in these federal litigations, make—the best benefit of this decision is in detention cases when a habeas corpus is going to be requested. Why?
Because we know that TPS no longer exists, but the litigation continues. So, if a person who has TPS is detained, that person can invoke habeas corpus, and this type of decision is what will help them or serve them for that detention case. I would say this is the greatest impact that this decision can have.

Host:
Now, attorney, thinking a little further, how can the political issue impact legal decisions, in this case TPS? Because we are talking about a protection status. We could also talk about asylum for Venezuelans, but with this new stage of diplomatic relations between Venezuela and the United States, in what direction could one think—even changes in some of the instances or at least in the legal figures that apply to Venezuelans?

Attorney Martha Arias, Esq.:
I think that, in political terms, one of the things I see as possible that the current administration could grant to Venezuelans right now is maybe a deferred protection status that is called Deferred Action. I don’t know if you remember: in President Trump’s first term, Deferred Action was granted by President Trump to Venezuelans before TPS arrived.
I see this TPS litigation—which I don’t know when it will end—because despite this decision, despite the Supreme Court decision, the litigation continues. So, we do not know when this litigation will truly end and whether it will be a success for Venezuelans, and whether they will be able to have their TPS before October of this year, which we are going to say is when the extensions given by President Biden would expire.
So, I think deferred action is viable; it is something the government can give. Given the situation, the changes in Venezuela, and the relations that exist at this moment, it would not be impossible for the United States government to grant deferred action. Normally, deferred action is granted for one year and gives the person the right to have a work permit.

Host:
My friend, we are speaking from Miami, United States, with Martha Arias, an immigration attorney. This shows the independence or separation of powers, or institutional autonomy in the United States, because how do we associate what has been Donald Trump’s position as President of the United States on the migration issue and this decision of a Federal Court that seems, with its decision, to give good news to those who are affected by not having TPS?

Attorney Martha Arias, Esq.:
Let’s see, it is a very… this topic fascinates me; it is a very interesting topic. It is true: here there is what is called the review or the checks of the public powers, yes? So, the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial, they control each other. In this case, the Judicial is trying to control those decisions. The Executive is, let’s say, pushing, fighting, giving the fight, and so the courts keep trying to give a decision.
What happens is that there are legal requirements for how and when TPS is granted, and also legal requirements for how, when, and at what moment that TPS can be terminated.
Venezuela’s TPS… the parties are arguing about the way it was terminated: that there was a transition from one president to another and it was at that very moment when people had already paid their re-registration, had done all the necessary documentation for a re-registration; the new administration comes in and in less than 15–20 days terminates it. This creates a certain violation, and that is where the parties are focusing.
That, the decision of Judge Chen—the federal judge in California—said it before and it was now ratified by the decision of January 29 by the Court of Appeals. It said the termination was illegal, that the termination could not have been done; but precisely because the procedure, the way it was done, is what the plaintiff parties are alleging as a violation of the law.

Host:
Attorney, at some point when we spoke, you told us the legal recommendation for all Venezuelans who have this status or even have doubts about what their legal status is: get legal advice, to state the obvious. Today, February 3, is it the same recommendation? Do you feel that there could be greater peace of mind for Venezuelans? Or basically, keep seeking their legal status, regardless of what happens politically between Venezuela and the United States?

Attorney Martha Arias, Esq.:
Yes. I advise them to continue trying, if it is possible under the law, to seek a legal status. Obviously, taking into account all legal pathways, without committing fraud, without doing improper things: that is what they should be doing.
It is complicated; it is very complicated, because although TPS technically already ended in November, there are a few, very few, who have it until October. Those who have Venezuela TPS until October are those who did file their re-registration request between January 17 of last year, 2025, and February 15. Those who have the re-registration during that period and filed it, and it was approved: those people are the ones who still have TPS until October of this year. So, they are very few.
So who is the rest? What is the rest doing? The rest is out of status unless they have a pending asylum. So my concern with those who do not have a pending asylum is that they are already accruing unlawful presence starting in November. Technically TPS ended and they began accruing unlawful presence, and this can affect them in the future.

Host:
Martha, thank you very much as always for your willingness and your contribution. Much success. A big hug and we will stay in touch.

Attorney Martha Arias, Esq.:
Thank you all. Have a good rest of the week.

Host:
Thank you, attorney. Thank you. Martha Arias, immigration attorney, via Zoom from Miami, United States. We will be back.

The post TPS for Venezuelans After the Court Decision appeared first on Arias Villa Law.

ICE Raids, Detentions, and Your Rights

Martha Arias — Wed, 28 Jan 2026 15:45:48 +0000

My Interview with Journalist Orian Brito (January 26, 2026)

This Monday, I joined journalist Orian Brito for an important conversation about the rise in ICE operations being reported in multiple parts of the country, including Florida. I appreciated Orian’s thoughtful approach—because in moments like these, clear information is what helps families avoid unnecessary fear and confusion.

During the interview, we discussed what has been publicly reported about a large enforcement operation in Florida known as “Tidal Wave,” which has been associated with more than 10,000 arrests according to what has been reported in the news. We also discussed reports of increased ICE presence in Central Florida and Orlando beginning around January 20, 2026, including comments publicly attributed to Congressman Maxwell Frost.

I also shared national-level data attributed to the American Immigration Council, including reported increases in ICE detentions and detention capacity trends. While many public conversations focus on individuals with criminal histories, I emphasized that there are also reports indicating a significant increase in detentions of people without criminal offenses, which raises serious concerns for families who are simply trying to live and work while they pursue lawful options.

What happens if someone is detained and has no criminal record?

One of the most important points I made is that every case is different. When someone is detained, the first legal question is often whether that person can request a bond—and whether an immigration judge will be recognized as having jurisdiction to consider that bond request. Factors like how the person entered the United States (with a visa, with parole, or without inspection) can affect the options available.

We also discussed a tool that may be used in certain situations: habeas corpus, a federal court filing that can challenge detention that is unlawful or unreasonably prolonged. Federal litigation is complex, costly, and highly procedural. Even so, in certain detention cases it may be one of the few meaningful pathways to request review.

A serious issue: reports of a DHS memo about home entry

Orian also raised a topic that has concerned many people: reports of a Department of Homeland Security memorandum suggesting that ICE officers could enter residences to make arrests without a federal judge’s warrant, relying on an administrative form (often discussed as an I-205). In the interview, I explained the crucial difference between an administrative document for arrest versus a judge-signed warrant for entering a home. I also shared that, according to what I read, the memo reportedly was not applied in part of Central California due to litigation there.

Practical guidance for families

If your household is feeling anxious, there are a few responsible steps you can take immediately:

Get individualized legal advice. Your options depend on your exact immigration history and prior contacts with immigration authorities.
Keep your key documents organized. Make sure trusted family members know where to find them.
Have a family plan. Decide who will care for your children, how to access your medical information, and whom to call if a detention occurs.
Do not rely on rumors. Seek verified guidance before taking action that could harm your case.

How to contact my office

If you or a loved one needs a confidential consultation, you may contact my office at (305) 671-0018. My website is ariasvilla.com (and marthaarias.com redirects there as well). You may also find updates through my channels, and I appreciate everyone who stays informed and engaged.

Important Disclaimer: This post is for general information only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Immigration matters are highly fact-specific. For legal advice about your situation, please consult a qualified immigration attorney.

FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA

The post ICE Raids, Detentions, and Your Rights appeared first on Arias Villa Law.