Asylum Seekers and Refugees Archives - Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq.

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 Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

USCIS Announces New EAD Validity Reductions and Enhanced Vetting Measures

Martha Arias — Tue, 09 Dec 2025 17:20:13 +0000

In recent days, USCIS released an important update to the Policy Manual that will affect many individuals who rely on Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) to work legally in the United States. Because these changes begin to apply immediately to pending and newly filed applications, I want to offer a clear explanation of what was announced, who is impacted, and why these adjustments matter.

According to USCIS, the maximum validity period for certain EAD categories will now be reduced. While many applicants have become accustomed to longer validity periods—particularly the more recent five-year EADs—USCIS has now returned some categories to much shorter terms. The agency states that the goal is to increase the frequency of vetting and strengthen security reviews.

These policy updates also incorporate requirements from recently enacted legislation (H.R. 1 – One Big Beautiful Bill Act), which further limits EAD validity for applicants in Temporary Protected Status (TPS), parole categories, and related classifications.

Which EAD Categories Will Now Be Limited to 18 Months?

Effective for all applications pending or filed on or after December 5, 2025, the maximum validity period for both initial and renewal EADs will be reduced from 5 years back to 18 months for the following groups:

Individuals admitted as refugees
Individuals granted asylum
Individuals granted withholding of deportation or removal
Individuals with pending asylum or withholding of removal applications
Individuals with pending adjustment of status applications under INA §245
Individuals with pending applications for suspension of deportation, cancellation of removal, or NACARA relief

Applicants in these categories should expect a more frequent renewal cycle and should plan accordingly to avoid employment interruptions.

Which Categories Are Now Restricted to One Year of Validity?

Under H.R. 1, which became law on July 4, 2025, and was formally implemented by USCIS through a Federal Register notice on July 22, 2025, the following categories will now receive EADs valid for one year, or until the end of their parole or TPS period—whichever is earlier:

Individuals paroled as refugees
Individuals granted TPS
Individuals granted parole
Individuals with a pending TPS application
Spouses of entrepreneur parolees

These changes apply to all Form I-765 applications filed or pending on or after July 22, 2025.

Why Is USCIS Making These Changes?

The agency has explained that shorter validity periods allow USCIS to conduct more frequent security screenings. USCIS leadership has emphasized concerns regarding national security and the need to identify potential fraud or individuals who may pose risks.

While these changes do not alter eligibility standards, they do mean that many immigrants—especially those in long-pending categories—will now need to renew their documents far more often than in previous years.

What Should Applicants Do Now?

For anyone who currently holds an EAD or expects to apply soon, several steps are important:

Verify your category. Renewal timelines differ depending on which classification you fall under.
Track expiration dates carefully. With shorter validity periods, timely filing becomes even more critical.
Plan renewal filings early. Avoid waiting until the last minute, as processing times may fluctuate.
Seek trusted legal guidance. These new rules may affect employment stability, parole timelines, and future immigration filings.

If you believe these changes affect your case or you are unsure how to proceed, I encourage you to consult with an immigration attorney who can evaluate your situation individually.

Closing Thoughts

Policy shifts like these can create uncertainty and concern for many families who depend on stable employment authorization. My commitment is to help you stay informed and prepared so that you can continue navigating your immigration journey with confidence and clarity.

For personalized guidance, you may contact my office at 305-671-0018 or make an appointment online. I will continue monitoring updates from USCIS and sharing timely information to keep our community informed.

Disclaimer

This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration policies change frequently, and the application of the law depends on the specific facts of each case. Reading this post does not create an attorney-client relationship. For advice regarding your situation, please consult a qualified immigration attorney.

The post USCIS Announces New EAD Validity Reductions and Enhanced Vetting Measures appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

How New Security Screening Measures for 19 Countries Affect Immigration Process?

Martha Arias — Thu, 04 Dec 2025 23:49:25 +0000

In recent days, many immigrant families have expressed deep concern as federal agencies begin implementing additional national-security requirements for nationals of 19 countries. These measures build on a Presidential Proclamation issued earlier this year and have resulted in significantly slower processing for many immigration benefits.

My goal today is to explain, with clarity and calm, what these new procedures involve, how they may affect your case, and what steps you can take to stay informed.

Earlier this year, the federal government established stricter entry and vetting requirements for nationals of 19 countries identified as having limited identity-verification and security-cooperation capabilities. More recently, USCIS announced that officers must consider new country-specific security factors when adjudicating applications. As agencies integrate these directives into their workflow, many cases involving applicants from these countries are undergoing deeper background screening.

Based on official statements and reports from reputable news outlets, some individuals may experience significant delays in the adjudication of their immigration benefits. In certain instances, interviews or document requests may continue as planned, but final decisions may be held while additional verification is completed. This may happen with asylum-related adjustments, certain residency petitions, or even naturalization files—always depending on the individual case and the evidence required for security review.

I understand how unsettling it can be to face uncertainty after years of waiting. These circumstances call for patience, but also preparation. If your case is from one of the affected countries, this may be an appropriate moment to review your file, verify that your documentation is complete, and address any unresolved issues. Ensuring the strength and clarity of your evidence may help your case proceed more smoothly once the agency completes the expanded screening.

Even during challenging moments like this, I remain hopeful. U.S. immigration procedures have passed through periods of intense review before, and over time, the system stabilizes. My commitment is to guide you with honesty and care so you may face these developments with greater confidence.

If you believe your case may be impacted, I encourage you to seek individualized legal guidance. If you would like to speak with me or schedule a consultation, my office number is (305) 671-0018. I will continue to monitor these changes closely and share any updates that could affect your case.

USCIS Announcement (Late 2025): The agency implemented heightened national-security screening and instructed officers to consider country-specific risk factors for applicants from 19 nations.
Presidential Proclamation 10949 (June 4, 2025): Establishes enhanced entry restrictions and new vetting standards for nationals of the 19 countries identified for elevated security review.
State Department Implementation: Visa operations for these countries have been subject to limitations under the proclamation’s framework.
Media Reports on Processing Delays: Major news outlets including Reuters and New York Post report that many immigration applications for nationals of the 19 countries are undergoing extended background checks, resulting in slower decisions.

DISCLAIMER:
This post is intended solely for informational and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice, nor does it substitute for personalized guidance from a licensed attorney. Immigration law is complex and subject to frequent changes, and the measures described here may affect individuals differently depending on their personal circumstances, history, and documentation. No attorney–client relationship is created by viewing this content, leaving comments, or contacting our office. Before making decisions that may affect your legal status, please consult directly with a qualified immigration attorney to receive advice tailored to your situation.

FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA

SPANISH TRANSCRIPT:

ORIAN BRITO:
Hola amigos, ayer cuando terminábamos un tema ya surgió otro, y es que la incertidumbre migratoria vuelve a sacudir a miles de familias. La administración Trump suspendió los procesamientos de residencias y ciudadanías para inmigrantes de 19 países, entre ellos Venezuela, Cuba y Haití.
Según el memorándum oficial, esta paralización afecta a trámites que ya estaban en curso y deja a muchos solicitantes en un verdadero limbo legal, justo en un momento de máxima tensión entre Venezuela y Washington.
Hoy vamos a explicar qué significa esta decisión, a quiénes afecta y qué opciones quedan sobre la mesa. Para eso me acompaña la abogada de inmigración Martha Arias, quien nos va a ayudar a entender el impacto real para los venezolanos y para miles de inmigrantes aquí en Estados Unidos.
Agradezco sus comentarios, que sean parte de la conversación, y su suscripción, por supuesto, al canal.

Abogada, esto es de intriga. Anoche yo terminaba de tocar un tema con el tema de los asilos y salía este memorándum del Departamento de Inmigración. ¿Cómo lo interpretamos y qué le llama la atención de ese documento?

ABOGADA MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ.:
A ver, ¿cómo lo interpretamos? Pues yo creo que ya no tenemos… en cuanto a palabras para describir este tipo de acciones recientes, pues bueno, se me acaba, yo creo, el vocabulario, los adjetivos.
Lo que le puedo decir es lo siguiente: las peticiones de asilo van a pausarse en cuanto a la toma de decisión.

¿Qué quiere decir esto? Que si una persona tiene un asilo pendiente, posiblemente todavía lo pueden llamar a una cita o a una entrevista para ese asilo.
Lo que no va a pasar es que le vayan a dar una decisión: no va a haber ni aprobación ni negatoria de ese caso hasta que se haga una investigación exhaustiva del background penal o del récord penal o criminal de la persona en su país o incluso aquí en los Estados Unidos.

Esta… pues, no sabemos cuánto tiempo se va a demorar. La demora puede ser mucha porque usted se podrá imaginar: son miles de personas, y de todos estos países pues no es tan fácil lograr que el gobierno provea la información penal. Así que el tiempo de espera va a ser indeterminado. No sabemos cuánto podría tomar eso.

ORIAN BRITO:
Eso me lo dice respecto a los asilos, pero, por ejemplo, hay personas que ya tenían un asilo aprobado y al año y un día pueden aplicar a su residencia. Entonces, ahora, ¿cómo queda esa petición de residencia?
O ya yo tengo los cinco años de residente y quiero aplicar a la ciudadanía. ¿Cómo quedan esos procesos tras esta decisión?

ABOGADA MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ.:
Bueno, aquí esa pregunta es importante, porque lo que es claro en esta política es que los asilos pendientes quedan pausados de decisión.
Pero, además de los asilos pendientes, las peticiones de residencia pendientes con base en asilos aprobados recientemente también van a ser revisadas, también van a ser pausadas para revisión.

También dice que las peticiones de residencia ya otorgadas a través de asilo aprobado también van a ser revisitadas o revisadas nuevamente. Eso es lo que queda claro.

Ahora, la pregunta suya sobre los que apenas les aprobaron el asilo y apenas van a aplicar para la residencia: estas residencias también van a quedar pausadas.

De hecho, no solamente esas residencias, sino todas las peticiones de residencia de personas que hayan entrado con parole humanitario de alguno de estos países.

Le doy un ejemplo: ayer yo tuve una clienta que tenía su petición de residencia pendiente a través de matrimonio, pero esa persona entró con un parole humanitario. Esa persona era de Venezuela. Esa persona entró con parole humanitario de Venezuela.

Su petición I-130, la petición I-485, quedaron pausadas. Según la información que me dio el oficial, ellos tienen instrucciones de parar las peticiones I-130 (que es la que un familiar hace a otro), la petición I-485 (que es la petición de residencia), la I-601 (que es la petición de perdones que pide alguna de estas personas) o la I-602 (que es el perdón para quienes tienen un caso de asilo, que están ajustando estatus a través de asilo y tienen alguna inadmisibilidad).

Entonces, esos cuatro tipos de peticiones van a quedar paralizados y van a ser pausados. Ni siquiera la I-130, yo le comentaba, ¿pero por qué la I-130? Ni siquiera va a ser aprobada. Tampoco la I-130. Van a pausar todos ese tipo de peticiones.

Así que, Orian, no solamente es en estas decisiones de asilo, es también en peticiones de residencia.

ORIAN BRITO:
Yo conozco casos, por ejemplo, de gente que tiene residencia por matrimonio y ya se les va a vencer esa residencia, porque usted sabe que primero dan una de dos años y luego tienen que renovarla, otra sin condiciones, para retirar las condiciones, etcétera.

¿Cómo quedan si estos procesos están pausados? ¿Uno quedaría sin estatus migratorio o con qué figura?

ABOGADA MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ.:
Esas no creo que se vayan a ver afectadas; por lo menos no hay nada en lo que se notificó que diga que ese tipo de peticiones puedan quedar afectadas.

Recuérdese que las peticiones de remoción de condiciones, que es la aplicación I-751, es para quitar las condiciones de una residencia que ya fue otorgada. Entonces, por ahora no hay ninguna notificación que diga que esas se van a pausar; esas van a continuar su trámite normal.

Las que van a ser pausadas son las peticiones de residencia inicial, pero ya la residencia condicional es una residencia.

ORIAN BRITO:
Ok, ok, eso estaría claro.
Esta decisión que ha tomado la administración, que se conoce a través de este memorándum, ¿podría ser apelada en cortes, por ejemplo, para que ellos agilicen?

Porque a mí me preocupa también, por otro lado, el cuello de botella. Entiendo, ojo, la labor del gobierno, que quiere revisar los casos. Es su potestad y me parece bien todo lo que brinde seguridad.

Pero también, al mismo tiempo, poniéndome en la posición de los afectados, esto genera más incertidumbre y puede generar mayor prolongación del tiempo para tomar decisiones que ya de por sí… ya de por sí muchos casos tienen años sin ningún tipo de respuesta.

ABOGADA MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ.:
Efectivamente. A ver, lo que usted dice es exactamente una de las preocupaciones de todo el mundo: la demora y el tiempo que esto va a tomar.

Pero no solamente eso, sino en qué estatus va a quedar la persona en cuanto, por ejemplo, al permiso de trabajo.

Si tiene un asilo pendiente, la persona tiene derecho a no incurrir en presencia ilegal. Pero si a esa persona no le renuevan su permiso de trabajo y tiene que quedarse aquí en los Estados Unidos esperando tres o cuatro años una decisión y su permiso de trabajo no es renovado, pues entonces va a ocasionar caos para esa persona y, en general, para todas las personas que están vacilando en esa situación.

A ver, recuérdese que el gobierno había anunciado este año que iba a parar las renovaciones automáticas de permisos de trabajo a través de asilo, o sea, que ya no iban a tener esa renovación automática, número uno.

Número dos, también el gobierno anunció que no a todas las personas que tienen un proceso de asilo se les va a otorgar su permiso de trabajo; que va a ser analizado caso por caso.

¿Qué quiere decir eso? Que puede haber la posibilidad de que a muchas de esas personas a las que les pausan la decisión de su caso de asilo no les renueven tampoco su permiso de trabajo, si vemos que estamos aplicando las dos políticas juntas, porque la otra política fue anunciada algunos meses atrás.

Entonces, ¿cómo va a quedar esa persona? ¿Cuántos años está dispuesta esa persona a estar en los Estados Unidos sin permiso de trabajo? Puede, definitivamente, al final, desistir por voluntad propia e irse. Yo pienso que la presión viene de esa parte.

ORIAN BRITO:
Yo asumo también que hay como una estrategia de llevarte a un punto donde tú digas: “¿Qué hago yo aquí, cuando nunca voy a tener…? Si el permiso se me vence, no me lo van a renovar. Si someto el asilo, no me van a responder. Y mientras estoy en esa situación, los operativos migratorios continúan. Entonces estoy a merced de que, en una situación compleja, Dios no lo quiera, pues me puedan llevar”.

ABOGADA MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ.:
O sea, está en un limbo migratorio y, pues, obviamente, para una familia entera, por ejemplo, que tenga hijos, padre, hijos, pues es demasiado apremiante no poder trabajar y, pues, definitivamente, por un término indefinido.

Entonces sí, Orian, esa es la situación que estamos viviendo. Es complicada. Yo, la verdad, uno como abogado de inmigración trata de darle la mayor esperanza a los clientes.

Sí, yo tengo esperanza en que podamos resolver muchas cuestiones migratorias, pero me preocupa esta situación de esta pausa y, sobre todo, lo que respecta al permiso de trabajo.

ORIAN BRITO:
Claro, porque sin permiso de trabajo no hay nada que hacer.

¿Cuál sería la recomendación que le puede dar a estas personas que puedan verse afectadas por esto?

Por ejemplo, aquellos que sometieron su petición de asilo recientemente, tras la finalización del Estatus de Protección Temporal, y que ahora, aunque los llamen a una entrevista, no les van a decir ni sí ni no.

Aquellos que están esperando para aplicar a su ciudadanía, que contaban, por ejemplo, ya con cinco años de residencia y que querían aplicar para hacerse ciudadanos, y que ahora también eso está paralizado.

ABOGADA MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ.:
Puede paralizarse la notificación. No necesariamente dice que la petición de ciudadanía de esas personas se va a paralizar, y no tengo yo tampoco ningún documento oficial que diga que la petición de ciudadanía se vaya a paralizar.

Sin embargo, sí sabemos que ciertas peticiones de ajuste de estatus de las personas de esos 19 países pueden ser revisitadas o revisadas.

Entonces, puede ser que para ciertas personas de Venezuela, de Cuba, de Haití y del resto de esos países que pidan una ciudadanía, pueda haber ciertas demoras en el procesamiento de esa petición de ciudadanía. Pueden pasar perfectamente.

ORIAN BRITO:
Bueno, yo estoy leyendo el comunicado, que lo tengo aquí, el memorándum que salió anoche, y dice que, bueno, se paralizan las I-589 y otras, pero se incluyen —dice el comunicado— las ciudadanías también.

Sí implicaría, de acuerdo con lo que estoy leyendo aquí, en el propio texto de oficiales de inmigración.

Entonces, al final, yo creo que la clave en este momento es tener paciencia y, reitero la pregunta, ¿existe la posibilidad de que, de repente, una coalición proinmigrante decida apelar esto en corte para buscar una vía de que el gobierno procese esto, sobre todo para aquellos que tienen tanto tiempo esperando?

ABOGADA MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ.:
Puede haber una posibilidad —sí, se me olvidó llegar a ese punto—. Puede haber una posibilidad, pero yo la veo que se va a demorar un poco.

Se va a demorar un poco, ¿por qué? Porque para presentar una demanda de acción en la Corte Federal no basta simplemente con tener el memorándum. También hay que crear un grupo de personas que se vean perjudicadas o afectadas por esa medida.

Mientras se reúne o se acumula ese grupo de personas, o ese class action, se va a demorar un poquito, se va a demorar un tiempo. Entonces, inmediatamente, inmediatamente no sé si vamos a tener una demanda. Es posible, pero yo pienso que se va a demorar un poquito mientras se presenta una demanda para atacar este tipo de medida.

El hecho de que se argumente que es por razones de seguridad nacional hace que se creen ciertos beneficios procesales para el gobierno por esa misma razón. Pues claro, nadie dice que no revisen el estatus de las personas; todos queremos eso.

ORIAN BRITO:
Ayer me decía una persona que me sigue por el canal que tenía una ciudadanía que le fue aprobada en el 2021 y sentía temor, porque, claro, todo esto también genera en la población una situación de angustia.

Por eso es que la idea de este espacio es brindar información certera para no caer en el caos, ¿no?

Esas personas que, por ejemplo, han obtenido la residencia con menos de dos años, un año, o ciudadanía, o le hayan otorgado el asilo y que les vayan a revisar, ¿cuál sería el mensaje que se les puede dar a esas personas?

ABOGADA MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ.:
Lo que puedo decirle a todo el mundo es que lo primero que debemos tener es la calma y la fe.

Calma, en esperar que se sigan procesando estos casos y esperar a ver cuál va a ser el resultado; y fe, en que eventualmente esto se elimine y podamos volver a un procesamiento normal de casos, donde no estemos sujetos a demoras muy largas.

Porque, eventualmente, en vez de arreglar un problema, se está creando otro.

Porque estamos tratando de “arreglar” el problema de todas esas personas que entraron por la frontera, que tenemos años sin autorización o con parole. Pero, efectivamente, también estamos creando un problema al no resolver casos de personas y dejar personas en el limbo y dejar personas sin permiso de trabajo.

Entonces, estamos creando una subcategoría de inmigrantes que pueden, eventualmente, quedarse en los Estados Unidos sin ningún estatus o en un limbo jurídico.

Entonces, pienso que a veces el remedio puede ser más complicado que la enfermedad. En este caso lo veo de esa forma.

ORIAN BRITO:
Amigos, a tener paciencia, a buscar información lo más pronto posible y, sobre todo, asesorarse con un abogado, que en este momento es la única persona que puede revisar su file, su carpeta de inmigración, y determinar si hay alguna situación que usted deba arreglar para evitar sufrir parte de estos contratiempos.

Es la política que hay en este momento por parte de la administración y, por el momento, solo queda tener paciencia y calma.

Me gustaría que la abogada Martha Arias dé su número de contacto a cualquier persona que esté aquí en la ciudad de Miami. No sé si atienda a personas de otros estados, pero que deseen contactarla, porque en este momento es fundamental tener esa asesoría.

ABOGADA MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ.:
Sí, nosotros estamos localizados en Miami, pero vemos clientes en cualquier parte de los Estados Unidos, porque la ley de inmigración es federal.

Obviamente, no tomamos todos los casos; requerimos una consulta para revisar el caso de la persona y también para ver si amerita poder representarla desde Miami, aunque la persona esté en otro estado.

El teléfono de mi oficina es el (305) 671-0018, repito: (305) 671-0018.

Pueden ir a mi página web; allá están también todos los teléfonos. La dirección de la página web es ariasvilla.com.

Y el Instagram, que a la gente hoy en día le encanta Instagram y nos pueden seguir allí, es @marta_arias98.

ORIAN BRITO:
Perfecto. Y a usted la invito a que, si tiene algún tipo de interrogante, la deje en la sección de comentarios, y que cualquier persona que conozca que esté en una situación de este tipo, pues comparta la información que hemos brindado acá sobre quiénes se verán afectados tras esta decisión.

Porque son varias cosas: por un lado, es la paralización de los procesos migratorios; y por el otro, los vetos a viajes que está impulsando el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional: un veto total que está pidiendo el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional, lo que está complicando un poquito más y generando incertidumbre en este momento en tanta gente.

Les agradezco su confianza y que estén con nosotros. Dejen sus preguntas y comentarios, que a lo largo de esta semana, por supuesto, vamos a estar ampliando este tema y las repercusiones que vamos a ir conociendo con el transcurso de los días.

Gracias, abogada, por el tiempo.

ABOGADA MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ.:
Gracias a ustedes por invitarme.

ENGLISH TRANSLATION

ORIAN BRITO:
Hello friends, yesterday when we were finishing one topic, another one already came up, and it is that immigration uncertainty once again shakes thousands of families. The Trump administration suspended the processing of residencies and citizenships for immigrants from 19 countries, among them Venezuela, Cuba, and Haiti.

According to the official memorandum, this pause affects procedures that were already in progress and leaves many applicants in a real legal limbo, right at a moment of maximum tension between Venezuela and Washington.

Today we are going to explain what this decision means, whom it affects, and what options remain on the table. For that, immigration attorney Martha Arias is with me, who is going to help us understand the real impact for Venezuelans and for thousands of immigrants here in the United States.

I appreciate your comments, that you are part of the conversation, and your subscription, of course, to the channel.

Attorney, this is intriguing. Last night I was finishing touching on a topic about asylum matters and this memorandum from the immigration department came out. How do we interpret it, and what stands out to you from that document?

ATTORNEY MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ.:
Let’s see, how do we interpret it? Well, I think that we no longer have… in terms of words to describe this type of recent actions, well, I think my vocabulary, the adjectives, are running out.

What I can tell you is the following: asylum petitions are going to be paused with respect to decision-making.

What does this mean? That if a person has a pending asylum, they can still possibly be called to an appointment or to an interview for that asylum.
What is not going to happen is that they are going to be given a decision. There is not going to be either an approval or a denial of that case until an exhaustive investigation is done of the person’s criminal background or criminal record in their country or even here in the United States.

This… well, we do not know how long it is going to take. The delay can be a lot because you can imagine: they are thousands of people, and from all these countries it is not so easy to obtain the criminal information from their governments. So the waiting time will be indeterminate. We do not know how long that could take.

ORIAN BRITO:
You tell me this with respect to asylums, but, for example, there are people who already had an approved asylum and after one year and one day they can apply for their residency. So now, how does that residency petition end up?

Or I already have the five years as a resident and I want to apply for citizenship. How do those processes end up after this decision?

ATTORNEY MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ.:
Well, here that question is important because what is clear in this policy is that pending asylums are paused from decision-making.

But in addition to pending asylums, residency petitions that are pending and based on recently approved asylums are also going to be reviewed; they are also going to be paused for review.

It also says that residency petitions already granted through an approved asylum are also going to be revisited or reviewed again. That is what is clear.

Now, your question, about those who just had their asylum approved and are just going to apply for residency: those residencies are also going to be paused.

In fact, not only those residencies, but all residency petitions of people who entered with humanitarian parole from any of these countries.

I will give you an example: yesterday I had a client who had her residency petition pending through marriage, but that person entered with humanitarian parole. That person was from Venezuela. That person entered with humanitarian parole from Venezuela.

Her I-130 petition, the I-485 petition, were paused. According to the information the officer gave me, they have instructions to stop I-130 petitions (the one that a family member files for another), the I-485 petition (which is the residency petition), the I-601 (which is the waiver petition requested by some of these people) or the I-602 (which is the waiver for those who have an asylum case, who are adjusting status through asylum and have some inadmissibility).

So those four types of petitions are going to be paralyzed and paused. Not even the I-130 — I was commenting to you — but why the I-130? Not even that one is going to be approved. They are going to pause all those types of petitions.

So, Orian, it is not only in these asylum decisions, it is also in residency petitions.

ORIAN BRITO:
I know cases, for example, of people who have residency through marriage and their residency is about to expire, because you know that first they give a two-year one and then they have to renew it, another one without conditions, to remove the conditions, etc.

How do they end up if these processes are paused? Would one end up without immigration status, or under what figure?

ATTORNEY MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ.:
Those, I don’t think they are going to be affected; at least there is nothing in what was notified that says that those types of petitions may be affected.

Remember that removal of conditions petitions, which is the I-751 application, is to remove the conditions of a residency that has already been granted. So, for now, there is no notification saying that those are going to be paused; those are going to continue their normal process.

The ones that are going to be paused are the initial residency petitions, but conditional residency is already a residency.

ORIAN BRITO:
Ok, ok, that would be clear.
This decision that the administration has made, which is known through this memorandum, could it be appealed in court, for example, so that they speed things up?

Because I am also worried, on the other hand, about the bottleneck. I understand — careful — the work of the government, which wants to review the cases. It is its authority, and I think it is great, everything that provides security.

But also at the same time, putting myself in the affected persons’ position, this creates more uncertainty and can generate longer delays to make decisions, which already, many cases already have years without any type of response.

ATTORNEY MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ.:
Indeed. Let’s see, what you say is exactly one of the concerns of everyone: the delay and the time this is going to take.

But not only that, but also what status the person will be in, for example, concerning the work permit.

If they have a pending asylum, the person has the right to not incur unlawful presence. But if that person does not get their work permit renewed and they have to stay here in the United States waiting three or four years for a decision and their work permit is not renewed, well then this is going to cause chaos for that person and, in general, for all the people who are wavering in that situation.

Let’s see, remember that the government had announced this year that it was going to stop automatic renewals of work permits through asylum — meaning that they were no longer going to have that automatic renewal, number one.

Number two, the government also announced that not all people who have an asylum process are going to be granted their work permit; that it is going to be analyzed case by case.

What does that mean? That there may be the possibility that many of those people whose asylum case decision is paused also may not get their work permit renewed, if we see that both policies are being applied together, because the other policy was announced a few months ago.

So how is that person going to end up? How many years is that person willing to stay in the United States without a work permit? They can, definitely, in the end, give up voluntarily and leave. I think the pressure comes from that part.

ORIAN BRITO:
I also assume that there is like a strategy of taking you to a point where you say, “What am I doing here when I am never going to have…? If the permit expires, they are not going to renew it. If I submit the asylum, they are not going to respond. And while I am in that situation, immigration operations continue. So I am at the mercy of — in a complex situation, God forbid — they could take me.”

ATTORNEY MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ.:
In other words, you are in an immigration limbo and obviously for an entire family, for example, who has children, parents, children — well, it is extremely pressing to not be able to work and definitely for an indefinite period of time.

So yes, Orian, that is the situation we are living. It is complicated. Truly, one as an immigration attorney tries to give as much hope as possible to clients.

Yes, I have hope that we can resolve many immigration matters, but I am concerned about this situation of this pause and especially regarding the work permit.

ORIAN BRITO:
Of course, because without a work permit there is nothing to do.

What would be the recommendation you can give to those people who may be affected by this?

For example, those who submitted their asylum petition recently after the end of Temporary Protected Status, and now, even if they are called to an interview, they are not going to be told yes or no.

Those who are waiting to apply for citizenship, who already had, for example, five years of residency and wanted to apply to become citizens, and now that is also paralyzed.

ATTORNEY MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ.:
The notification may be paralyzed. It does not necessarily say that the citizenship petition of those people is going to be paralyzed, and I also do not have any official document that says that the citizenship petition is going to be paralyzed.

However, we do know that certain adjustment-of-status petitions of people from those 19 countries may be revisited or reviewed.

So, it may be that for certain people from Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, and the rest of those countries who request citizenship, there may be certain delays in the processing of that citizenship petition. It can perfectly happen.

ORIAN BRITO:
Well, I am reading the communiqué — I have it here — the memorandum that came out last night, and it says that, well, the I-589s are paused and others, but it includes — the communiqué says — the citizenships too.

It would imply, according to what I am reading here, in the very text from immigration officers.

So, in the end, I think the key at this moment is to have patience and I repeat the question: is there the possibility that suddenly a pro-immigrant coalition decides to appeal this in court to seek a path for the government to process this, especially for those who have been waiting so long?

ATTORNEY MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ.:
There could be a possibility — yes, I forgot to get to that point — there could be a possibility, but I see that it is going to take a little while.

It is going to take a little while, why? Because to file a lawsuit in Federal Court it is not enough simply to have the memorandum. A group of people who are harmed or affected by that measure must also be assembled.

While that group of people — that class action — is gathered or accumulated, it is going to take a little bit, it is going to take some time.

So, immediately, immediately I do not know if we are going to have a lawsuit. It is possible, but I think it is going to take a little while until a lawsuit is filed to challenge this type of measure.

The fact that it is argued that it is for reasons of national security creates certain procedural benefits for the government for that same reason.
Well of course, no one says that they should not review the status of people; we all want that.

ORIAN BRITO:
Yesterday a person who follows me on the channel told me that they had a citizenship that was approved in 2021, and they felt fear. Because of course, all this also generates in the population a situation of anxiety.

That is why the idea of this space is to provide accurate information to not fall into chaos, right?

Those people who, for example, have obtained residency with less than two years, one year, or citizenship, or have been granted asylum and are going to be reviewed — what would be the message that can be given to those people?

ATTORNEY MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ.:
What I can tell everyone is that the first thing we must have is calm and faith.

Calm, in waiting for these cases to continue being processed and waiting to see what the result will be; and faith, that eventually this will be eliminated and we will be able to return to normal case processing, where we are not subject to very long delays.

Because eventually, instead of fixing a problem, another is being created.

Because we are trying to “fix” the problem of all those people who entered through the border, who have had years without authorization or with parole. But indeed, we are also creating a problem by not resolving people’s cases and leaving people in limbo and leaving people without a work permit.

So, we are creating a subclass of immigrants who can eventually remain in the United States without any status or in a legal limbo.

So I think that sometimes the remedy can be more complicated than the illness. In this case, I see it that way.

ORIAN BRITO:
Friends, patience, seek information as soon as possible and, above all, get advice from an attorney, who at this moment is the only person who can review your file, your immigration folder, and determine if there is any situation you must fix to avoid experiencing some of these setbacks.

It is the policy that exists at this moment from the administration, and for now we can only have patience and calm.

I would like immigration attorney Martha Arias to give her contact number to any person who is here in the city of Miami. I don’t know if she assists people from other states, but those who wish to contact her — because at this moment it is fundamental to have that advice.

ATTORNEY MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ.:
Yes, we are located in Miami, but we see clients anywhere in the United States, because immigration law is federal.

Obviously, we do not take all cases; we require a consultation to review the person’s case and also to see if it is appropriate to represent the person from Miami even if the person is in another state.

My office phone number is (305) 671-0018, I repeat: (305) 671-0018.

You can go to my website; all the phone numbers are also there. The website address is ariasvilla.com.

And Instagram — which people nowadays love Instagram — and you can follow us there, is @marta_arias98.

ORIAN BRITO:
Perfect. And I invite you, if you have any type of question, leave it in the comments section, and that anyone you know who is in a situation of this type, please share the information we have provided here about who will be affected by this decision.

Because there are several things: on one side, it is the paralization of immigration processes; and on the other, the travel bans that the Department of Homeland Security is pushing — a total ban that the Department of Homeland Security is requesting, which is complicating things a little more and generating uncertainty at this moment for so many people.

I appreciate your trust and that you are with us. Leave your questions and comments, and throughout this week, of course, we will be expanding this topic and the repercussions that we will get to know as the days go by.

Thank you, attorney, for your time.

ATTORNEY MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ.:
Thank you for inviting me.

The post How New Security Screening Measures for 19 Countries Affect Immigration Process? appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

What the New USCIS Suspensions Mean for Asylum Seekers

Martha Arias — Wed, 03 Dec 2025 23:51:40 +0000

This morning I joined journalist Lourdes Ubieta on Radio Libre to discuss a development that is generating deep uncertainty among many immigrant communities: the federal government’s announcement that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will pause the adjudication of immigration applications from nationals of nineteen countries that have also been targeted by a recent presidential proclamation on travel restrictions.

This policy was announced in the wake of a tragic shooting in Washington, D.C., allegedly committed by an Afghan national, and the government has explicitly framed these changes as additional “national security” measures. Its consequences, however, reach far beyond that single event.

What This Means in Practice

Under this new framework, USCIS has instructed officers to pause decisions on many immigration applications— including affirmative asylum cases—that are filed by people from these nineteen countries, while the agency conducts additional background review or “vetting.”

In practical terms, this means:

Many cases will remain pending without approval or denial while the additional screening is completed.
This can apply even if the applicant already had an interview scheduled or completed. The interview may still be held, but a final decision can be held back until the new review is finished.

Multiple federal, local, and sometimes foreign agencies may become involved in these security checks, which makes it very difficult to predict how long the process will actually take. We know from experience that multi-agency vetting tends to move slowly, and we must be realistic in expecting longer processing times and growing backlogs.

What Happens If Your Asylum Case Is Pending?

If you have a pending affirmative asylum case with USCIS, it is very important to understand one key point:

A paused asylum case does not, by itself, make you undocumented.
While your asylum application is properly filed and remains pending, you generally do not accrue unlawful presence under existing immigration law, even if your interview or decision is delayed, unless some separate negative event happens in your case.

However, the fact that you may not be accruing unlawful presence does not mean everything else stays the same. The area where most people will feel the impact is work authorization.

Impact on Work Permits (EADs)

The question I am hearing most often is:

“Will I keep my work permit while my asylum remains pending?”

At this time, there is no USCIS policy that guarantees that all asylum applicants from these nineteen countries will keep uninterrupted eligibility for work authorization during prolonged delays. The situation is changing and depends on several overlapping rules:

New 19-Country Policies
Recent policy guidance indicates that being from one of the nineteen countries can be treated as a negative factor in discretionary decisions, including some immigration benefits. Advocacy organizations monitoring these changes report that USCIS has paused processing of several types of applications from these countries, including asylum, green cards, and in some cases work permits.
End of Broad Automatic EAD Extensions for Many Categories
Separately, in late October 2025, the Department of Homeland Security issued an interim final rule ending the practice of granting broad automatic extensions of many categories of Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) for people who file renewal applications on or after October 30, 2025.
- Automatic extensions of up to 540 days continue to apply to eligible renewal applicants who filed before that effective date.
- For new renewal filings after that date, many workers will no longer receive an automatic extension while their EAD is pending.
Asylum-Based Work Permits Are Discretionary and Case-Specific
Even before these changes, asylum-based work permits (category C-08) were not automatic. Applicants had to meet the required waiting period and eligibility criteria, and USCIS always retained discretion to grant or deny. With the new national-security-focused policies and the 19-country framework, there is even more uncertainty for applicants whose cases fall under these rules.

In practical terms, this means that some people could experience gaps in work authorization—especially if their EAD renewal is filed after October 30, 2025, or if their case is flagged for additional vetting under the 19-country policies.

That is why I remain especially concerned about asylum seekers who may be forced to wait years for a final asylum decision without clear assurances that their work authorization will be renewed smoothly during that entire period.

We are entering a period in which patience, documentation, and accurate information will be essential. As more official guidance becomes available, I will continue to explain these updates to help the community understand their options and their rights.

If you or a loved one is affected by:

The June 4, 2025 Presidential Proclamation imposing new travel restrictions on nationals of 19 countries,
The more recent USCIS directives pausing decisions on asylum and other applications from those same countries, or
The new rules on work permit extensions,

I strongly encourage you to seek individualized legal advice. These policies are complex, evolving, and heavily dependent on the details of each person’s case.

For information about scheduling a consultation, you may visit my website, follow me on social media, or call my office at (305) 671-0018.

Disclaimer:
This article is intended solely to provide general information on recent immigration developments. It should not be interpreted as legal advice or a substitute for individualized consultation. Immigration regulations, agency policies, and federal directives change rapidly, and their application varies depending on the facts of each case. No attorney–client relationship is formed by accessing this content. Individuals should seek personalized legal counsel before making decisions related to their immigration status, work authorization, or any other matter discussed herein.

WATCH IT ON YOUTUBE

LISTEN ON SPOTIFY

FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA

SPANISH TRANSCRIPT

LOURDES UBIETA:

Bueno, avanzando con los temas, queridos oyentes, el gobierno de Estados Unidos, la administración del presidente Trump anunció ya formalmente lo que nos habían advertido que iba a suceder tras el tiroteo ocurrido en Washington el día antes de Thanksgiving, el jueves de la semana pasada, donde un afgano le disparó a dos guardias nacionales. Bueno, pocas horas después falleció una de ellas, una joven de 20 años. Eso desató, por supuesto, la furia del presidente Trump y de la administración. Y bueno, anunciaban que lo que es el USCIS, la Oficina de Servicios de Ciudadanía e Inmigración, iba a implementar nuevas medidas de seguridad nacional a raíz de este tiroteo, ¿no?

Pero ya es un hecho que todas las solicitudes de inmigración provenientes de diecinueve países considerados de alto riesgo según el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional, citando ese caso de ese tiroteo, pues van a ser suspendidas todas las solicitudes de inmigración. Estamos hablando, amigos oyentes, de países como Afganistán, Myanmar, Chad, la República del Congo, Haití, Irán, Libia, Cuba y Venezuela.

Y esa lista se basa en esta proclamación presidencial de junio que impuso restricciones parciales o totales a la entrada de ciudadanos de estos países, y ahora queda totalmente suspendido. Uno se pregunta: ¿cómo quedan entonces las solicitudes, por ejemplo, de asilo de estas personas que están en los Estados Unidos? De Cuba y de Venezuela puntualmente, ¿no? Porque son los más cercanos que vemos. La doctora Martha Arias está con nosotros a esta hora, abogada de inmigración. Abogada, qué bueno saludarla. Bienvenida a su casa, Radio Libre.

ABOGADA MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ.:

Muchísimas gracias, Lourdes. Un placer para mí estar con usted. También un saludo para todos y gracias por invitarme de nuevo a su programa.

LOURDES UBIETA:

Yo feliz de tenerla por aquí, doctora, para que nos ayude a entender qué va a pasar ahora. Porque en el documento se especifica que quienes se ajusten a esos criterios que estábamos mencionando deberán someterse a un proceso de revisión exhaustivo que puede incluir una entrevista o una nueva entrevista para evaluar todas las amenazas contra la seguridad nacional y la seguridad pública. ¿Cómo le parece y cómo va a operar esto, doctora?

ABOGADA MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ.:

Esta es una de esas situaciones donde teóricamente todos estaríamos de acuerdo con un procedimiento de revisión de antecedentes penales de las personas, ¿cierto? O sea, yo pienso que como ciudadanos de los Estados Unidos, habitantes de esta comunidad, queremos que el gobierno sepa y nos ayude con esa seguridad de vigilar quién entra a nuestro país y quién está aplicando para asilo, para que no vaya a ser un terrorista o una persona de cualquier organización delictiva. Obviamente que todos queremos eso, ¿cierto? O sea, teóricamente es algo que creo que todos los ciudadanos quisieran.

En la práctica, me parece a mí que lo difícil es la aplicación de esto. Porque, como usted bien lo dijo, Lourdes, se van a paralizar o pausar la toma de decisiones de todos esos casos de asilo, particularmente los que entraron en los últimos años, y sobre todo los que entraron por la frontera sin inspección o los que entraron con parole y pertenezcan a alguno de estos 19 países.

Entonces, ¿qué quiere decir pausar la toma de decisiones? Que no van ni a aprobar ni a negar ninguno de estos casos hasta que no se haga una revisión de ellos. Obviamente son casos que o ya tuvieron entrevista, o están a punto, o van a tener entrevista, y después de la entrevista pues no va a pasar nada. Las entrevistas se van a seguir dando; o sea, al que no haya tenido entrevista le van a dar entrevista. El punto es que no se va a tomar ninguna decisión hasta que no le revisen exhaustivamente esos récords penales a las personas.

Entonces la pregunta siguiente es: ¿cuánto va a tardar esto? No sabemos. Usted sabe que todo lo que viene del gobierno puede tomar un poquito más de tiempo. Sobre todo cuando hay varias agencias envueltas en esto, pues seguramente tendremos al FBI, algunas otras agencias locales de policía, también tal vez agencias extranjeras de otros países que tengan que ver con los antecedentes penales de las personas de esos países. Obviamente me imagino que lo harán a través del Departamento de Estado, que son los que manejan los consulados, ¿no?

No me imagino que, por ejemplo, para una persona que viene de Venezuela, el Departamento de Estado notificará al consulado que le corresponde ahora (el consulado de Estados Unidos en Colombia) que averigüe los antecedentes penales de esa persona en Venezuela o en cualquier otro país. Y eso puede tomar tiempo. Como digo, usted sabe, la burocracia es mucha y el gobierno trabaja de pronto un poquito menos rápido que el sector privado. Entonces pienso que esto puede crear una tardanza. ¿Cuánto? Pues no sabemos. Ese es el interrogante para todos: ¿cuánto va a demorar este vetting, que es como lo llama el gobierno —la revisión de antecedentes—? Eso es lo que no sabemos.

Entonces, vuelvo y repito: en términos teóricos es una medida buena que todos queremos, pero en términos prácticos no sé si se nos va a salir de las manos o cuánto tiempo va a tardar. Como dice el cuento: amanecerá y veremos. Nos vamos a quedar sentados.

LOURDES UBIETA:

Básicamente aquí lo que está pasando entonces, doctora, es que ahora al gobierno federal y al Departamento de Ciudadanía e Inmigración le toca hacer lo que no se hizo durante la administración de Biden con estos inmigrantes que entraron ilegalmente a los Estados Unidos sin el proceso de verificación de datos: quién es esta persona, de dónde viene, cuál es su origen… es decir, tener que hacer un proceso que ha debido hacerse antes de que llegaran a los Estados Unidos. ¿Correcto?

ABOGADA MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ.:

Eh… es correcto, pero yo no diría que solamente fue algo que ocurrió en la administración de Biden, porque en la administración de Biden sí hubo una entrada de personas —vamos a decir— desbordante por esa frontera, que obviamente nadie quiso eso, nadie lo quiere tampoco. Pero antes de Biden la gente ha entrado por la frontera de los Estados Unidos y México, y hasta ahora entran muchos por la de Canadá, de la misma forma. O sea, que esto no es la primera vez que nosotros tenemos inmigrantes que entran por la frontera y que nunca han sido revisados sus antecedentes.

LOURDES UBIETA:

Por supuesto. Lo que pasa es que los últimos casos han sido precisamente personas que entraron, por ejemplo, el caso del afgano que mató a las dos guardias nacionales, que fueron producto de esa situación que se presentó caótica con la salida de los Estados Unidos de Afganistán —que no es que no salieran, sino cómo salieron— y las consecuencias que eso ha traído. Puntualmente en este caso me refiero a este afgano.

Ahora, yo me pregunto: ¿cómo quedan las solicitudes de asilo? Por ejemplo, las peticiones de asilo que están en curso, porque eso es algo que entiendo está preocupando mucho a la comunidad, en el caso de los cubanos, por ejemplo.

ABOGADA MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ.:

Esas peticiones de asilo, por lo menos lo que son asilos afirmativos —que son los que están con USCIS, con Citizenship and Immigration Services— esos asilos van a quedar pausados. No hay decisión.

Los que están con la Corte de Inmigración, que ya es otra agencia, se llama EOIR —Executive Office for Immigration Review— esos, que se llaman asilos defensivos porque están en una corte defendiéndose de una deportación, esos van a continuar.

El mayor problema que tenemos ahora son esos que quedan pausados.

LOURDES UBIETA:

…quiere decir que quedan ilegales. No, no es que quedan ilegales, sencillamente está pausado el proceso. Pero pueden seguir haciendo su vida dentro de Estados Unidos.

ABOGADA MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ.:

Sí, pero ahí viene el punto que quería tocar. Vamos un paso adelante: no van a quedar ilegales porque el asilo está pendiente. Mientras el asilo esté pendiente, están protegidos de acumular presencia ilegal; o sea, no van a tener presencia ilegal en los Estados Unidos.

Pero ahora vamos al punto del permiso de trabajo. ¿Van a tener permiso de trabajo?

Y eso es lo que más me preocupa, Lourdes, porque no hay claridad —o por lo menos yo no la he visto— y no tengo ningún documento oficial que yo pueda usar para decirle a un cliente: “Sí, señor, usted va a tener su permiso de trabajo mientras su asilo continúe pendiente.” No. No tengo ese documento.

Lo que tengo son, por ejemplo, informaciones del gobierno que ha dicho que ya no va a haber prórrogas automáticas de los permisos de trabajo de personas que tienen asilo pendiente. Acuérdense que había una prórroga automática donde a la persona se le extendía automáticamente por 180 días, creo que era, después de que aplicaba para la renovación. Ya no hay prórrogas automáticas, uno.

Dos: otra comunicación —un policy alert, una alerta de política del gobierno— donde explicaron que ahora todo el mundo que tenga un asilo pendiente no va a tener derecho al permiso de trabajo solo porque tiene el asilo pendiente. Que van a hacer una revisión y a determinar a quiénes, caso por caso, les van a dar derecho a ese permiso de trabajo.

Eso es lo que tenemos oficialmente.

¿Qué quiere decir?

Que quién sabe si todos esos que van a tener ese asilo pendiente por quién sabe cuánto tiempo, quién sabe si van a tener ese permiso de trabajo.

Esa es mi mayor preocupación, Lourdes, porque es que la gente que está pendiente de un asilo, lo que más le interesa —probablemente, según lo que yo escucho— es obtener ese permiso de trabajo. ¿Por qué? Porque les permite seguir trabajando y asegurando su sustento. Pero si no lo tienen, y se tienen que esperar tres, cuatro, cinco, diez años sin permiso de trabajo, ahí es donde está la situación preocupante.

LOURDES UBIETA:

Por supuesto. Estamos conversando con la abogada de inmigración Martha Arias. Así lo veo yo también, ¿no? Porque en ese proceso… además son miles de solicitudes, cientos de miles de solicitudes. No cien ni doscientos. Es decir, humanamente, ¿cuántas personas hacen falta en esta oficina para atender y revisar exhaustivamente y hacer entrevistas exhaustivas de cada una de estas personas a las que su proceso de asilo queda suspendido temporalmente?

Imaginen ustedes… esto puede tardar años, doctora Martha. Años.

Y mientras tanto, la gente tiene que comer, tiene que pagar la luz, tiene que pagar el agua, tienen que vivir.

ABOGADA MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ.:

No… aquí en la Florida el agua y la luz… y si eso va para arriba, va para arriba. Así es. No, aquí sí vamos a tener que afinar todo, decir: “Venga un momentico, bájele a la burocracia local, bájele a todo eso para poder pagar”, porque mire… nada más estaba viendo estos días que la recolección de basura ya no son quinientos y pico… serán trescientos y pico…

LOURDES UBIETA:

Y la electricidad también para el año que viene… Así es. Martha Arias, abogada de inmigración, gracias por acompañarme.

ABOGADA MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ.:

Gracias. Un gran abrazo para usted.

ENGLISH TRANSLATION

LOURDES UBIETA:
Well, moving forward with the topics, dear listeners, the United States government, the administration of President Trump has already formally announced what they had warned us was going to happen after the shooting that occurred in Washington the day before Thanksgiving, last week’s Thursday, where an Afghan shot two National Guard members. Well, a few hours later one of them died, a young 20-year-old woman. That unleashed, of course, the fury of President Trump and of the administration. And well, they were announcing that what is USCIS, the Office of Citizenship and Immigration Services, was going to implement new national security measures. Because of this shooting, right?

But it is now a fact that all immigration applications coming from nineteen countries considered high-risk according to the Department of Homeland Security, citing that case of that shooting, well, all immigration applications are going to be suspended. We are talking, dear listeners, about countries such as Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Cuba, and Venezuela.

And that list is based on this presidential proclamation from June that imposed partial or total restrictions on the entry of citizens from these countries, and now it is completely suspended. One wonders: how do the applications, for example, of asylum of these people who are in the United States end up? From Cuba and Venezuela specifically, right? Because they are the ones we see closer. Attorney Martha Arias is with us at this hour, immigration attorney. Attorney, how good to greet you. Welcome to your home, Radio Libre.

ATTORNEY MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ.:
Thank you very much, Lourdes. A pleasure for me to be with you. Also greetings to everyone and thank you for inviting me once again to your program.

LOURDES UBIETA:
I am happy to have you here, attorney, so that you can help us understand what is going to happen now. Because in the document it specifies that those who fall under those criteria that we were mentioning will have to undergo an exhaustive review process that may include an interview or a new interview to evaluate all threats against national security and public safety. How does it seem to you and how is this going to operate, attorney?

ATTORNEY MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ.:
This is—this is one of those situations where theoretically we would all agree with a procedure of review of the criminal background of people, right? I mean, I think that as citizens of the United States, inhabitants of this community, we want the government to know and help us with that security of monitoring who enters our country and who is applying for asylum, so that the person is not a terrorist, a person from any criminal organization. Obviously, we all want that, right? I mean, theoretically, it is something that I think all citizens would want.

In practical terms, it seems to me that the difficult thing is the application of this in practical form, because as you correctly said, Lourdes, the decision-making on all of those asylum cases is going to be paralyzed or paused, particularly those who entered in recent years and those who entered especially through the border without inspection or those who entered with parole, right, and who belong to one of these 19 countries or belong, well, to any of these countries.

So, what does pausing the decision-making mean? That they are not going to approve nor deny any of these cases until a review of them is done. Obviously, these are cases that either already had an interview or are about to or are going to have an interview, and after the interview nothing is going to happen. The interviews will continue being given; that is, the one who has not had an interview will be given an interview. The point is that no decision is going to be made until their criminal records are reviewed exhaustively.

So the next question is: how long is this going to take? We do not know. You know that everything that, especially what comes from the government, can take a little more time. Especially when there are several agencies involved in this; surely we would have the FBI, some other local police agencies, also maybe foreign agencies of other countries that have to do with the police or criminal background of the people from those countries. Obviously, I imagine they will do it through the Department of State, which is the one that manages the consulates, right?

I do not imagine that, for example, for a person who comes from Venezuela, the Department of State, well, will notify the consulate that corresponds now—that is the U.S. consulate in Colombia—to investigate the criminal records of that person in Venezuela or in any other country. And that can take time, as I say. You know, the bureaucracy is a lot and the government works maybe a little less fast, I would say, than the private sector. So I think this can create a delay. How much? Well, we do not know. That is the question for everyone. How long this vetting—which is how the government calls it, the review of background—how long is that going to take? That is what we do not know.

So, I repeat again: in theoretical terms it is a good measure that we all want, I mean in theoretical terms, but in practical terms I think that I do not know if this is going to get out of our hands or how long. Here, as the saying goes, well, dawn will tell. We will stay seated.

LOURDES UBIETA:
Basically what is happening here then, attorney, is that now the federal government and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration have to do what was not done during the Biden administration with these immigrants who entered illegally into the United States without the process of data verification, of who is this person who is entering the country, what is coming, what is it, where does it come from, what is its origin… That is, having to do a process that should have been done before they arrived in the United States, correct?

ATTORNEY MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ.:
Eh… that is correct, but I would not say that it was only something that occurred in the Biden administration, because the Biden administration did have an entry of people, let’s say, overflowing through that border. Which, obviously, nobody wanted that; nobody wants that either. But before Biden, people have entered through the border of the United States and Mexico, and even now many enter through the one with Canada, in the same way. So this is not the first time that we have immigrants who enter through the border and whose backgrounds have never been reviewed.

LOURDES UBIETA:
Of course. What happens is that the latest cases have been precisely people who entered—for example, the case of the Afghan who killed the two National Guard members—that were the product of that chaotic situation with the departure of the United States from Afghanistan, which is not that they should not have left, but how they left, and the consequences that this has brought. Specifically in this case I refer to this Afghan.

Now, I wonder how the asylum applications end up, for example the asylum petitions that are underway, because that is something that I understand is worrying the community a lot, in the case of Cubans, for example.

ATTORNEY MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ.:
Those asylum petitions, at least what are affirmative asylums—which are those that are with USCIS, with Citizenship and Immigration Services—those asylums are going to be paused. There is no decision.

Those that are with the Immigration Court, which is already another agency, is called EOIR—Executive Office for Immigration Review—those that are called defensive asylums because they are in a court defending themselves from a deportation, those are going to continue.

The biggest problem that we have now are those that remain paused.

LOURDES UBIETA:
…you mean they remain illegal? No, it is not that they remain illegal, it is simply that the process is paused. They can continue doing their life within the United States.

ATTORNEY MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ.:
Yes, but there comes the point I wanted to touch. There comes—we are going one step forward. They are not going to remain illegal because the asylum is pending. As long as the asylum is pending, they are protected from accumulating unlawful presence. Or rather, they are not going to have unlawful presence in the United States.

But now we go to the point of the work permit. Are they going to have a work permit?
And that is what worries me the most, Lourdes, because there is no clarity—or at least I have not seen it—and I do not have any official document that I can use to tell a client: “Yes, sir, you are going to have your work permit while your asylum continues pending.” No. I do not have that document.

What I do have are, for example, government communications that have said that there will no longer be automatic extensions of work permits for people who have pending asylum. Remember that there used to be an automatic extension where the person would have it automatically extended for 180 days, I think it was, after applying for the renewal. There are no longer automatic extensions, number one.

Number two: another communication—a policy alert, a political alert from the government—where they explained that now everyone who has a pending asylum is not going to have the right to a work permit just because they have the pending asylum. That they are going to do a review and determine who, case by case, is going to have the right to that work permit.

That is what we have officially.

What does that mean?
That who knows if all those who are going to have that pending asylum for who knows how long—who knows if they are going to have that work permit.

That is my biggest concern, Lourdes, because people who are waiting for an asylum, what interests them the most—probably, according to what I hear—is to have that work permit. Why? Because it allows them to continue working and earning their living. But if they do not have it, and they have to wait three, four, five, ten years without a work permit, that is where the concerning situation is.

LOURDES UBIETA:
Of course. We are speaking with immigration attorney Martha Arias. That is how I see it too, right? Because in that process… because it is also thousands of applications, hundreds of thousands of applications. Not one hundred nor two hundred. I mean, humanly, how many people are needed in this office to attend to and review exhaustively and do exhaustive interviews for each one of these people whose asylum process is temporarily suspended?

Imagine that… it can take years, attorney Martha. Years. And meanwhile, people have to eat, have to pay electricity, have to pay water, they have to live.

ATTORNEY MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ.:
No… here in Florida the water and electricity… And if that goes up, it goes up. That’s right. No, here we are going to have to refine everything, to say: “Come here for a moment, lower the local bureaucracy, lower all of that so we can pay,” because look… I was just seeing the other day that the garbage collection is no longer five-hundred-and-some… it will be three-hundred-and-some…

LOURDES UBIETA:
And electricity too for next year… That’s right. Martha Arias, immigration attorney, thank you for joining me.

ATTORNEY MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ.:
Thank you. A big hug for you.

The post What the New USCIS Suspensions Mean for Asylum Seekers appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

Immigration Alert: New U.S. Entry Restrictions What Applicants Must Know?

Martha Arias — Tue, 02 Dec 2025 16:07:47 +0000

The landscape of U.S. immigration changed significantly on June 4, 2025, with the issuance of a Presidential Proclamation that imposes sweeping entry restrictions on nationals from 19 countries. As an immigration law attorney practicing in this complex field, it is crucial to understand the foundation and scope of these new rules, which revive country-specific restrictions targeting deficiencies in governmental cooperation and perceived security risks.

The stated policy objective is clear: to protect United States citizens from foreign nationals who may intend to commit terrorist attacks, threaten national security, espouse hateful ideology, or otherwise exploit U.S. immigration laws for malevolent purposes.

The Legal Foundation and Rationale for the Restrictions

These measures are imposed under the authority of sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The administration asserts that these steps are necessary because the U.S. Government lacks sufficient information to assess the risks posed by foreign nationals from the designated countries.

A critical component of the Proclamation is the directive for the United States to encourage foreign governments to improve their information-sharing and identity-management protocols and practices.

The restrictions are based on a joint report submitted by the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence. This assessment considered several factors when determining which countries warranted suspension:

Screening and Vetting Capabilities.
Information Sharing Policies.
Country-Specific Risk Factors, including a significant terrorist presence.
Visa-Overstay Rate.
Cooperation with Accepting Back Removable Nationals.

The Proclamation specifically notes that immigrants (who become Lawful Permanent Residents) are more difficult to remove, increasing the dangers associated with errors when their home countries maintain inadequate identity-management or information-sharing policies.

The Two Tiers of Entry Suspension

The restrictions distinguish between two categories of countries, applying limitations to both immigrant and nonimmigrant entry.

Tier 1: Full Suspension of Entry (12 Countries)

Nationals of the following 12 countries face a full suspension of entry into the United States as both immigrants and nonimmigrants.

COUNTRY	Primary Rationale/Deficiency Cited in the Proclamation
Afghanistan	Controlled by the Taliban (SDGT group); lacks competent central authority and appropriate screening measures; high F/M/J overstay rate (29.30% in FY 2023).
Burma	High B-1/B-2 overstay rate (27.07%); historically failed to accept removable nationals.
Chad	Unacceptable and high visa overstay rate (49.54% for B-1/B-2, 55.64% for F/M/J in FY 2023), indicating a "blatant disregard for United States immigration laws".
Republic of the Congo	High overstay rates (29.63% B-1/B-2).
Equatorial Guinea	Extremely high F/M/J visa overstay rate (70.18%).
Eritrea	Questionable competence of central authority; criminal records unavailable to the U.S.; historically refuses to accept removable nationals.
Haiti	High overstay rates; lacks a central authority with sufficient law enforcement information; references the influx of "hundreds of thousands of illegal Haitian aliens" during the previous administration.
Iran	State sponsor of terrorism; fails to cooperate in identifying security risks; historically fails to accept removable nationals.
Libya	No competent or cooperative central authority for documents; historical terrorist presence.
Somalia	Government lacks command and control of its territory; lacks competent central authority; identified as a terrorist safe haven; historically refuses to accept removable nationals.
Sudan	Lacks competent central authority and appropriate screening/vetting measures.
Yemen	Lacks competent central authority and appropriate screening/vetting measures; government lacks physical control over its territory.

Tier 2: Partial Suspension of Entry (7 Countries)

For the following seven countries, the entry of nationals as immigrants is suspended, and the entry of nationals as nonimmigrants is suspended specifically for B-1, B-2, B-1/B-2, F, M, and J visas.

Furthermore, consular officers are directed to reduce the validity for any other nonimmigrant visa issued to nationals of these partially restricted countries (such as H or L visas), to the extent permitted by law.

The partially restricted countries are: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. (Note that Cuba is also identified as a state sponsor of terrorism and fails to share sufficient law enforcement information).

Practical Application: Who is Affected and When?

The Proclamation is effective as of June 9, 2025, at 12:01 am eastern daylight time.

Crucially, the suspensions apply only to foreign nationals of the designated countries who are:

Outside the United States on the effective date.
Do not have a valid visa on the effective date.

This means that no immigrant or nonimmigrant visa issued before the applicable effective date shall be revoked pursuant solely to this proclamation. If a client holds a valid visa, they are generally protected from having that specific visa canceled under these new rules.

Navigating Exceptions and Waivers

For those advising clients from these 19 countries, the exceptions offer the best path forward. The restrictions do not apply to several key groups:

Lawful Permanent Residents (LPRs) of the United States.
Dual nationals traveling on a passport issued by a non-designated country.
Immediate Family Immigrant Visas (IR-1/CR-1, IR-2/CR-2, IR-5), provided there is clear and convincing evidence of identity and family relationship (e.g., DNA).
Adoptions (IR-3, IR-4, IH-3, IH-4).
Afghan Special Immigrant Visas.
Immigrant visas for ethnic and religious minorities facing persecution in Iran.
Specific official/international organization visas (A-1, A-2, C-2, C-3, G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4, NATO categories).

Beyond these blanket exceptions, the Proclamation establishes mechanisms for discretionary, case-by-case waivers:

The Secretary of State may grant an exception if the individual’s travel would serve a United States national interest.
The Attorney General may grant an exception if the travel would advance a critical United States national interest involving the Department of Justice, such as the presence of witnesses in criminal proceedings.

Finally, it is paramount to remember that these restrictions do not limit the ability of an individual to seek asylum, refugee status, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), consistent with U.S. laws.

This Proclamation reinforces that geopolitical factors and immigration compliance—specifically visa overstay rates—are now critical components of U.S. entry determinations. Clients from these 19 nations must anticipate significantly increased scrutiny and should explore all available statutory and discretionary exceptions before attempting to apply for a new visa.

DISCLAIMER: This article offers an interpretation and detailed commentary on the Presidential Proclamation of June 4, 2025, from an experienced immigration law perspective. This content is strictly for informational purposes only and should not be construed as formal legal advice. It does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Due to the complexity of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and these specific restrictions, all individuals should consult with qualified legal counsel regarding their unique circumstances. Please note that the Proclamation itself states that it is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable by law or in equity by any party against the United States

The post Immigration Alert: New U.S. Entry Restrictions What Applicants Must Know? appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

Understanding the Latest TPS Developments

Martha Arias — Wed, 19 Nov 2025 13:19:28 +0000

Last Thursday, I joined journalist Orian Brito to discuss an issue that continues to touch thousands of Venezuelan families in the United States: the end of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and the new legal actions that emerged after November 7. I appreciate every opportunity to help our community understand what these changes truly mean, especially during moments of uncertainty.

During the interview, we talked about the document submitted by more than 125 Democratic legislators to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Although this filing has received significant attention, it is important to approach it with clarity and realism. Legally, it is an amicus brief, a supporting document that expresses political and humanitarian concern, but it does not have the power to reverse the termination of TPS on its own. At this stage, the decision ending TPS remains fully in effect.

For many Venezuelans, especially those who relied solely on TPS and did not have another pending immigration process, this creates a difficult reality. Individuals without asylum applications, family petitions, or another form of relief are now without legal status as of November 7. This change carries serious consequences, including the accumulation of unlawful presence.

I also addressed the confusion surrounding the $100 asylum filing fee. USCIS has now clarified publicly that individuals with pending asylum cases do not need to pay this fee, even if a payment notice was previously issued. That clarification, however, came a few days after the court’s order, and many people understandably felt lost in the process.

We ended our conversation by discussing labor certification cases, travel permits, and the complexities created when TPS, asylum, and employment-based processes intersect. These situations must be evaluated carefully, because each case has its own risks, timelines, and legal implications. For some, a viable path may exist. For others, certain steps—like international travel—can jeopardize everything.

My goal is to keep our community informed with honesty and compassion. These are not easy times, but staying vigilant, asking questions, and seeking reliable legal guidance can make a meaningful difference. I thank Orian for opening this space for clarity and for the respect he always shows toward the immigrant community.

If you need guidance about TPS, asylum, family petitions, labor certification, or your specific situation, you are welcome to contact my office at 305-671-0018. We will continue sharing updates as soon as new information becomes available.

Disclaimer:
The information provided in this article is for general educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration laws and policies change frequently, and the details of each case are unique. Reading this material does not create an attorney-client relationship with my office. If you need guidance about your personal situation, please schedule a consultation so we can review your case individually.

FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA

SPANISH TRANSCRIPT:

Orian Brito:
Hola amigos, feliz jueves. Un abrazo para todos ustedes. Gracias por conectarse, por ser parte de esta comunidad. Hay varias informaciones. Una tiene que ver con inmigración, otra tiene que ver con Venezuela, que aunque no es de inmigración propiamente, lo voy a decir porque está en desarrollo. Pero escuchen esto.

Surge un nuevo intento por parte de congresistas de Estados Unidos para revertir la decisión que puso fin al TPS para los venezolanos. Hoy sabemos que más de 125 legisladores demócratas presentaron un documento ante la Corte de Apelaciones del Noveno Circuito el día de hoy para que se anule la medida que terminó con este beneficio migratorio, incluso después de que la Corte Suprema, como ustedes saben, respaldara al Gobierno para poner fin al TPS.

¿Qué impacto real puede tener esta acción? ¿Podría significar una nueva esperanza para los venezolanos que perdieron su TPS? Hoy converso con una abogada muy querida, una mujer muy profesional que siempre me da su tiempo para hablar del tema: es la abogada de inmigración Martha Arias, que nos va a ayudar a entender el alcance legal de esta decisión.

Abogada, ¿cómo está?

Abogada Martha Arias:
Buenas tardes, o buenos días, o… o noche ya. Ya es la noche, más bien.

Orian Brito:
¿Cómo le va?

Abogada Martha Arias:
Muchas gracias por su invitación. Es un placer para mí estar con ustedes y con su audiencia. Estoy bien, bien, con mucho trabajo, muchas cosas que hacer, pero para eso estamos, con salud.

Orian Brito:
Es que es lo más importante, abogada. Quiero preguntarle: ¿qué implica esta acción de los legisladores? Se conoce hoy, 12 de noviembre, pero bueno, ya el TPS el 7 de noviembre prácticamente podemos decir que finalizó. ¿Qué impacto podría tener esta decisión en el Noveno Circuito?

Abogada Martha Arias:
Yo sinceramente creo que no va a tener ningún impacto desde el punto de vista legal. Lo que estos 120 congresistas presentaron —incluyendo una senadora demócrata de la Florida, Debbie Wasserman Schultz— es lo que se llama en inglés un “amicus brief”.

Un “amicus brief” es como un memorial de alegatos que se conoce como amigo de la corte. Es decir, este grupo de congresistas presenta este documento a la corte pidiendo que se reconsidere esa decisión de terminar el TPS de Venezuela.

Ellos aducen, dentro de este memorial de alegatos o dentro de este “amicus brief”, lo siguiente:

Que la ley no le otorga al Ejecutivo —en este caso al Departamento de Homeland Security— la libertad de tomar la decisión de terminar el TPS por razones políticas.
Que la ley le da la libertad de hacerlo por razones humanitarias, pero no políticas.

Entonces consideran estos senadores que, al terminar el Ejecutivo el TPS y los argumentos que presentó, es como que volvieron a escribir la ley —“rewrite the law”—, quiere decir, como que la interpretaron a su manera, pero que el Congreso no tuvo la intención de interpretar la ley de esta forma para ser aplicada al TPS.

En otras palabras, como quien dice que los senadores están diciendo: “Nosotros, el Congreso, interpretamos la ley del TPS de una forma distinta a la que la está interpretando el Ejecutivo, y por lo tanto no debe terminarse este TPS”.

Pero fíjese: esto es un “amicus brief” que se está presentando apenas ahora, cuando ya esta decisión está en firme. Claro, hay ciertas peticiones que se presentan post–decision. Eso es lo que se llama post-decision petitions, peticiones que se presentan después de que hay una decisión. Obviamente, legalmente se pueden hacer, pero bueno…

No sé qué impacto legal tenga. Pienso que tiene más un soporte, un reconocimiento político de los demócratas al pueblo venezolano y al TPS, como un gesto, como un: “Vamos a actuar en beneficio de estos venezolanos”.

Pero pienso yo que es tarde, uno. Y dos: que de pronto esta medida no va a ser tan fuerte, por lo menos en esta etapa, porque no lo hicieron antes… porque no pasó antes… porque no estuvieron antes. Eso es lo que…

Orian Brito:
Por cierto, sobre la tensión en Venezuela, quiero aprovechar este momento —que era lo que iba a decir, que no tiene que ver con inmigración— pero usted sabe que hemos visto un despliegue de Estados Unidos en el Caribe. Hay una tensión entre Estados Unidos y Venezuela. Estados Unidos ha atacado unas narco–lanchas y, solamente a manera de información, hoy lo acaba de informar hace instantes el Secretario de Guerra.

Dice que el presidente Trump —lo voy a leer textual— ordenó actuar, y el Departamento de Guerra está cumpliendo. “Hoy anuncio”, dice, “el operativo Lanza del Sur, dirigido por las Fuerzas de Tarea Conjunta del Comando Sur. Esta misión defiende nuestra nación, elimina a los narcoterroristas de nuestro hemisferio y protege a nuestro país de las drogas que están matando a nuestra gente. El hemisferio occidental es el vecindario de América y lo vamos a proteger.”

Es el anuncio. Anuncian a partir de hoy esta operación Lanza del Sur. ¿Cuál es el alcance? ¿A dónde va o cómo va? No lo podemos decir. Yo no soy astrólogo, ni tampoco experto militar, pero ya la operación tiene un nombre, un objetivo: erradicar el narcoterrorismo.

Así que vamos a estar pendientes con lo que ocurra en las próximas horas.

Fíjese que… quiero preguntarle a la abogada: mientras los venezolanos siguen en esta diatriba, ¿qué hacer? Lo recomendable, en todo caso, sería no esperar qué pueda decidir el Noveno Circuito de Apelaciones, sino buscar otra vía, como se ha hablado anteriormente.

Porque esto… primero, ya estamos a 12 de noviembre, ya se acerca una fecha donde Estados Unidos —o todo el mundo— empieza a salir de vacaciones, etcétera. No tenemos, digamos, una fecha tentativa en la que se podría decidir esto.

Abogada Martha Arias:
Es correcto. No tenemos una fecha tentativa. Y posiblemente —o sea rápido o sea para el año entrante— pero los venezolanos definitivamente…

Hay unos que pueden tener todavía un estatus legal a través del asilo que tengan pendiente, si es que tienen un asilo pendiente.
Otros, pues, que tienen el beneficio de una petición familiar —sea de cónyuge, o de padres, o de hijos— pues también van a tener ese privilegio.

Pero está el gran número de venezolanos que solamente estaban protegidos por el TPS, que no presentaron asilo, y que definitivamente, en este momento —en noviembre 13— están totalmente desprotegidos y sin un estatus legal.

Entonces, la decisión tendría que venir muy rápido para ser positiva para ese grupo de venezolanos que están totalmente desprotegidos. Yo espero que una decisión venga del Congreso, pero directamente del Congreso, no a través de las cortes, porque estos litigios —usted sabe— van y vienen, van y vienen.

Si alguna parte ganara aquí, seguramente el Gobierno va a volver a apelar, y vuelve y apela, y volvemos a este círculo vicioso.

Orian Brito:
Pero es que es un círculo que termina en lo mismo, donde la Corte Suprema le dice al Gobierno: “Usted tiene derecho de quitarlo”, y entonces la gente se queda en el aire.
Yo, siendo venezolano, y trato de brindar servicio a través de este espacio, condeno —y lo digo públicamente— que se brinde una esperanza que siento que es una esperanza delicada. Es decir, que no brinda solidez a la gente.

Sí, vamos a ir al Noveno Circuito… y la gente se sienta y espera al Noveno Circuito.
No. Usted está acumulando, si usted no tiene ningún otro trámite, está acumulando presencia ilegal en Estados Unidos, y eso es gravísimo.

Abogada Martha Arias:
Es así mismo. Es correcto.
La gente que se juega el chance o la oportunidad de quedarse aquí en Estados Unidos sin estatus sabe que eso la va a afectar a futuro, que ya en el futuro tendría que ser una petición de familiar inmediato —que es de cónyuge, padres o hijos ciudadanos americanos— si ellos son menores de edad o…

Van a tener que tener hijos ciudadanos americanos que les vayan a hacer una petición. Y esto, obviamente, es incierto, porque si en este momento no tienen una petición de esta naturaleza, pues no se ve, a corto plazo, esa posibilidad de petición.

Orian Brito:
Quiero preguntarle también sobre el tema del pago de los 100 dólares para el asilo. ¿Cómo se está viviendo esto? Porque al principio el Gobierno lo anunció, después un juez lo frenó. Por ejemplo, en las últimas peticiones que usted ha manejado en su oficina, ¿cómo se está viviendo el proceso?

Abogada Martha Arias:
Bueno, como se está viviendo el proceso… la gente está confundida. Obviamente, no es para menos: está confundida porque el Servicio de Inmigración envió notificaciones de pago a las personas que tenían el asilo pendiente.

Entonces, la notificación —o la decisión de la corte— salió el 30 de octubre, y pues muchas personas no pagaron y estaban sin saber si tenían que pagar o no.

Y no fue hasta el 7 de noviembre cuando Inmigración (USCIS) publicó en su página que iban a acatar esta orden, y que las personas que no habían pagado no tenían que pagar, aunque les hubiera llegado la notificación de pago.

Claro, entonces por lo menos esos siete días después de la orden del juez hubo incertidumbre: no se sabía si se tenía que pagar, si no se tenía que pagar… hasta que publican oficialmente y USCIS lo reconoce.

Ahora, en este momento, como está la notificación escrita y publicada por USCIS, la gente ya sabe que no lo tiene que pagar porque pueden leer esa notificación oficial.

Pero yo diría que el periodo de incertidumbre fue más que todo esos siete días después de la decisión del juez. Personas que pagaron la tarifa saben, con esa misma publicación oficial, que no les van a devolver su dinero.

En este momento yo creo que ya la gente está más tranquila y entiende más. Pero aun así creo que todavía hay gente preguntando —en nuestra oficina también—:
“¿Tengo que pagar la tarifa? ¿No la tengo que pagar?”.

Incluso, en las cortes a veces la gente dice: “Bueno, eso fue con Inmigración, ¿pero qué está pasando con la corte?”.

Entonces sí, todavía hay confusión en algunas personas, pero ya es oficial que no tenían —o que no tienen— que hacer ese pago de esos 100 dólares.

Orian Brito:
Claro. Ya para ir cerrando, abogada… Ayer estuve hablando —conversábamos con la abogada de inmigración, Martha Arias— sobre el tema de la certificación laboral, un mecanismo que para algunos puede ser una vía para permanecer en Estados Unidos.

Y hay un caso particular que me ha escrito —y me ha hecho mucho énfasis en esto— porque él tiene su propia firma, ha construido su propia empresa. Él dice… él me comenta que es autodidacta, que en el área del diseño arquitectónico tiene su propia firma y que él siente que no necesitaría un sponsor para aplicar por esa certificación, ya que él presta su servicio de diseño a través de su firma.

Y él tiene como esas dudas porque, claro, el punto está aquí… Ayer me decía un colega suyo que cuando tú acumulas… estás ilegal, aplicar a un trámite es muy difícil porque tendrías que salir.

Entonces, ¿qué se le puede recomendar a las personas que están viendo esta opción? Especialmente para aquellos que tenían TPS, ya no lo tienen, y están sin estatus.

Abogada Martha Arias:
A ver, lo que es el proceso de certificación laboral es un proceso viable. Pero como usted bien lo dice, si la persona ya está fuera de estatus, incluso los que tuvieron TPS por mucho tiempo y les aprobaron la certificación laboral, muchos de ellos igual tenían que salir del país, porque el TPS no es un estatus legal para poder recibir la residencia en esa categoría de empleo.

Entonces, a esas personas yo les recomiendo que consulten bien con un abogado, porque es posible obtener la residencia a través de esa certificación laboral, pero deben analizar bien el caso:

si van a salir del país,
si van a tener que pedir un perdón por presencia ilegal,
si van a requerir un waiver,
si van a tener un familiar que los califique para ese perdón.

Entonces esos son los análisis que se deben hacer antes de empezar o iniciar el proceso de certificado laboral, porque es costoso: puede costar más de 15.000 dólares para una persona este proceso.

Antes de empezar y pagar todo ese dinero, hay que mirar primero hacia adelante:

si la persona va a poder recibir la residencia cuando salga del país a recibirla en el consulado,
si podrá recibirla porque tiene un familiar que califica para presentar el perdón,
o si definitivamente no tiene quien lo califique para el perdón.

Si no tiene quien lo califique, no podrá presentar ese perdón. Entonces, ¿para qué va a invertir 15.000 dólares —o quién sabe cuánto— para llegar a un punto cero? Un punto muerto.

Esos son los análisis que deben hacer las personas antes de iniciar.

Pero hay muchos venezolanos que están haciendo procesos de certificación laboral porque han trabajado para compañías por mucho tiempo y tienen ese patrocinio de esa compañía. Yo los animo a que lo hagan porque, si lo pueden hacer y no van a ser inadmisibles, obviamente es una gran oportunidad para ellos —aunque tengan que salir del país—.

Son muchas cosas, muchos factores los que se deben analizar. Cada caso se analiza bajo tres hechos. Ese análisis requiere, yo diría, no una, sino dos o hasta tres consultas u opiniones de distintos abogados.

Orian Brito:
Hay un tema… Yo conozco el caso de una chica que se le fue aprobada, pero estaba esperando un permiso de viaje, y el permiso de viaje nunca le llegó. Y claro, tiene su asilo porque tenía un asilo pendiente, tenía TPS y ahora todo…

Claro, ¿cómo queda ese permiso de viaje que todavía está esperando, donde además tiene su asilo pendiente y ya tenía esa certificación aprobada?

Es bastante compleja esa situación, sobre todo cuando la última…

Abogada Martha Arias:
Si no recibió ese permiso de viaje, aunque se lo aprueben ahora, no va a tener efecto porque ya el TPS no existe. Porque ha quedado terminado.

Entonces, ahí no va a tener una forma de regresar y que la dejen entrar a continuar con estatus de TPS.

Ahora, si tiene un asilo pendiente, tiene que pedir también un permiso de viaje, que se llama “Refugee Travel Document”, que es un permiso de viaje para aquellas personas que tienen el asilo pendiente.

Porque si ella sale con el permiso del TPS de viaje, realmente no va a regresar con el TPS. Y si no presenta el permiso de viaje a través del asilo, no va a poder regresar a continuar con ese asilo tampoco, porque se va a considerar abandonado.

Una persona que presenta un asilo y sale sin permiso… ese asilo se considera abandonado. Hay que pedir un permiso de viaje con el asilo, con el asilo.

En conclusión: muchas personas que estaban en esta situación tenían que pedir los dos permisos:

el permiso de viaje con el TPS, y
el permiso de viaje con el asilo.

Muy complicado, porque eso es casi incomprensible para las personas que no son abogadas. Y, incluso, para nosotros los abogados nos quedamos confundidos… porque uno se pregunta: “¿Por qué tengo que hacer esto?”, pero es que la ley lo requiere.

Porque son dos figuras distintas que requieren dos peticiones distintas de viaje para poder regresar y retomar sus trámites.

Orian Brito:
Perfecto. Gracias a la abogada Martha Arias. Me gustaría que dé su número de teléfono para cualquier persona que quiera sentarse… Si usted quiere explorar el tema de la certificación laboral, si desea —como en el caso de la chica que estoy comentando— pedir ese permiso de viaje adicional, sentarse con ella, tramitar su asilo, ajustar estatus, petición familiar… bueno, ya sabe: de todo, de todo esto.

Entonces, ¿dónde la pueden contactar?

Abogada Martha Arias:
El teléfono de mi oficina es 305-671-0018. Lo repito: 305-671-0018.

Mi página web es ariasvilla.com. Ahí pueden encontrar la dirección, teléfono, mis redes sociales, Instagram… todo está allí en esa página: ariasvilla.com.

Orian Brito:
Ariasvilla.com, perfecto. Seguimos pendientes del tema migratorio y también del caso de Venezuela. Cierro rapidito con estas dos cosas.

El senador Lindsey Graham ha escrito en los últimos minutos —a quienes se preguntan qué está pasando en Venezuela— que deben entender que el presidente Trump habla muy en serio cuando se trata de detener al narcoestado venezolano, que continúa envenenando a estadounidenses con droga.

“El presidente Trump también considera que Maduro es un líder ilegítimo, cuyos días están contados. Coincido con la evaluación del presidente sobre la situación de Venezuela. No considero a Maduro un líder legítimo, sino un narcotraficante acusado en tribunales.”

Esas son declaraciones que se están dando al margen del anuncio que ha hecho el Secretario de Guerra sobre la operación Lanza del Sur.

¿Qué más? Repito lo que aquí dice un colega de la agencia —no de la agencia, del diario El País— David Alandete, que está en Washington:

“Estados Unidos acelera hacia un escenario inédito en dos décadas. Estudia golpear objetivos en Venezuela mientras convierte su ofensiva antidrogas en una operación militar de largo recorrido. Trump estudia ataques selectivos dentro de Venezuela. La campaña antidrogas pasa a llamarse Operación Lanza del Sur. Como lo dije: despliegan cerca de 12.000 efectivos y una docena de buques en el Caribe, y la Casa Blanca identifica pistas, campamentos y nudos logísticos del chavismo como posibles blancos.”

Eso está en desarrollo. Abogada, estaremos pendientes de este otro tema.

Le agradezco el tiempo. Repito el número de la abogada Martha Arias: 305-671-0018. Repito: 305-671-0018. Le mando un fuerte abrazo y me alegra que esté de vuelta.

Abogada Martha Arias:
Gracias a usted. Gracias por invitarme. Estaré con ustedes aquí con mucho gusto.

Orian Brito:
Y pendiente de lo que pase porque estamos en la región. Colombia y Venezuela son países hermanos que viven una realidad particular, y bueno, esperamos que todo el mundo esté lo mejor posible pronto.

Un abrazo para todos. Dejen sus comentarios y preguntas y nos conectamos próximamente, amigos. Gracias.

ENGLISH TRANSLATION:

Orian Brito:
Hello friends, happy Thursday. A hug for all of you. Thank you for connecting, for being part of this community. There is various information. One has to do with immigration, another has to do with Venezuela, which although it is not immigration itself, I am going to say it because it is developing. But listen to this.

A new attempt arises from United States congressmembers to reverse the decision that put an end to TPS for Venezuelans. Today we know that more than 125 Democratic legislators presented a document before the Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit today so that the measure that ended this immigration benefit is annulled, even after the Supreme Court, as you know, backed the government to end TPS.

What real impact can this action have? Could it mean new hope for Venezuelans who lost their TPS? Today I am speaking with a very dear attorney, a very professional woman who always gives me her time to talk about the topic. It is the immigration attorney Martha Arias, who is going to help us understand the legal scope of this decision.

Attorney, how are you?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Good afternoon, or good morning, or… or night already. It is night now, rather.

Orian Brito:
How are you doing?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Thank you very much for your invitation. It is a pleasure for me to be here with you, with your audience. I am well, well, a lot of work, many things to do, but that is what we are here for, with health.

Orian Brito:
That is what is most important, attorney. I want to ask you: what does this action by the legislators imply? It became known today, November 12, but well, the TPS on November 7 we can practically say ended. What impact could this decision have in the Ninth Circuit?

Attorney Martha Arias:
I honestly believe it will not have any impact from a legal point of view. What these 120 congressmembers presented —including a Democratic congresswoman from Florida, Debbie Wasserman Schultz— is what is called in English an “amicus brief.”

An “amicus brief” is like a memorandum of arguments known as “friend of the court.” That is, this group of congressmembers presents this document to the court asking that this petition to end TPS for Venezuela be reconsidered.

They argue, inside this memorandum of arguments or inside this “amicus brief,” the following:

That the law does not grant the Executive —in this case the Department of Homeland Security— the freedom to make the decision to end TPS for political reasons.

That the law gives the freedom to do so for humanitarian reasons, but not political ones.

So these senators consider that, when the Executive ended the TPS and the arguments it presented, it is as if they rewrote the law —“rewrite the law”— meaning, as if they interpreted it in their own way, but that Congress did not have the intention of interpreting the law in this way for it to be applied to TPS.

In other words, as if to say that the senators are saying: “We, Congress, interpret the TPS law in a different way than the Executive is interpreting it, and therefore this TPS should not be ended.”

But look, this is an “amicus brief” that is being presented just now, when this decision is already final. Of course, there are certain petitions that are presented post-decision. That is what is called post-decision petitions, petitions that are presented after there is a decision. Legally they can be done, obviously, but well…

I do not know what legal impact it will have. I think it has more of a political support or recognition from the Democrats to the Venezuelan people and to TPS, like a gesture, like a “we are going to act for the benefit of these Venezuelans.”

But I think it is late —first— and second, that maybe this measure will not be so strong, at least at this stage, because they did not do it before… because it did not happen before… because they were not there before. That is what…

Orian Brito:
By the way, about the tension in Venezuela, I want to take advantage of this moment —which was what I was going to say, that it does not have to do with immigration— but you know that we have seen a deployment from the United States in the Caribbean. There is tension between the United States and Venezuela. The United States has attacked some narco-boats, and only as information, today the Secretary of War just informed it moments ago.

He says that President Trump —I am going to read it verbatim— ordered action, and the Department of War is complying. “Today I announce,” he says, “Operation Spear of the South, directed by the Joint Task Forces of the Southern Command. This mission defends our nation, eliminates the narco-terrorists of our hemisphere, and protects our country from the drugs that are killing our people. The Western Hemisphere is America’s neighborhood and we are going to protect it.”

That is the announcement. They announce as of today this operation “Spear of the South.” What is the scope, where is it going, or how is it going? We cannot say. I am not an astrologer, nor a military expert, but the operation already has a name, an objective: to eradicate narco-terrorism.

So we will be watching what happens in the coming hours.

Notice that… I want to ask the attorney: while Venezuelans continue in this dilemma, what to do? The advisable thing, in any case, would be not to wait for what the Ninth Circuit of Appeals may decide, but to look for another path, as has been discussed previously.

Because this… first, we are already on November 12, we are approaching a date when the United States —or the entire world— begins to go on vacation, etc. We do not have, let’s say, a tentative date when this could be decided.

Attorney Martha Arias:
That is correct. We do not have a tentative date. And possibly —whether it is fast or for next year— but Venezuelans definitely…

There are some who may still have a legal status through the asylum they have pending, if they indeed have a pending asylum.
Others who have the benefit of a family petition —whether from a spouse, parents, or children— will also have that privilege.

But there is the large number of Venezuelans who were only protected by TPS, who did not file asylum, and who definitely at this moment —on November 13— are totally unprotected and without legal status.

So the decision would have to come very quickly to be positive for that group of Venezuelans who are totally unprotected. I hope that a decision comes from Congress, but directly from Congress, not through the courts, because these litigations —you know— go and come, go and come.

If one part were to win here, surely the government is going to appeal again, and appeal again, and we return to this vicious circle.

Orian Brito:
But it is a circle that ends in the same place, where the Supreme Court tells the government: “You have the right to remove it,” and then people are left in limbo.

I, being Venezuelan, and I try to provide service through this platform, I condemn —and I say it publicly— giving people a hope that I feel is a delicate hope. That is, it does not give solidity to people.

Yes, “we are going to go to the Ninth Circuit,” and people sit and wait for the Ninth Circuit.
No. If you have no other process, you are accumulating unlawful presence in the United States, and that is very serious.

Attorney Martha Arias:
It is exactly that. It is correct.
People who take the chance or the opportunity to stay here in the United States without status know that it will affect them in the future; that in the future it would have to be through an immediate relative petition —which is for spouse, parents, or U.S. citizen children— if they are minors or…

They would have to have U.S. citizen children who will file a petition for them. And this is obviously uncertain, because if at this moment they do not have a petition of that nature, well, that possibility is not seen in the short term.

Orian Brito:
I also want to ask you about the topic of the 100-dollar payment for asylum. How is this being experienced? Because at first the government announced it, then a judge stopped it. For example, in the most recent petitions you have handled in your office, how is the process being experienced?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Well, how the process is being experienced… people are confused. Obviously, it is not for less: they are confused because the immigration service sent payment notices to people who had pending asylum.

So the notice —or the court’s decision— came out on October 30, and many people did not pay and were not sure if they had to pay or not.

And it was not until November 7 when Immigration (USCIS) published on its website that they were going to comply with this order and that people who had not paid did not have to pay, even if they had received the payment notice.

Of course, during those seven days after the judge’s order there was uncertainty: they did not know if they had to pay, if they did not have to pay… until they published it and officially USCIS recognized it.

Now, at this moment, because the written and published notice exists from USCIS, people now know they do not have to pay because they can read that official notice.

But I would say that the period of uncertainty was mainly those seven days after the judge’s decision.People who paid the fee know, with that same official publication, that they are not going to get their money back.

At this moment, I believe people are already calmer and understand more. But I still think there are people asking —in our office too—:
“Do I have to pay the fee? Do I not have to pay it?”

Even in the courts sometimes people say: “Well, that was with Immigration, but what is happening with the court?”

So yes, there is still confusion among some people, but it is already official that they did not have to —or do not have to— make that payment of those hundred dollars.

Orian Brito:
Of course. Now, to close, attorney… Yesterday I was talking —we were talking with immigration attorney Martha Arias— about the topic of labor certification, a mechanism that for some can be a way to remain in the United States.

And there is a particular case that wrote to me —and has emphasized this a lot— because he has his own firm, has built his own company. He says… He tells me that he is self-taught, that in the area of architectural design he has his own firm, and that he feels he wouldn’t need a sponsor to apply for that certification since he provides his design services through his firm.

And he has those doubts because, of course, here is the point… Yesterday a colleague of yours told me that when you accumulate… when you are illegal, applying for a process is very difficult because you would have to leave.

So what can be recommended to people who are looking at this option? Especially those who had TPS, no longer have it, and are without status.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Let’s see, what is the labor certification process is a viable process. But as you correctly say, if the person is already out of status —even those who had TPS for a long time and had the labor certification approved— many of them also had to leave the country, because TPS is not a lawful status that allows you to receive permanent residence in that employment category.

So, to those people, I recommend that they consult well with an attorney, because it is possible to obtain residence through that labor certification, but they must analyze the case carefully:

if they are going to leave the country,
if they are going to have to request a waiver for unlawful presence,
if they are going to need a waiver,
if they have a relative who qualifies them for that waiver.

Those are the analyses that must be done before starting or initiating the labor certification process, because it is costly: it can cost more than $15,000 for a person.

Before starting and paying all that money, you must first look ahead:

whether the person will be able to receive residence when leaving the country to receive it at the consulate,
whether they will be able to receive it because they have a qualifying relative to file the waiver,
or whether they absolutely do not have anyone who qualifies them for the waiver.

If they have no one who qualifies them, they will not be able to submit that waiver. So why invest $15,000 —or who knows how much— to reach a zero point? A dead end.

Those are the analyses people must undertake before beginning.

But there are many Venezuelans doing labor certification processes because they have worked for companies for a long time and have the sponsorship from that company. I encourage them to do it because, if they can do it and they are not going to be inadmissible, then obviously that is a big opportunity for them —even if they have to leave the country.

There are many things, many factors that must be analyzed. Each case is analyzed under three facts. That analysis requires, I would say, not only one, but two or even three consultations or opinions from different attorneys.

Orian Brito:
There is a topic… I know the case of a girl whose labor certification was approved, but she was waiting for a travel permit, and the travel permit never arrived. And of course, she has her asylum because she had a pending asylum, she had TPS, and now everything…

Of course, how does that travel permit stand —that she is still waiting for— where she also has a pending asylum and already had that certification approved?

It is quite complex, especially when the last…

Attorney Martha Arias:
If she did not receive that travel permit, even if it arrives now and is approved, it will have no effect because TPS no longer exists. Because it has ended.

So there will not be a way for her to return and be allowed to enter to continue with TPS status.

Now, if she has a pending asylum, she also has to request a travel permit called the “Refugee Travel Document,” which is a travel permit for people who have asylum pending.

Because if she leaves with the TPS travel permit, she is not really going to return with TPS. And if she does not submit the travel permit through the asylum, she will not be able to return to continue with that asylum either, because it will be considered abandoned.

A person who has filed asylum and leaves without permission… that asylum is considered abandoned. You have to request a travel permit with the asylum, with the asylum.

In conclusion, many people who were in this situation had to request both permits:

the travel permit with TPS, and

the travel permit with the asylum.

Very complicated, because that is almost incomprehensible for people who are not attorneys. And even for us, the attorneys, we are left confused… because one asks: “Why do I have to do this?” But that is what the law requires.

Because they are two different categories that require two different petitions for travel to be able to return and resume their processes.

Orian Brito:
Perfect. Thanks to attorney Martha Arias. I would like you to give your phone number for anyone who wants to sit down… If you want to explore the topic of labor certification, if you want —as in the case of the girl I am mentioning— to request that additional travel permit, to sit with her, process your asylum, adjust status, family petition… well, you already know, all of this.

So, where can they contact you?

Attorney Martha Arias:
The phone number of my office is 305-671-0018. I repeat: 305-671-0018.

My website is ariasvilla.com. There you can find the address, phone number, my social media, Instagram… everything is there on that page: ariasvilla.com.

Orian Brito:
Ariasvilla.com, perfect. We continue to monitor the immigration issue and also the case of Venezuela. I’ll close quickly with these two things.

Senator Lindsey Graham has written in the last few minutes —to those who wonder what is happening in Venezuela— that they must understand that President Trump speaks very seriously when it comes to stopping the Venezuelan narco-state, which continues poisoning Americans with drugs.

“President Trump also considers Maduro an illegitimate leader whose days are numbered. I agree with the president’s assessment of the situation in Venezuela. I do not consider Maduro a legitimate leader, but rather a narcotrafficker indicted in courts.”

Those are statements being made on the sidelines of the announcement made by the Secretary of War about the Spear of the South operation.

What else? I repeat what a colleague from the agency —not the agency, the El País newspaper— David Alandete, who is in Washington, says:

“The United States accelerates toward an unprecedented scenario in two decades. It is studying striking targets in Venezuela while turning its anti-drug offensive into a long-term military operation. Trump is studying selective strikes inside Venezuela. The anti-drug campaign is now called Operation Spear of the South. As I said, they are deploying about 12,000 personnel and a dozen ships in the Caribbean, and the White House identifies airstrips, camps, and logistical hubs of chavismo as possible targets.”

That is developing. Attorney, we will be attentive to this other issue.

I thank you for your time. I repeat the number of attorney Martha Arias: 305-671-0018. I repeat: 305-671-0018. I send you a big hug and I’m glad you’re back.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Thank you. Thank you for inviting me. I will be here with you with great pleasure.

Orian Brito:
And attentive to what happens because we are in the region. Colombia and Venezuela are brother countries that live a particular reality, and well, we hope everyone will be as well as possible soon.

A hug for everyone. Leave your comments and questions, and we will connect again soon, friends. Thank you.

The post Understanding the Latest TPS Developments appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

After TPS: The Hard Truth Facing Venezuelans in the U.S.

Martha Arias — Wed, 12 Nov 2025 19:16:25 +0000

In my recent interview on Unión Radio, with Eduardo Rodríguez and Saúl Noriega, I spoke about the complex reality that many Venezuelans are facing today after the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for their community.

This is not only a legal matter but also a deeply human one. Each person’s story is different, and each case requires individual attention. Yet there are certain common threads among all: uncertainty, fear of losing protection, and the pressure to make difficult decisions amid changing immigration policies and false expectations.

FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA

The Human Impact Behind the Numbers

When people hear that “250,000 Venezuelans will be affected”, it sounds abstract — but behind that number are families, jobs, and futures built over years of hard work. Some Venezuelans have found legal pathways through marriage to U.S. citizens or residents, others through their U.S.-born or recently naturalized children who can now file petitions on their behalf.

For these individuals, there are solutions available through family-based petitions and adjustment of status.

However, many others remain in more fragile circumstances. Some have pending asylum cases, others have received denials, and others never filed any petition at all. The latter are now in what I would call an “immigration limbo” — a vulnerable space where there is no protection and no immediate path forward.

Those who still have an asylum application pending can continue with their process and maintain their work permit through asylum. But as I explained in the interview, asylum is one of the most difficult protections to win in U.S. immigration law. It requires extensive evidence, time, and preparation. When denied, the person can be referred to Immigration Court and placed in removal proceedings. This means that while asylum provides temporary protection, it is an unstable safeguard.

The Responsibility of Staying Without Legal Status

One question I was asked was whether it is “responsible” for someone without papers to remain in the U.S., waiting for a potential change in administration or court decision that could reverse the end of TPS.

As an attorney, I must say: staying in the country without status is not responsible from a legal standpoint. It places the individual — and their family — in a constant state of risk. Detention or deportation can occur at any moment, and without prior preparation, it can leave loved ones unprotected.

If someone decides to remain despite the risks, it is essential to make contingency plans: designate guardianship for children, clarify financial and property management, and ensure that family members are informed and prepared. These are difficult conversations, but they are acts of responsibility toward one’s family.

I understand, however, that many people feel they cannot return. Venezuela’s political and humanitarian crisis has pushed countless families to make impossible choices. My role as an immigration attorney is not to judge these decisions but to provide honest guidance and realistic options.

A Historical Perspective: TPS Has Always Been Temporary

Many people believe that because TPS has been renewed in the past, it will always continue. Historically, it has indeed been extended multiple times. For example, TPS for Nicaragua and Honduras has lasted for over 27 years since 1998. Those beneficiaries built entire lives in the U.S. under that protection.

However, TPS — as its name says — is temporary. It can end when the government determines that conditions in the designated country have improved or for policy reasons.

In the current case of Venezuela, the government did not specifically claim that the conditions in the country had changed; rather, it based the termination on broader administrative arguments, including recent security concerns. Unfortunately, those isolated cases have overshadowed the reality that the vast majority of Venezuelans in the U.S. are law-abiding individuals who came seeking safety and opportunity.

As of now, there is at least one pending lawsuit in California challenging the termination of TPS, but until a court issues a new ruling, affected individuals must prepare for all possible outcomes.

The Rise of Misleading Visa Offers: The EB-2 “National Interest Waiver”

Another subject I addressed during the interview is the growing number of misleading offers surrounding the EB-2 National Interest Waiver — often referred to as “EB-2 NIW.”

This type of petition is legitimate and valuable for qualified individuals. It allows certain professionals with advanced degrees or exceptional abilities to apply for residency without employer sponsorship if they can show that their work benefits the national interest of the United States.

However, the problem lies in how this visa is being promoted. Recently, it has been heavily commercialized on social media and by unqualified agents as if it were available to anyone with a university degree and five years of experience. Some people are being charged $15,000 to $20,000 for these applications, with the false promise of guaranteed approval.

That is simply not true. The EB-2 NIW requires a strong academic, professional, and salary profile — not just a diploma. It demands detailed evidence of national impact, publications, achievements, or unique expertise. Unfortunately, I have seen many cases denied because individuals were misled into believing they qualified when they did not.

Before investing large amounts of money in any immigration process, always verify the attorney’s credentials, review the requirements with a licensed immigration lawyer, and ensure that the petition is legally sound.

The end of TPS for Venezuelans has caused understandable concern and confusion. Yet, despite the uncertainty, there are still lawful paths available for those who qualify. It’s essential to act wisely, avoid misinformation, and stay informed through credible sources and licensed professionals.

If you or someone you know is affected by the end of TPS or has been approached with offers that sound “too good to be true,” seek proper legal advice before taking any step.

You may contact my office at 305-671-0018 or follow me on social media for updates and educational content. Staying informed and guided by reliable information is the best protection you can have in uncertain times.

Disclaimer:
This publication is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. For personalized advice, please schedule a consultation with an immigration attorney.

SPANISH TRANSCRIPT:

HOST:
Martha Arias, abogada de inmigración, gran colaboradora de este espacio, está en Miami, Estados Unidos, y la tenemos vía telefónica. Martha, como siempre, muy gentil, un gusto tenerte por acá.

Abogada Martha Arias:
Buenos días, Eduardo y Saúl. Un saludo para ustedes, muchísimas gracias por invitarme. Es un placer para mí estar con ustedes.

HOST:
¡Caramba! Pero qué bella eres, qué buena energía, qué educación. Con esa entrada, imagínate tú, Martha, eso no lo hace todo el mundo. Gracias, gracias, gracias en la distancia.

Abogada Martha Arias:
Gracias, gracias a ustedes. Eres una dama.

HOST:
Mira, Martha, primero: ¿son realmente 250.000 las personas que están afectadas directamente por esta decisión del TPS? Y un poco de manera redundante, pero para ir al detalle posible, ¿cuál es la perspectiva para ellos en medio de lo que está pasando?

Abogada Martha Arias:
Bueno, es un poco complicada la perspectiva para la mayoría. Y digo la mayoría porque, como usted podrá entender, muchos van a tener una suerte distinta. Cada uno va a tener su propia suerte.
Aquellas personas que se casaron con ciudadanos americanos —que yo tengo varios de ellos, incluso con residentes— pueden tener una forma de resolver su estatus migratorio. También tengo venezolanos que tenían el TPS y cuyos hijos son ciudadanos americanos o se hicieron recientemente ciudadanos americanos. Ellos también pueden hacer un ajuste de estatus y pedir su residencia.

Pero hay otras personas que tienen el asilo, todavía con una solicitud pendiente. Esas personas deben continuar con su petición de asilo y el permiso de trabajo a través del mismo. Obviamente, es una situación muy inestable, porque el asilo —como usted bien sabrá— es una aplicación que se presenta, hay que probar demasiado, y es muy difícil ganarlo. Si se lo niegan, eventualmente pueden ser enviados a una corte de inmigración para una posible deportación. Entonces, esos que tienen el asilo están protegidos, pero de una forma inestable, diría yo.

Y finalmente, están los que ya no tienen nada que hacer: los que no presentaron petición de asilo, no tienen asilo pendiente, no tienen familia que los pida… esos están prácticamente en un limbo migratorio. Esos son los que más nos preocupan.

HOST:
Ahora, doctora, fíjese: el tema político que tanto influye en este tipo de decisiones —pendiente también de lo que veníamos conversando— el tema de la perspectiva y del futuro, sobre todo para los que dicen “yo no tengo papeles, pero si sale una decisión del tribunal tal o incluso la administración Trump cambia esto, yo me quedo y me aguanto”. ¿Es una decisión responsable, sobre todo para quien piensa así con su familia al lado?

Abogada Martha Arias:
Bueno, yo pienso que obviamente responsable no es, porque uno, pues, está en los Estados Unidos en violación de la ley; y dos, vive en una incertidumbre total, en la que en cualquier momento lo pueden detener, arrestar, llevar a detención, y su familia, sus bienes, sus pertenencias, quedan sometidos a un drama o a una situación complicada.

Las personas deben prepararse si van a quedarse en esas circunstancias: cómo manejar la tutela o la potestad de sus hijos, cómo sus bienes van a ser administrados. Todo esto, porque sería muy complicado que una persona sea arrestada, no tenga papeles y, de un momento a otro, no pueda responder por su familia.

Lo otro que considero es que, sí, hay personas que se juegan ese chance —vamos a llamarlo así— o toman ese riesgo, y en el futuro resuelven de alguna manera. Claro que hay muchas personas que lo hacen así, pero desde el punto de vista legal, obviamente, como abogada, no puedo decir que es responsable. Sin embargo, entiendo a muchas personas que no quieren regresar o que definitivamente no pueden regresar a su país y tienen que jugarse esta carta de esa manera.

HOST:
Amigos, estamos conversando con Martha Arias desde Miami, vía telefónica, abogada de inmigración. Tomando en cuenta tu especialidad y conocimiento histórico, una situación así —vista más allá del TPS para venezolanos, observando el todo del tema migratorio en Estados Unidos— ¿tiene precedentes? Porque, al final, uno se pregunta: si decido quedarme en ese limbo, ¿hasta qué punto puedo sobrevivir en medio de ese laberinto?

Abogada Martha Arias:
Desde el punto de vista histórico, el TPS siempre se ha extendido, se ha vuelto a otorgar. De hecho, sabemos que el TPS de Nicaragua y Honduras estaba vigente desde 1998 y duró prácticamente 27 años siendo extendido. Las personas tenían derecho al permiso de trabajo y vivían aquí por casi tres décadas.

Pero sí, bajo la ley, el TPS, como lo dice su propio nombre, es una protección temporal. Puede ser eliminado si hay cambios en las condiciones del país o ciertas circunstancias. En este caso, el gobierno no adujo realmente cambios en las condiciones del país; más bien, argumentó una situación de protección y sostuvo que muchas de las personas que habían entrado recientemente y aplicaron para el TPS pertenecían al “Tren de Aragua”.

Obviamente, todos sabemos que esas son pocas personas, y la gran mayoría son trabajadores honestos, incluso muchos que entraron con visa. Pero, aun así, el gobierno ha terminado el TPS en otras ocasiones. En este caso, las demandas que se presentaron ganaron ciertas batallas, pero no la guerra. Llegaron hasta la Corte Suprema, donde la Corte claramente apoyó al Ejecutivo en la terminación del TPS.

Aparentemente, tengo conocimiento de que hay una demanda pendiente en California sobre esto, pero no tengo mucha información porque aún no se ha hecho pública. En su debido momento, cuando ya se anuncie y tengamos claridad de lo que están pidiendo las partes demandantes, podremos conversar al respecto.

Por ahora, las personas deben protegerse: o salir del país, o continuar con su asilo, o tomar sus riesgos.

HOST:
Doctora, ya nos queda un minuto y medio. En su práctica cotidiana, ¿qué tipo de peticiones predominan entre los venezolanos que acuden a su oficina? ¿Le piden ayuda para quedarse o para mantener sus papeles en regla y poder viajar hacia otro país?

Abogada Martha Arias:
Mire, sinceramente, la mayoría —yo diría un 40 o 45 por ciento— se están inclinando por peticiones laborales a través de empleadores, lo cual es correcto; hay ciertas peticiones que se pueden hacer. Pero la mayoría debe salir del país, no pueden ajustar estatus ni recibir su residencia aquí con esas peticiones de empleo.

Sin embargo, hay mucha desinformación, porque a veces la gente no entiende que debe salir del país. Inician estos procesos costosos sin saber que deberán salir a recibir la residencia fuera de Estados Unidos. Me da mucha pena por ellos, porque invierten dinero y tiempo para luego enterarse de eso.

Otros están aplicando para lo que se ha promocionado —o mercadeado, porque realmente es mercadeo— como la “EB-2 National Interest Waiver”, o EB-2 con interés nacional. Es una petición de residencia para personas con habilidades extraordinarias, que pueden demostrar estar en el top de su profesión o carrera. Pero se requiere probar bastante.

Últimamente la están comercializando, como digo yo, como pan diario. Y eso no es así. No es una visa para todo el mundo. Requiere calificaciones, un perfil profesional, académico, laboral y de salario muy alto. Pero se la venden por 15 o 20 mil dólares. Es costosa. Le hacen creer que con tener un título universitario y cinco años de experiencia ya califican, y no es cierto. Me da mucha pena ver personas con esas visas denegadas después de invertir tanto dinero.

Así que, sí, mucha gente está recurriendo a la EB-2 de Interés Nacional con esperanza, gastando dinero, y no siempre es la opción adecuada. El resto de las personas —la mayoría— siguen afianzadas en el asilo. Yo diría otro 40 por ciento. Y un pequeño grupo ha decidido hacer su petición a través del matrimonio, obviamente de buena fe, con intención genuina de vida en pareja. Algunos no se habían casado por ser jóvenes o por esperar alguna situación familiar, pero ante las circunstancias, han decidido hacerlo.

HOST:
Muchísimas gracias, Martha. Qué gentil y qué interesante aporte en medio de este tema tan delicado para tantos venezolanos. Un gran abrazo.

Abogada Martha Arias:
Muchísimas gracias. Un abrazo para ustedes y feliz resto de semana.

HOST:
Igualmente, Martha Arias, abogada de inmigración. Qué buena vocera, qué respuestas tan técnicas. Muchos están aprovechando la preocupación de los venezolanos y les están vendiendo cosas que no son. Y ese es otro punto al que hay que prestarle atención.

ENGLISH TRANSLATION:

HOST:
Martha Arias, immigration attorney and great collaborator of this program, is in Miami, United States, and we have her on the phone line. Martha, as always, very kind—such a pleasure to have you with us.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Good morning, Eduardo and Saúl. A greeting to both of you, and thank you very much for inviting me. It’s a pleasure for me to be with you.

HOST:
Goodness! You are so lovely, what good energy, what manners. With that introduction—imagine! Martha, not everyone does that. Thank you, thank you, thank you, from afar.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Thank you, thank you to you. You are very kind.

HOST:
Look, Martha, first—are there really 250,000 people directly affected by this TPS decision? And, to be a little redundant but go into detail if possible—what is the outlook for them in the midst of what is happening?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Well, the outlook is a little complicated for the majority. And I say “the majority” because, as you can understand, many will have a different fate. Each one will have their own fate.
Those who married U.S. citizens — and I have several of them, even with residents — may have a way to resolve their immigration status. I also have Venezuelans who had TPS and whose children are U.S. citizens or recently became citizens. They too can adjust status and apply for residency.

But there are other people who have asylum, still with a pending application. Those individuals must continue with their asylum case and their work permit through asylum. Obviously, it is also a very unstable situation because, as you well know, asylum is an application that must be proven extensively. It is very difficult to win, and if denied, they can eventually be sent to immigration court for possible deportation. So those who have asylum are protected, but in an unstable way, I would say.

And finally, there are those who have nothing left to do — those who did not file for asylum, do not have a pending case, and do not have family members to petition for them. Those are practically in an immigration limbo. They are the ones we worry about the most.

HOST:
Now, attorney, consider this—the political factor that so strongly influences these types of decisions. Regarding what we were talking about—the outlook and the future—especially for those who say, “I don’t have papers, but if a certain court decision comes out, or if the Trump administration changes this, I’ll stay and hold on.” Is that a responsible decision, especially for someone thinking that way with their family beside them?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Well, I think that, obviously, it is not responsible because, first, one is in the United States in violation of the law; and second, one is living in complete uncertainty, where at any moment they can be detained, arrested, taken into custody, and their family, their belongings, their possessions are left facing a drama or a complicated situation.

People must prepare themselves if they plan to remain under such circumstances: how to handle guardianship or custody of their children, how their assets will be managed. All of this, because it would be very difficult for a person to be arrested, have no documents, and from one moment to the next be unable to respond for their family.

Another thing I consider is that, yes, there are people who take that chance — let’s call it that — or take that risk, and in the future, they somehow manage to resolve. Of course, many people do that. But from a legal standpoint, obviously, as an attorney, I cannot say it’s responsible. However, I understand many who do not want to return or who simply cannot return to their country and must play this card this way.

HOST:
Friends, we’re speaking with Martha Arias from Miami, by phone, immigration attorney. Considering your specialty and even historical knowledge, a situation like this — not only from the perspective of the temporary protection system for Venezuelans but from the broader historical view of immigration in the United States — does it have precedent? Because, as Saúl was suggesting, in the end one wonders: if I decide to remain in that limbo, to what extent can I survive in that maze?

Attorney Martha Arias:
From a historical point of view, TPS has always been extended; it has always been renewed. In fact, we know that the TPS for Nicaragua and Honduras began in 1998 and lasted practically 27 years being extended. Those people had the right to work permits and lived here for almost three decades.

But yes, under the TPS law, as its name says, is temporary protection. It can be terminated if conditions in the country change or under certain circumstances. In this case, the government did not really claim that the conditions in Venezuela had changed; rather, it argued a situation of national protection, stating that many of the people who had recently entered and applied for TPS were members of the “Tren de Aragua.”

Obviously, we all know those are very few individuals, and the great majority are honest workers — many of them even entered with visas. But still, the government has terminated TPS in other cases. In this case, the lawsuits that were filed won some battles but not the war. They reached the Supreme Court, which clearly supported the executive branch in the termination of TPS.

Apparently, I have knowledge of a pending lawsuit in California on this issue, but I don’t have much information because it hasn’t yet been made public. At the right time, when it’s announced and we have clarity about what the plaintiffs are demanding and what arguments are being made, we can talk about it.

For now, people must protect themselves—either leave the country, continue with asylum, or take their risks.

HOST:
Attorney, we have about a minute and a half left. In your day-to-day legal practice, what trend are you seeing among Venezuelan clients? Do they ask you for help to stay in the U.S., or to maintain their papers properly to perhaps travel to another country?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Well, I’ll tell you honestly, the majority — I would say around 40 or 45 percent — are leaning toward employment-based petitions through employers, which is valid; there are certain petitions that can be done. But most of them must leave the country; they cannot adjust status or obtain residency here through those petitions.

However, there is a lot of misinformation about this because people often don’t understand they must leave the country. They begin these processes, which are very costly, without realizing that they’ll have to depart to obtain the residency abroad. I feel bad for them because they invest money only to later learn that they’ll need to leave anyway.

Others are applying for what has been promoted — or marketed, because it really is marketing — as the “EB-2 National Interest Waiver.” It’s a residence petition for people with extraordinary abilities who can show that they are at the top of their profession or occupation. But that requires significant proof.

Lately, it’s being commercialized, as I say, like daily bread. And it shouldn’t be. It is not a visa for everyone. It requires qualifications and a very high professional, academic, employment, and salary profile. Yet it’s being sold for $15,000 to $20,000. It’s extremely expensive. They tell people that if you have a university degree and more than five years of experience, you qualify. No—that’s not true. I feel sorry to see people with those visas denied after investing so much money.

So yes, many are turning to the EB-2 National Interest Waiver with hope, spending a lot of money, and it’s not always the right option. The rest — most — are still relying on asylum. I’d say another 40 percent. And a smaller group has decided to file petitions through marriage, obviously real marriages made in good faith. Some hadn’t married yet because they were young or waiting for family situations, but seeing the current circumstances, they’ve decided to take that step.

HOST:
Thank you very much, Martha. How kind, and what an insightful contribution amid this distressing issue for so many Venezuelans. A big hug.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Thank you very much. A hug to all of you, and have a wonderful rest of the week.

HOST:
Likewise, Martha Arias, immigration attorney. What a fine spokesperson—such direct, technical answers. As Eduardo was saying, many are taking advantage of Venezuelans’ worry, selling them things that aren’t true. And that’s another point we must pay attention to.

The post After TPS: The Hard Truth Facing Venezuelans in the U.S. appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

What the New U.S. Travel Ban Means for Cubans, Venezuelans, and Asylum Seekers

Martha Arias — Wed, 07 May 2025 00:05:37 +0000

Today, I had the opportunity to join Agustín and Carlos Acosta on Actualidad Radio’s “Cada Tarde” to clarify the latest travel and visa restrictions announced by the U.S. government—measures that are raising serious concerns in our communities, especially for families from Cuba and Venezuela.

What has changed?
As of June 9, people from Cuba and Venezuela holding immigrant visas—those processed through U.S. consulates for residency—will not be allowed to enter the United States. Even those with non-immigrant visas (like B1/B2 tourist/business, F/M/J student/practical training visas) will be barred from entry after this date. If you have an upcoming consular appointment, please be aware: even if your visa is approved, the timing and delivery of your passport may prevent you from traveling before the restrictions take effect.

For Venezuelans, the challenge is even greater, as visa processing takes place outside the country, mainly in Bogotá, Colombia, adding more obstacles for applicants.

Are there exceptions?
Yes. Legal permanent residents, those traveling for diplomatic, religious, athletic, or cultural purposes, and certain other specialized visa categories are not affected by this proclamation. Dual nationals may also enter the U.S. with their other passport if eligible.

What about those with valid visas?
Even with a valid B1/B2, F, M, or J visa, entry is suspended—meaning the visa is not revoked, but you will not be allowed in. This is not about new visas being denied, but a “travel ban” for previously issued visas in these categories. For the next 90 days, the government will evaluate these restrictions and decide whether to end, extend, or modify them.

Possible changes to work permits for asylum seekers:
There are also unconfirmed reports that the government may suspend employment authorization for asylum applicants. Work permits are governed by federal regulations and could, in theory, be changed by the administration following a specific legal process—not by executive order. While nothing is official yet, such a measure would be deeply concerning, especially for those waiting years for their asylum cases to be processed. Many families depend on this permit for survival, and removing it would have devastating effects.

My thoughts:
These measures are complicated and deeply impact many people with real humanitarian needs. I urge everyone affected to consult reliable legal counsel, stay informed through official channels, and reach out with questions. Remember: information can change quickly.

FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA

SPANISH TRANSCRIPT:

Agustín Acosta:
El primer titular en el día de hoy tiene que ver precisamente con la prohibición de viajes ordenada por el presidente de los Estados Unidos para una docena de países y restricciones de visa para otras siete naciones. Entre las que tienen restricciones de visa, pues dos que nos atañen, nos preocupan, que son Cuba y Venezuela, porque la prohibición como tal, afecta a muy pocas personas de nuestro auditorio, ¿no? Porque afecta personas de Afganistán, de Birmania…

Carlos Acosta:
Yo creo que la colonia afgana, por ejemplo, que haya aquí, no hay muchos.

Agustín Acosta:
No, absolutamente. De Birmania,

Carlos Acosta:
De birmanos, en la pequeña Habana también es muy pequeño.

Agustín Acosta:
De Yemen, de esos lugares, de Burkina Faso, lugares donde realmente pues no hay mucha gente por acá, pero Cuba y Venezuela no aparecen en la lista de países que tienen la prohibición como tal, sino de países que van a enfrentar restricciones a nivel consular para el otorgamiento de nuevas visas.

Carlos Acosta:
Así es. Vamos a conversar sobre este tema, como en principio lo estábamos haciendo desde el punto de vista periodístico, ahora vamos a tener la óptica de una persona que es profesional de las leyes migratorias y que nos va a ayudar un poco a entender dentro de lo que hasta ahora se ha publicado y ya dicho de esta proclamación por parte del gobierno.

Agustín Acosta:
Así es. Detrás está la abogada Martha Arias, nuestra amiga y colaboradora para entender estas cosas. Ella tiene su segmento acá, los lunes conmigo, para hablar de temas de inmigración. Doctora, muy buenas tardes.

Carlos Acosta:
¿Cómo está, doctora? Bienvenida.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Buenas tardes, Agustín y Carlos y toda la audiencia de Actualidad Radio, y efectivamente yo siempre me siento aquí como en casa.

Agustín Acosta:
Muchas gracias, doctora. ¿Se sabe algo más allá del simple comunicado que emitiera el gobierno de los Estados Unidos? Y nos vamos a concentrar mayormente en Cuba y Venezuela, porque realmente no creo que haya mucho interés en nuestro grupo de oyentes sobre Yemen, Afganistán, Burkina Faso o Birmania.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Bueno, no hay una información adicional del Departamento de Estado, que creo que es el departamento que pronto debe continuar con cierta información adicional que nos debe proveer. Pero la proclamación es clara en cuanto a Cuba y a Venezuela: no van a poder ingresar las personas con visa de inmigrante después del 9 de junio.
¿Quiénes son los que entran con visas de inmigrante? Los que reciben la residencia en los consulados, los que los consulados les aprueban la visa de inmigrante, o sea, la residencia. Esto es grave porque quiere decir que si un cubano o un venezolano tiene su cita en el consulado después del 9 de junio, no va a poder entrar a los Estados Unidos y eso pues no sé si siquiera va a tener la cita porque puede ser que el Departamento de Estado, como dije antes, comunique que les cancelan la cita por esta misma proclamación.

Agustín Acosta:
¿9 de junio, que sería el próximo lunes?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Sí señor, el próximo lunes. O sea, ya estamos a jueves, quiere decir que los que tengan cita consular, el cubano o venezolano que se la entreguen el viernes, deberían coger rapidito y tratar de viajar el fin de semana y no creo que tampoco lo puedan hacer porque acuérdese que los consulados emiten las visas y las mandan por correo de tres a cinco días después de la cita.
Entonces, si esa persona tuviera la cita hoy o mañana y le mandan el pasaporte sellado la semana entrante, pues ya tampoco va a poder viajar, o sea que el tiempo, el margen es muy corto.

Carlos Acosta:
Y en especial los venezolanos tienen la situación de que la embajada no está en Caracas, está en Bogotá, entonces eso hace todavía un poco más difícil el tema de recibir o de la gestión consular propiamente dicha.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Es correcto.
Entonces, no van a poder entrar los que tengan esas visas de inmigrantes a partir de junio. Las personas que tengan las visas de no inmigrantes, que son la B1, B2 —la B1 es negocio, B2 es turismo—, la F que es la visa de estudiante, la M y la J que son visas también de estudiante pero de estudios prácticos, tampoco van a poder entrar a los Estados Unidos después de esa fecha. Eso también está claro allí en esa proclamación.
Hay algo que a mí me parece que no está claro y por eso no quiero contestar muchas preguntas hasta que el gobierno no nos dé exactamente una aclaración. Y es que la proclamación dice que esto solamente aplica para los que no tengan visa de no inmigrante B1, B2, F, J, M al momento de aplicarse la proclamación, que sería el 9 de junio, pero los que ya la tienen no aplica, pero sí va a aplicar el hecho de que no pueden entrar. Entonces pues para mí es como lo mismo. Porque si la persona ya tiene la visa y no ha entrado, está fuera de los Estados Unidos y vamos a decir que va a entrar la semana entrante, el miércoles o jueves, pues no lo van a dejar entrar aunque ya tenga la visa. Entonces ahí hay un poquito de confusión en esa ley.
¿A quiénes no aplica? Esto es importante: no aplica a cierto grupo de visas como las de la OTAN, N, A, T, O, que son visas básicamente diplomáticas, tampoco para las personas que vienen en grupos deportivos o equipos o a jugar o alguna presentación atlética, tampoco —que son normalmente las visas O y P—, tampoco aplica a las personas que vengan con visa religiosa o sus familiares dependientes que vienen con las visas religiosas y tampoco aplica a los residentes legales de los Estados Unidos. Eso es importante decirlo: si usted es cubano o venezolano, y ya tiene su residencia emitida, porque tiene su tarjetica, no va a aplicar para usted esta prohibición.
Entonces, ese es como el resumen.
Ahora, la otra pregunta que me han hecho es ¿hasta cuándo va a durar esto? La misma proclamación dice que 90 días; el gobierno, que son en este caso el Departamento de Estado, el Departamento de Defensa, el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional, tienen que revisar en 90 días la experiencia con esta proclamación para terminarla o suspenderla o complementarla, o sea que en 90 días vamos a saber si de pronto la terminan o la continúan.

Carlos Acosta:
Ahora escuchaba, doctora, y la que nos queda de duda, si en el caso que nos ocupa, que es Cuba y Venezuela, si un cubano o un venezolano posee doble nacionalidad, entonces podría apelar a esa segunda nacionalidad para la solicitud de la visa, ¿eso es correcto?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Es correcto, si la persona tiene otra nacionalidad, va a poder entrar a los Estados Unidos con el pasaporte de esa nacionalidad.

Agustín Acosta:
Por ejemplo, si la persona es venezolana, pero al mismo tiempo es ciudadana española y tiene entonces el pasaporte de la Unión Europea, esto no lo afectaría porque entraría a los Estados Unidos como europeo, no como venezolano.

Carlos Acosta:
¿Entraría con el ESTA?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Correcto, puede entrar con el ESTA o puede entrar con la visa de turista o cualquiera de las visas que tenga esa persona, pero usando ese pasaporte de la comunidad europea, de ese país europeo, no el pasaporte venezolano.

Carlos Acosta:
Bien, yo tengo acá, doctora, un comunicado del congresista Carlos Jiménez. Es bastante corto, me voy a tomar la libertad de leerlo sobre todo porque da algunas informaciones sobre las visas existentes vigentes, que según su afirmación son válidas, lo leo rápidamente para usted.
Dice: “Las recientes restricciones parciales de viaje y visas impuestas a Cuba y Venezuela son resultados directos de las políticas fallidas y la ruptura de relaciones con los regímenes represivos de Díaz-Canel en Cuba y de Maduro en Venezuela. Estos regímenes no sólo desprecian a Estados Unidos, sino que trabajan activamente para socavar nuestra seguridad nacional mediante espionaje, ciberataques y otras amenazas.”
Ya aquí viene la información.
“Es importante señalar que estas restricciones no afectarán a las personas que actualmente son residentes permanentes o poseen visas válidas. Es decir, aquel que tiene una visa válida puede comprar su boleto y podría entrar sin problemas.”

Attorney Martha Arias:
Lo que pasa es que no va a aplicar a los que tengan visas válidas B1, B2, F, M, J. Eso está clarísimo en la proclamación. No quieren que se argumente que la visa tiene que ser válida, pero no van a poder entrar a los Estados Unidos después. Es una pausa, es una suspensión de esas visas. O sea, que ahí creo que de pronto la comunicación no está clara, pero la proclamación sí lo es. En mi página de Facebook, AriasVillaLaw, ahí yo puse incluso sin rodeos, puse o copié y pegué entre comillas, mostrando que viene de la regulación. Es exactamente el pedacito que habla de Cuba y Venezuela para que la gente lo lea. Y ahí está clarísimo, solo puede leer cualquier persona que lea inglés, puede leer que dice claramente: suspensión de la visa de no inmigrante, B1, B2, o B1 sola, o B2 sola, la F, la M y la J.

Agustín Acosta:
O sea, que no estaríamos hablando en esos casos que usted acaba de detallar de otorgamientos de visas nuevas a partir de cero, sino suspensión de las visas otorgadas ya previamente bajo esas categorías.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Exactamente. Dice que esas visas no van a poder ingresar. No tengo aquí para leerlo claramente, pero lo puedo ir buscando. No es que no las van a emitir, es que no nos van a dejar ingresar, por eso se llama travel ban, o sea, prohibición de entrada.

Agustín Acosta:
No es visa issuance ban, sino travel ban.
Ahora, doctora, una pregunta puramente hipotética. ¿Usted cree que la situación que se dio con un egipcio que atacó con una serie de cócteles molotov y armas incendiarias a un grupo de personas en Boulder, Colorado, que había entrado a los Estados Unidos con una visa y luego expiró la visa y se quedó acá dentro, usted cree que esto haya sido la última gota de la copa, haya sido el detonante, o esto ya se veía venir desde antes?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Yo creo que se veía venir, porque si usted ve, el 20 de enero de este año, el presidente Trump emitió una orden ejecutiva que dice que iba a cuidar la frontera y la seguridad nacional de los Estados Unidos para evitar actos terroristas, para proteger la seguridad nacional.
Entonces, desde esa orden ejecutiva, se sabía que se iban a tomar unas medidas. También sabíamos que iba a venir este travel ban, incluso hace como un mes o dos meses se anunció que ya iba a ser publicado, pero se pausó hasta ayer.
Entonces ya sabíamos que estas medidas venían, posiblemente una forma que el gobierno y desde esa época el gobierno dijo que el Departamento de Estado estaba haciendo un estudio de los países que iban a prohibir entrar a los Estados Unidos, sea porque no tienen suficiente escrutinio de los antecedentes penales de sus propios nacionales o la emisión de documentos de identidad de esos países es, vamos a poner una palabra no tan fuerte, floja, para que me entiendan, que quiere decir floja, como que hay sitios donde conseguir un certificado de nacimiento es como ir y conseguir cualquier cosa, como cualquier documento.
Entonces, y países donde no hay mucha comunicación o cooperación con Estados Unidos, donde se comparten o no se comparten informaciones de sus nacionales, que es el caso de Venezuela y Cuba.
Entonces, el gobierno empezó a hacer esa investigación, esta fue la conclusión a la que llegó. Pero en adición a eso también son países donde ellos miraron el nivel de inmigración que tiene ese país de acuerdo a las visas con que entran, entonces ahí hay unos porcentajes que muestran en esta proclamación de personas que vienen con visa turista, de cubanos o venezolanos, cuánto el porcentaje de ellos se queda, los que vienen con visa de estudiante, cuánto porcentaje se queda, todo esto parece que la investigación está en la proclamación.

Carlos Acosta:
Y habla de, habla de cerca del 10%, ¿no, doctora?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Sí, habla bastante de cada porcentaje de personas que entran con una u otra visa y se quedan en los Estados Unidos. Entonces, el gobierno está sustentando su posición en estos datos estadísticos de las personas que emigran, vamos a decirlo así, teniendo o entrando con la visa turista, uno; y dos, los países que no hay comunicación con los Estados Unidos para información de sus nacionales de documentos privados y, pues, también los países que tienen o que se consideran promotores del terrorismo y ahí lo dice, que Cuba se considera un país que promueve el terrorismo. O sea, eso lo dice la proclamación.
Entonces, bueno, esos son los elementos de juicio o de análisis que se tomaron para emitir esta decisión. Yo aquí tengo exactamente el documento y, por ejemplo, en Cuba dice: “The entry,” se va a pausar o se va a prohibir, “the entry,” “the entry” quiere decir la entrada a los Estados Unidos de nacionales de Cuba. La frase dice: “The entry into the United States the nationals of Cuba as immigrants,” está el entrada de los nacionales de Cuba, digo de Cuba como inmigrantes, y después dice en cuanto a los de no inmigrante, entonces dice: “The entry into the United States the nationals of Cuba, known as immigrants, or non-immigrants, B1, B2, F, M y J visas are hereby suspended.”
Es decir: “La entrada a los Estados Unidos de nacionales de Cuba con visas de inmigrantes o con visas de no inmigrantes, B1, B2, F, M y J, queda suspendida.”
Entonces, no está diciendo que no se van a emitir, está diciendo que se va a prohibir la entrada.

Agustín Acosta:
La persona puede tener la visa, pero es como que tenga yo un pasaporte para ir al planeta Venus, no me sirve para nada. No puedo llegar allí exactamente. Y quedan exentas, entonces, las visas, por ejemplo, de asunto religioso, porque en el evento este cultural de Cuba Nostalgia, yo tuve la oportunidad de conocer tres, hacer dos cubanos que están de visita acá en Miami, están, creo, que van a estar aquí dos, tres meses sirviendo en cuestión religiosa, pero viven en Cuba, regresan a Cuba, ese tipo de visas religiosas sí se siguen permitiendo.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Correcto, sí, la proclamación habla exactamente de las excepciones, incluso dice que el Departamento de Estado puede emitir, caso por caso, analizando cada caso, puede permitir la entrada de algunos bajo una muestra que es de interés para los Estados Unidos. No sé cómo será ese proceso para uno pedir que le otorguen o que le permitan entrar como excepción, pero me imagino que será otra de las comunicaciones que el Departamento de Estado tendrá que emitir.

Carlos Acosta:
Doctora, hay otra información que ha estado dando vueltas desde hace por lo menos unas 48 horas, no existe nada oficial, más que la cadena CBS al parecer dio una información de una conversación con funcionarios de inmigración, ya usted sabe de qué le debo estar hablando, sobre la posibilidad de suspensión del permiso de trabajo de la autorización de empleo a los solicitantes de asilo. Eso todavía no está confirmado, pero me gustaría que compartiera con la audiencia lo que usted conoce al respecto.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Sí, lo que yo conozco al respecto y que he podido compartir con las personas es lo siguiente, mire. Los permisos de trabajo están establecidos en lo que es el Código Federal de Regulaciones, el Código Federal de Regulaciones, que es el título 8, 8-CFR, es el código que maneja toda la regulación de lo que es la ley de inmigración.
La ley de inmigración sustantiva orgánica es el “Immigration and Nationality Act”, es el que dice si la persona tiene derecho al asilo y establece todo.
Es el código natural, es el código orgánico, es regulado por el Código Federal de Regulaciones.
El Código Federal de Regulaciones es el que dice si la persona tiene derecho al permiso de trabajo, cuándo lo puede pedir, cómo se procesa. El Código Federal de Regulaciones puede ser modificado por el Ejecutivo, obviamente siguiendo los procedimientos de cambio de regulación que establece la ley. No lo va a hacer seguro por una orden ejecutiva, el presidente no lo podría hacer.

Agustín Acosta:
Lo tienen que publicar en el National Register, hay un protocolo.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Correcto, en el National Register, tienen que poner eso y seguir el proceso de cambio de regulación, pero el Ejecutivo lo puede hacer.
Entonces, en conclusión, el Ejecutivo sí puede modificar la ley acerca del permiso de trabajo de las personas que tienen asilo pendiente, porque es una regulación que la puede cambiar el Ejecutivo.
No puede, no puede cambiar el Ejecutivo la ley orgánica del asilo, lo que está en el estatuto, que es el “Immigration and Nationality Act”, porque eso solamente lo puede cambiar el Congreso, pero sí puede cambiar la regulación. Entonces, ese detallito pequeño que no está, un pequeño muy grande.

Agustín Acosta:
Abre una ventana, una puerta, ¿no? Claro. Pero hasta ahora no hay nada oficial.

Attorney Martha Arias:
No, no hay nada oficial. Se ha hablado de esto, pero no hay nada oficial.

Agustín Acosta:
Ahora, yo mirando la hora desde el punto de vista lógico y práctico, saquemos lo de Cuba y Venezuela para no dejarnos influenciar por cuestiones sentimentalistas de nuestros gentilicios y nuestros lugares de origen, porque yo soy de origen cubano y tú de origen venezolano.
Vamos a ponerlo en el caso de un sirio, que estaba siendo perseguido porque era cristiano, estaba siendo perseguido por los musulmanes allá en Siria, vino para acá y se le dio un asilo o está en proceso de asilo porque hay una persecución religiosa, o una persona que haya sido colaborador de las tropas americanas en Afganistán, porque era intérprete y el talibán ahora lo está persiguiendo y entró acá a los Estados Unidos por persecución étnica o lo que sea, o política.
Si a esa persona le quitan el permiso de trabajo, la van a mandar a la indigencia.
Si esa persona está aquí admitida por los Estados Unidos en un proceso de asilo, yo no puedo pensar que de un plumazo, categóricamente, vayan a todos los peticionarios de asilo y les quiten el permiso de trabajo, porque los estarían condenando a morirse de hambre.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Exacto, eso es una decisión muy delicada y de doble filo que debe tomar el gobierno, porque el hecho de que, o sea, por un lado sabemos que el tener permiso de trabajo incentiva en una forma u otra a las personas a pedir asilo en los Estados Unidos, porque saben que hay demoras y que pueden tener ese permiso de trabajo para trabajar mientras les aprueban su asilo o se los deciden.
Pero por otro lado, el gobierno sabe que tiene un atraso en las peticiones de asilo que están en este momento yendo, por lo menos aquí en Miami, peticiones presentadas en el 2014 y estamos en el 2025, tenemos de 10 a 12 años de atraso en las peticiones de asilo.
Entonces, esas personas que tienen atrasos, ¿cómo va a ser el gobierno para procesar todas las peticiones en corto tiempo?
Y si se van a demorar, ¿cómo van a permitir que las personas produzcan o trabajen en los Estados Unidos?

Agustín Acosta:
Y la demora no es culpa del peticionario, es culpa de la burocracia del gobierno.

Carlos Acosta:
Permítame complementarle eso que dice Agustín, porque la doctora, obviamente, debe conocerlo. Recuerdo que en la primera administración del presidente Trump, llegó un momento en que creo que invirtieron el orden para la entrevista. Entonces, estaban entrevistando primero a los que llegaron más recientes y entonces quedaron más rezagados los que estaban en la cola.
¿Ha sido así, no, doctora?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Es correcto, y sigue siendo así. Muchas de las peticiones recientes de asilo tienen una cita más rápido que las de antes. Entonces, esas de antes siguen a diez años, a cada sexto año, hemos visto en Miami que las del 2014 las están citando a casi todas.
Entonces, están avanzando más rápido con esas peticiones viejas, pero igual son 10 años de atraso.
¿Cuánto tiempo van a hacer ellos para procesar 10 años de atraso quitándole el permiso de trabajo a las personas? Está complicado esa decisión.

Agustín Acosta:
Yo conocí a un colombiano, hace exactamente 25 años porque su hijo y el mío tienen la misma edad. Y cuando tenían ambos 10 años de edad jugaban en un equipo de béisbol infantil y nosotros coincidíamos todos los sábados en el juego de béisbol. Este señor colombiano, la guerrilla lo trató de asesinar dos veces y no pudieron matarlo. Le secuestraron a un bebé. Le tuvieron secuestrado el bebé como siete u ocho semanas. Secuestrado un niño como de seis, siete meses de nacido, la guerrilla se lo secuestró y le tocó pagar una suma astronómica de dinero para que liberaran al bebé. Y cuando eso ocurrió, pues decidió vender todos sus negocios y vino para acá para los Estados Unidos y pidió asilo político.
Claro, esto ocurrió hace 25 años, le dieron eventualmente el asilo político, luego la residencia y el hombre se hizo ciudadano. Pero imaginemos que haya un caso como ese, de cualquier país, a esas personas no les pueden quitar el permiso de trabajo porque es lo único que les permite subsistir y mantenerse vivos y mantener sus familias. O sea, desde un punto de vista meramente lógico y práctico, yo no puedo creer que, porque hay muchas personas que se han acogido al asilo político sin ningún tipo de mérito, pero hay muchas personas, muchísimas personas de Cuba, de Venezuela y de otros lugares, de Nicaragua, de otros lugares que se han acogido al asilo político porque son perseguidos, porque si regresan a su país de origen los meten presos y en algunos otros países que no son estos tres, hay persecución religiosa de musulmanes hacia cristianos o hay persecución política del talibán a un opositor de allá de Afganistán. Esas personas están aquí bajo un amparo y tienen todo una serie de méritos.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Exacto. Entonces, es un problema bastante grave y yo no creo que sea una buena idea tampoco, ni siquiera desde el punto de vista interno, del tema de los taxes, ¿no?

Agustín Acosta:
Claro. Bueno, doctora, como siempre la molestamos, la hemos ocupado media hora, un poco más de media hora, déjeme dar su teléfono. No lo dé usted que me lo sé yo de memoria, así que lo doy yo para si hay algún oyente que quiera consultarla como abogada de inmigración, pueden llamar a la doctora Arias al (305) 671-0018. Martha Arias es una destacada y muy experimentada abogada de inmigración. Para cualquier asunto que usted necesite, ella lo puede atender. (305) 671-0018. De nuevo, gracias, doctora. La molestamos hoy viernes.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Gracias a ustedes. ¡Feliz día!

ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT

Agustín Acosta:
Our first headline today has to do precisely with the travel ban ordered by the president of the United States for a dozen countries and visa restrictions for another seven nations. Among those with visa restrictions, there are two that concern us, that worry us, which are Cuba and Venezuela, because the ban as such affects very few people in our audience, right? Because it affects people from Afghanistan, from Burma…

Carlos Acosta:
I think the Afghan community, for example, here, there aren’t many.

Agustín Acosta:
No, absolutely. From Burma,

Carlos Acosta:
From Burmese people, in Little Havana it’s also very small.

Agustín Acosta:
From Yemen, from those places, from Burkina Faso, places where really, well, there aren’t many people around here, but Cuba and Venezuela do not appear on the list of countries that have the ban as such, but rather countries that will face consular restrictions for the granting of new visas.

Carlos Acosta:
That’s right. We are going to talk about this topic, as we were doing from a journalistic point of view, now we are going to have the perspective of a person who is a professional in immigration law and who will help us understand, within what has been published and already stated in this proclamation by the government.

Agustín Acosta:
That’s right. Here we have attorney Martha Arias, our friend and collaborator to help us understand these matters. She has her segment here, Mondays with me, to talk about immigration topics. Attorney, good afternoon.

Carlos Acosta:
How are you, attorney? Welcome.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Good afternoon, Agustín and Carlos and all the audience of Actualidad Radio, and indeed I always feel at home here.

Agustín Acosta:
Thank you very much, attorney. Do we know anything beyond the simple statement issued by the United States government? And we are going to focus mainly on Cuba and Venezuela, because I really don’t think there’s much interest in our group of listeners about Yemen, Afghanistan, Burkina Faso, or Burma.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Well, there is no additional information from the Department of State, which I believe is the department that should soon continue with some additional information that should provide us. But the proclamation is clear regarding Cuba and Venezuela: people with immigrant visas will not be able to enter after June 9.
Who are those who enter with immigrant visas? Those who receive residency at the consulates, those for whom the consulates approve the immigrant visa, that is, the residency. This is serious because it means that if a Cuban or a Venezuelan has their appointment at the consulate after June 9, they will not be able to enter the United States, and I don’t even know if they will have the appointment, because the Department of State, as I said before, may notify them that the appointment is canceled due to this same proclamation.

Agustín Acosta:
June 9, which would be next Monday?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Yes sir, next Monday. So, today is Thursday, meaning those who have a consular appointment, the Cuban or Venezuelan who receives it on Friday, should quickly try to travel over the weekend, and I don’t think they will be able to do it either, because remember the consulates issue the visas and send them by mail three to five days after the appointment.
So, if that person had their appointment today or tomorrow and they send the stamped passport next week, well, they won’t be able to travel either, so the time, the margin is very short.

Carlos Acosta:
And especially Venezuelans have the situation that the embassy is not in Caracas, it’s in Bogotá, so that makes the consular process itself even more difficult.

Attorney Martha Arias:
That’s correct.
So, those who have those immigrant visas from June onwards will not be able to enter. People with non-immigrant visas, which are the B1, B2 — B1 is business, B2 is tourism —, the F, which is the student visa, the M and J, which are also student visas but for practical studies, will also not be able to enter the United States after that date. That is also clear in the proclamation.
There is something that I think is not clear, and that’s why I don’t want to answer many questions until the government gives us exactly a clarification. And it’s that the proclamation says this only applies to those who don’t have a non-immigrant visa B1, B2, F, J, M at the moment the proclamation is applied, which would be June 9, but those who already have it, it doesn’t apply, but it does apply in that they can’t enter. So, to me, it’s the same. Because if the person already has the visa and hasn’t entered, is outside the United States, and let’s say they are going to enter next week, Wednesday or Thursday, they won’t be allowed to enter, even if they already have the visa. So there is a bit of confusion in that law.
Who does it not apply to? This is important: it does not apply to certain groups of visas like NATO, N, A, T, O, which are basically diplomatic visas; nor to people who come in sports teams or to play or some athletic presentation, which are usually the O and P visas; nor does it apply to people who come with religious visas or their dependent relatives who come with religious visas; nor does it apply to legal permanent residents of the United States. That is important to say: if you are Cuban or Venezuelan and you already have your residency issued, because you have your green card, this prohibition will not apply to you.
So that’s the summary.
Now, the other question I’ve been asked is how long will this last? The proclamation itself says 90 days; the government, which in this case is the Department of State, Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, must review in 90 days the experience with this proclamation to terminate it, suspend it, or complement it, so in 90 days we will know if maybe they end it or continue it.

Carlos Acosta:
Now, I was listening, attorney, and the question that remains, if in the case that concerns us, which is Cuba and Venezuela, if a Cuban or a Venezuelan has dual nationality, could they use that second nationality for the visa application, is that correct?

Attorney Martha Arias:
That’s correct, if the person has another nationality, they will be able to enter the United States with the passport of that nationality.

Agustín Acosta:
For example, if the person is Venezuelan but at the same time is a Spanish citizen and then has a European Union passport, this would not affect them because they would enter the United States as a European, not as a Venezuelan.

Carlos Acosta:
Would they enter with ESTA?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Correct, they can enter with ESTA or they can enter with a tourist visa or any visa that person has, but using that European community passport, of that European country, not the Venezuelan passport.

Carlos Acosta:
Well, attorney, I have here a statement from Congressman Carlos Jiménez. It’s quite short, I’ll take the liberty of reading it, especially because it gives some information about the current valid visas, which according to his statement are valid, I’ll read it quickly for you.
It says: “The recent partial travel and visa restrictions imposed on Cuba and Venezuela are direct results of the failed policies and the breakdown of relations with the repressive regimes of Díaz-Canel in Cuba and Maduro in Venezuela. These regimes not only despise the United States, but actively work to undermine our national security through espionage, cyber-attacks and other threats.”
And here comes the information.
“It is important to note that these restrictions will not affect people who are currently permanent residents or have valid visas. That is, anyone who has a valid visa can buy their ticket and could enter without problems.”

Attorney Martha Arias:
The thing is, it will not apply to those who have valid B1, B2, F, M, J visas. That is very clear in the proclamation. They don’t want to argue that the visa has to be valid, but they won’t be able to enter the United States afterwards. It’s a pause, it’s a suspension of those visas. So I think maybe the communication is not clear, but the proclamation is. On my Facebook page, AriasVillaLaw, I even posted it straightforward, I copied and pasted in quotation marks, showing that it comes from the regulation. It’s exactly the piece that talks about Cuba and Venezuela for people to read. And there it is very clear, anyone who reads English can read that it says clearly: suspension of the non-immigrant visa, B1, B2, or B1 alone, or B2 alone, F, M and J.

Agustín Acosta:
So, in those cases you just detailed, we would not be talking about the granting of new visas from scratch, but the suspension of visas already previously granted under those categories.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Exactly. It says those visas will not be able to enter. I don’t have it here to read it clearly, but I can look for it. It’s not that they won’t issue them, it’s that they won’t let us enter, that’s why it’s called a travel ban, that is, prohibition of entry.

Agustín Acosta:
It’s not visa issuance ban, but travel ban.
Now, attorney, a purely hypothetical question. Do you think the situation that occurred with an Egyptian who attacked a group of people in Boulder, Colorado, with Molotov cocktails and incendiary weapons, who had entered the United States with a visa and then his visa expired and he stayed here, do you think that was the last straw, was it the trigger, or was this already coming?

Attorney Martha Arias:
I think it was coming, because if you see, on January 20 of this year, President Trump issued an executive order that says he was going to take care of the border and national security of the United States to prevent terrorist acts, to protect national security.
So from that executive order, it was known that some measures were going to be taken. We also knew that this travel ban was coming, even about a month or two ago it was announced that it was going to be published, but it was paused until yesterday.
So we already knew these measures were coming, possibly a way that the government, and since then the government said that the Department of State was doing a study of the countries that were going to be banned from entering the United States, either because they do not have sufficient scrutiny of the criminal records of their nationals or the issuance of identity documents in those countries is, let’s use a not so strong word, weak, for those who understand me, weak, like there are places where you can get a birth certificate as if it were anything, like any document.
So, and countries where there is not much communication or cooperation with the United States, where information about their nationals is shared or not shared, which is the case with Venezuela and Cuba.
So the government started doing that investigation, this was the conclusion they reached. But in addition to that, they are also countries where they looked at the level of immigration that country has based on the visas with which they enter, so there are some percentages shown in this proclamation of people who come with a tourist visa, Cubans or Venezuelans, what percentage of them stay, those who come with a student visa, what percentage stays, all of this seems to be in the proclamation.

Carlos Acosta:
And it talks about, it talks about close to 10%, right, attorney?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Yes, it talks quite a bit about the percentage of people who enter with one or another visa and stay in the United States. So the government is basing its position on these statistical data of people who emigrate, let’s put it that way, having or entering with a tourist visa, one; and two, the countries that don’t communicate with the United States for information about their nationals’ private documents; and, well, also the countries that are considered promoters of terrorism and there it says that Cuba is considered a country that promotes terrorism. That is what the proclamation says.
So, well, those are the elements of judgment or analysis that were taken into account to issue this decision. I have here exactly the document and, for example, in Cuba it says: “The Entry,” it is going to be paused or prohibited, “the entry,” “the entry” means the entry into the United States of nationals of Cuba. The phrase says: “The entry into the United States the nationals of Cuba as immigrants,” that is, the entry of nationals of Cuba, I mean as immigrants, and then it says regarding non-immigrants, then it says: “The entry into the United States the nationals of Cuba, known as immigrants, or non-immigrants, B1, B2, F, M, and J visas are hereby suspended.”
That is: “The entry into the United States of nationals of Cuba with immigrant visas or with non-immigrant visas, B1, B2, F, M, and J, is hereby suspended.”
So, it’s not saying they won’t be issued, it’s saying the entry will be prohibited.

Agustín Acosta:
The person may have the visa, but it’s as if I have a passport to go to planet Venus, it’s useless to me. I can’t get there exactly. And then the visas are exempted, for example, religious visas, because in this cultural event of Cuba Nostalgia, I had the opportunity to meet two or three Cubans who are visiting here in Miami, I think they are going to be here for two, three months serving in religious matters, but they live in Cuba, they return to Cuba, that type of religious visa is still allowed.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Correct, yes, the proclamation specifically talks about exceptions, it even says that the Department of State can issue, case by case, analyzing each case, it can allow entry for some based on a demonstration that is in the interest of the United States. I don’t know how that process will be for someone to ask to be allowed to enter as an exception, but I imagine that will be another communication from the Department of State.

Carlos Acosta:
Attorney, there is other information that has been circulating for at least 48 hours, nothing official exists except that CBS apparently gave information about a conversation with immigration officials, you know what I’m talking about, about the possible suspension of the work permit, the employment authorization for asylum applicants. That is not confirmed yet, but I would like you to share with the audience what you know about it.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Yes, what I know about it and what I have been able to share with people is the following, look. Work permits are established in what is the Code of Federal Regulations, the Code of Federal Regulations, which is Title 8, 8-CFR, is the code that handles all the regulation of immigration law.
The substantive organic immigration law is the “Immigration and Nationality Act,” it is the one that says if the person has the right to asylum and establishes everything.
It’s the natural code, it’s the organic code, it’s regulated by the Code of Federal Regulations.
The Code of Federal Regulations is the one that says if the person has the right to the work permit, when they can request it, how it’s processed. The Code of Federal Regulations can be modified by the Executive, obviously following the procedures for regulation changes established by law. It certainly can’t be done by an executive order, the president couldn’t do it.

Agustín Acosta:
They have to publish it in the National Register, there’s a protocol.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Correct, in the National Register, they have to put that and follow the process for changing the regulation, but the Executive can do it.
So, in conclusion, the Executive can modify the law about the work permit for people who have pending asylum, because it’s a regulation that the Executive can change.
The Executive cannot change the organic law of asylum, what is in the statute, which is the “Immigration and Nationality Act,” because only Congress can change that, but the regulation can be changed. So, that little detail that is not, a little big detail.

Agustín Acosta:
It opens a window, a door, right? Sure. But so far there is nothing official.

Attorney Martha Arias:
No, there is nothing official. This has been discussed, but there is nothing official.

Agustín Acosta:
Now, looking at the time from a logical and practical point of view, let’s take Cuba and Venezuela out of it so we are not influenced by sentimental issues of our nationalities and our places of origin, because I am of Cuban origin and you are of Venezuelan origin.
Let’s put it in the case of a Syrian, who was being persecuted because he was Christian, was being persecuted by Muslims there in Syria, came here and was given asylum or is in the process of asylum because there is religious persecution, or a person who was a collaborator of American troops in Afghanistan, because he was an interpreter and now the Taliban is persecuting him and entered here in the U.S. for ethnic or political persecution.
If that person has their work permit taken away, they are going to be sent to indigence.
If that person is here admitted by the United States in an asylum process, I can’t think that, with the stroke of a pen, categorically, all asylum petitioners will have their work permit taken away, because they would be condemned to starve.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Exactly, that is a very delicate and double-edged decision that the government must make, because the fact is, on the one hand, we know that having a work permit incentivizes, in one way or another, people to apply for asylum in the United States, because they know there are delays and they can have that work permit to work while their asylum is approved or decided.
But on the other hand, the government knows that there is a backlog in asylum petitions that are currently being processed, at least here in Miami, petitions filed in 2014 and we are in 2025, we have 10 to 12 years of backlog in asylum petitions.
So, those people who have delays, how is the government going to process all those petitions in a short time?
And if they’re going to take time, how will they allow people to produce or work in the United States?

Agustín Acosta:
And the delay is not the petitioner’s fault, it’s the government’s bureaucracy’s fault.

Carlos Acosta:
Let me complement what Agustín says, because the attorney obviously must know this. I remember in President Trump’s first administration, there came a time when I think they reversed the order for the interview. So, they were interviewing those who arrived most recently first, and then those in the queue were left further behind.
Has it been like that, attorney?

Attorney Martha Arias:
That’s correct, and it still is. Many of the recent asylum petitions get an appointment faster than the older ones. So those older ones keep going, ten years, every sixth year, we’ve seen in Miami that those from 2014 are being called for almost all of them.
So, they’re moving faster with those old petitions, but still, it’s 10 years of backlog.
How much time are they going to need to process 10 years of backlog by taking away work permits from people? That decision is complicated.

Agustín Acosta:
I met a Colombian man exactly 25 years ago because his son and mine are the same age. And when they were both 10 years old they played on a little league baseball team and we would meet every Saturday at the baseball game. This Colombian man, the guerrilla tried to assassinate him twice and could not kill him. They kidnapped a baby. They kept the baby kidnapped for about seven or eight weeks. Kidnapped a child of about six, seven months old, the guerrilla kidnapped him and he had to pay an astronomical sum of money to have the baby released. And when that happened, he decided to sell all his businesses and came here to the United States and applied for political asylum.
Of course, this happened 25 years ago, eventually he was given political asylum, then residency, and the man became a citizen. But imagine a case like that, from any country, they can’t take away the work permit from those people because it’s the only thing that allows them to survive and support their families. I mean, from a merely logical and practical point of view, I can’t believe that, because there are many people who have used political asylum without any merit, but there are many people, many people from Cuba, Venezuela, and other places, from Nicaragua, from other places who have used political asylum because they are persecuted, because if they return to their country of origin, they would be jailed, and in some other countries that are not these three, there is religious persecution from Muslims to Christians or political persecution from the Taliban to an opponent in Afghanistan. Those people are here under protection and have all kinds of merits.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Exactly. So, it’s a pretty serious problem and I don’t think it’s a good idea either, not even from the internal point of view, regarding taxes, right?

Agustín Acosta:
Of course. Well, attorney, as always, we bother you, we’ve taken up half an hour, a little more than half an hour, let me give your phone number. Don’t give it yourself because I know it by heart, so I’ll give it in case any listener wants to consult you as an immigration attorney, you can call attorney Arias at (305) 671-0018. Martha Arias is an outstanding and very experienced immigration attorney. For any matter you need, she can assist you. (305) 671-0018.
Again, thank you, attorney. We’ve bothered you today, Friday.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Thank you, happy day!

The post What the New U.S. Travel Ban Means for Cubans, Venezuelans, and Asylum Seekers appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

TPS for Venezuelans, Parole, New Updates in Immigration Law

Martha Arias — Thu, 03 Apr 2025 22:15:36 +0000

Hello everyone, I hope you caught my recent interview with Carlos & Agustín Acosta on “Cada Tarde” at Actualidad Radio yesterday. We spent quite some time answering your immigration questions regarding new TPS updates, parole, and the ongoing legal immigration news impacting Venezuelans, Cubans, and other communities. It’s clear that, today the U.S. immigration law is more complex than ever. My goal is always to offer clarity and help you feel more confident about your legal status.

During the interview, we discussed the evolving situation of TPS for Venezuelans, the court decisions from California, and how certain policies are still in limbo. I know it’s not easy to navigate all these changes, and that’s why I believe it’s so important to seek professional guidance if you have immigration concerns. My office number is 305-671-0018, and you can also reach us on social media as well. If you ever feel confused by what you’re hearing or reading about changes in immigration, please don’t hesitate to contact me. Let’s walk through this together.

Thank you for listening, thank you for reading, and stay tuned for more updates. I appreciate Carlos and Agustín Acosta for their kindness and the great questions from all the callers. Until next time, stay informed and stay safe.

Follow Me on Social Media

Original Transcript

AGUSTÍN:
Bien, seguimos adelante. Son las 4 de la tarde con 39 minutos. Nos mantenemos observando lo que está ocurriendo en la Casa Blanca para llevarles a ustedes más detalles a medida que el presidente concluya su alocución. Pero vamos a hablar un poco, Carlos, de inmigración. La inmigración sigue siendo un tema de mucha atención y de mucho interés aquí en el sur de la Florida, y casi todos los días hay diferentes cosas que ocurren en los tribunales, donde se han radicado demandas por distintas razones: el TPS, los paroles humanitarios, la residencia, las deportaciones, todo eso. Queremos que la doctora DRA. MARTHA ARIAS Arias nos ponga al tanto si ha habido algún cambio desde su última visita acá a la radio.

CARLOS:
Bienvenida, doctora. Gracias por estar con nosotros. Y queremos, con su permiso, darle también la posibilidad a la audiencia de que se comunique con nosotros si pronto surge alguna duda al respecto, para que usted, desde su experiencia y conocimiento, nos ayude a despejarla. Buenas tardes. Bienvenida.

DRA. MARTHA ARIAS:
Buenas tardes, Carlos y Agustín. Un saludo para ustedes y toda la audiencia de Actualidad Radio. Y claro, cómo no, con mucho gusto estamos aquí para contestar las preguntas de los oyentes.

AGUSTÍN:
Desde la última vez que conversamos, ¿hay algo nuevo que haya cambiado, algún cambio que haya venido por vía de algún dictamen tanto de un Tribunal Federal como de una Corte de Apelaciones?

DRA. MARTHA ARIAS:
Bueno, ahí sí quiero explicar un poco más esa decisión de la corte de California acerca del TPS, si me lo permiten.

AGUSTÍN:
Claro que sí.

DRA. MARTHA ARIAS:
A ver, la decisión inicialmente —antes de leer la orden completa— yo pensaba que solamente aplicaba al TPS del 2021, pero al leerla en su totalidad, entendí que realmente esta orden se aplica a los dos TPS: el de 2021 y el de 2023. Yo creía originalmente que solo obligaba al de 2023. ¿Cuál es la razón? El presidente Biden, al extenderlo hasta octubre de 2026, unió en una sola fecha el TPS de 2021 y el de 2023. Como había dos TPS con dos fechas distintas, decidió unirlos para que todos los TPS de Venezuela tuvieran la misma fecha de renovación, y así fue como quedó extendido hasta octubre de 2026.

Cuando la secretaria del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional emitió una orden para eliminar (vacate) la decisión del presidente Biden, básicamente dijo: “anulamos el TPS de 2023 por completo y, en cuanto al TPS de 2021, les avisaremos el 12 de julio.” Esa fue la orden de la secretaria del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional. Entonces, al poner pausa el juez a esa decisión de la secretaria, regresamos a la decisión del presidente Biden de unificar las fechas de ambos TPS. Eso significa que en este momento los dos TPS, el de 2021 y el de 2023, no pueden ser cancelados y pueden ser renovados.

De hecho, ayer algunos colegas me comentaban que habían intentado renovar el TPS de 2021, el que vence en septiembre, y el sistema se los permitió. Personalmente no lo he hecho, pero varios abogados, colegas míos, sí, y el sistema permite pagar. Eso es una buena noticia para las personas que tengan cualquiera de los dos TPS. Si el sistema lo permite, entonces que hagan sus renovaciones.

CARLOS:
Hay una pregunta concreta, porque existe una expresión que a mí me parecía un adefesio en el castellano, pero existe para ustedes los abogados: ¿Todos los beneficiarios de TPS deben “registrarse”?

DRA. MARTHA ARIAS:
Deberían, sí. De todos modos, esta es una opinión personal. En este momento creo que lo deben hacer y, si el sistema lo permite, que lo hagan. Hasta el día de hoy (estamos a 2 de abril), no hemos escuchado ningún comunicado oficial de USCIS (el Departamento de Citizenship and Immigration Services) acerca de cómo van a implementar o a obedecer la orden de este juez. No han dicho nada. Entonces, si la persona no se siente cómoda haciendo esa extensión por ahora, puede esperar a un comunicado oficial; pero si no hay, yo sí instaría a las personas a que hagan el registro, porque es una protección que van a tener. Esperemos a ver qué pasa con la decisión de USCIS.

CARLOS:
Bien. Si lo permite, doctora, tenemos bastantes llamadas y gente esperando en línea. Quiero pedirle, por favor, a nuestra audiencia que sea absolutamente precisa en la pregunta, para que todos tengan la oportunidad de participar. Recibimos las llamadas a través del 305-410-1040.

AGUSTÍN:
Adelante, Ernesto. Buenas tardes.

ERNESTO:
Hola, sí, buenas tardes, es grato escucharles. Hay un principio que creo que es universal en el derecho: el administrado no tiene por qué acarrear las culpas en las que ha incurrido el administrador. Y yo creo que parte de esto tiene que ver con cómo se hizo el periodo pasado en materia administrativa para los inmigrantes. Lo cierto es que hay un grupo de venezolanos y de otras nacionalidades que están en un limbo jurídico, y en estos tiempos el tiempo vale oro. Yo simplemente quiero clamar, por este medio, por mis hermanos venezolanos. No todos son delincuentes, todo lo contrario…

CARLOS:
Gracias por su participación. Eso lo tenemos súper claro, lo hemos reiterado. Y hasta ahora no ha habido —doctora, corríjame si me equivoco— ninguna información de que la Fiscalía o la Secretaría de Homeland Security quiera impugnar o apelar la decisión del juez Edward Shea.

DRA. MARTHA ARIAS:
Hasta ahora no hay ningún comunicado oficial del gobierno sobre una apelación de esa medida cautelar. Uno, y dos, para contestarle también al oyente que acaba de participar, en la decisión el juez menciona que el número de venezolanos en Estados Unidos tiene un nivel educativo alto y también que contribuyen a la fuerza laboral de este país de manera significativa. Es decir, son trabajadores que están aportando al sistema laboral, además de tener un nivel educativo elevado.

AGUSTÍN:
Además, las condiciones que imperaban cuando se emitió el decreto del TPS no han cambiado; más bien se han empeorado en Venezuela, la situación política. Si me dijera, por ejemplo, en Siria, donde se les hubiera dado TPS a los sirios mientras estaba Al-Assad, y ahora hay un gobierno mejor, uno podría argumentar que las condiciones han mejorado y que, por tanto, los sirios podrían regresar. Pero en Venezuela no es el caso, tampoco en Cuba ni en Haití, porque en Haití no hay una dictadura de gobierno per se, pero hay una dictadura de pandillas criminales que están matando a cuanta gente. La ingobernabilidad de Haití hoy es peor que cuando se otorgó el TPS en primera instancia.
Ana, buenas tardes.

ANA:
Buenas tardes. Un saludo para todos. Doctora, mi pregunta no es sobre el TPS, pero con la situación tan difícil en inmigración, quiero saber qué puedo hacer. Yo soy ciudadana y pedí a mi hija hace mucho tiempo. Como vino la pandemia, el proceso se demoró dos años más. Después de nueve años, ella llegó con sus dos hijos, que son menores, gemelos de 15 años ahora. A mi hija le entregaron un papel cuando llegó al aeropuerto, en el que decía que con ese papel podía sacar el seguro social y que en 180 días (seis meses) le llegarían las green cards. A ella le llegó su green card, pero la de los hijos no llegó. Y quiero saber qué se puede hacer, porque nos da miedo ir a Inmigración o que confundan papeles o algo así. Es una situación alarmante.

DRA. MARTHA ARIAS:
Gracias por su pregunta. No hay necesidad de ir a ninguna oficina local de inmigración porque no los van a dejar entrar sin cita. Lo que debe hacer es llamar al número 800 de Inmigración. Se lo repito: es el 1-800-375-5283. Tenga a la mano la factura con la que pagaron los 220 dólares que cobra Inmigración cuando a uno le otorgan la residencia a nivel consular. Ese pago se hace por internet con una tarjeta de crédito, y uno recibe un recibo. Tenga ese recibo (que generalmente comienza con la letra “I”) y también el número de residencia o alien number de los niños, que aparece en el pasaporte donde está sellada la visa de inmigrante. Con esos datos, llame y comuníqueles que no han recibido la tarjeta. Es común que a veces se demore, pero con esa llamada le van a dar seguimiento y resolver.

AGUSTÍN:
Las residencias modernas continúan comenzando con la letra “A” o no.

DRA. MARTHA ARIAS:
Sí, todas comienzan con la letra “A.” Lo que pasa es que antes eran ocho dígitos, y si uno solo tenía siete, había que poner un cero al principio. Ahora, en cambio, son nueve números directamente, y no hay que ponerles nada.

AGUSTÍN:
Perfecto. Vamos con Juan. Juan, buenas tardes.

JUAN:
Buenas tardes, “el Caballo de Troya,” señor Carlos. Un gusto. Gracias por la oportunidad.

CARLOS:
Adelante, Juan. Muchas gracias por escucharnos. Lo escuchamos.

JUAN:
Doctora Arias, gracias. Tengo una pregunta. Yo no soy afectado, pero hay mucha gente afectada. El TPS era para varias nacionalidades: nicaragüenses, cubanos, algunos cubanos, hondureños, salvadoreños, venezolanos. ¿Eso lo han suspendido para esas nacionalidades, aparte de que ya se interpuso un litigio en las cortes con los venezolanos? ¿Quiere decir que la otra gente, las otras nacionalidades, perdieron su TPS?

AGUSTÍN:
Buena pregunta. Vamos a esperar la respuesta. Él pregunta si las personas de otras nacionalidades que recibían TPS quedan incluidas o excluidas de este litigio de California.

DRA. MARTHA ARIAS:
No, ellas no están incluidas en este litigio. El litigio lo interpusieron siete demandantes venezolanos y la organización National TPS Alliance, centrada específicamente en el TPS para Venezuela, aunque en la sentencia también se menciona el TPS de Haití. Pero los TPS de otros países —El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Nepal— no han sido mencionados específicamente, hasta donde sabemos no los han ni cancelado ni extendido. No hay información oficial del gobierno sobre eso.

CARLOS:
A través de nuestro canal de YouTube, una persona pregunta: si alguien solicitó TPS antes de que venciera su parole humanitario, ¿esa persona está acumulando tiempo ilegal en Estados Unidos?

DRA. MARTHA ARIAS:
No. Si pidió TPS antes de que venciera el parole, primero estuvo protegida con el parole y al pasarse al TPS sigue protegida. Mientras no haya un hueco de tiempo entre uno y otro, no acumula presencia ilegal. El TPS la protege.

AGUSTÍN:
Y en ese mismo orden, voy a hacer una pregunta genérica, pero parecida. Una persona de Venezuela o de Cuba presentó un asilo político cuando todavía no se habían otorgado los TPS. De pronto, Biden otorga TPS. Muchas de esas personas con asilos presentados se acogen al TPS. Si al final de este asunto legal se eliminan esos TPS o llegan a su fin, ¿las personas que tienen papeles de asilo pueden revertir al asilo o el asilo queda desestimado al acogerse al TPS?

DRA. MARTHA ARIAS:
No, el asilo no se desestima simplemente porque la persona pide TPS. Ese asilo sigue ahí, y si el TPS termina, la persona continúa protegida por la petición de asilo que tenga pendiente. Obviamente, ese asilo debe estar todavía pendiente, pero sí mantiene esa protección.

CARLOS:
Doctora, por lo que hemos escuchado de la audiencia, algunas personas nos comentan que los permisos de trabajo tienen categoría C8, C11, C10… algunos se derivan del TPS y otros de una solicitud de asilo. Si un funcionario de migración le pide a alguien que muestre su permiso de trabajo, ¿cuál es el válido?

DRA. MARTHA ARIAS:
Esa es una buena pregunta, y es uno de los retos que tendrán las autoridades policiales cuando detengan a alguien y esta persona muestre un permiso de trabajo. Por ejemplo, si la persona tiene TPS y Asilo y tiene dos permisos: uno con la preferencia C08 (Asilo) y otro con A12 o C19 (TPS). Si en algún momento eliminan el TPS, la persona puede aún tener una tarjeta que diga “Válido hasta tal fecha,” pero ya el TPS no existe. Entonces, si el oficial sabe lo que hace, dirá: “No, ese permiso de trabajo es del TPS que ya se eliminó, muéstreme si tiene uno por Asilo.” O al menos la persona debe mostrar que tiene un asilo pendiente para demostrar que sigue protegida. Hay gente que tiene un permiso de trabajo, pero en realidad se lo negaron en la corte y ya tiene orden de deportación; sin embargo, la tarjetita aún dice que está vigente por dos o tres años más. Técnicamente no es válida. Por eso las autoridades deben estar bien entrenadas para verificar no solo el documento, sino también la situación legal de la persona en su sistema.

AGUSTÍN:
Ahora le toca al señor Nilo. Adelante, Nilo, buenas tardes.

NILO:
Buenas tardes, Agustín y a todos. Quiero hacer dos preguntas. Si yo tuviera un asilo y lo desestimo porque me acojo al TPS, y en algún momento eliminan ese TPS, ¿puedo retomar el asilo o quedo a la deriva? Esa es la primera. La segunda: yo soy ciudadano americano y tengo un hijo que tenía una aplicación abierta de DACA que sigue pendiente porque la última vez que hubo reinscripción la hicimos, pero la bloquearon. Él tiene TPS también, y yo le hice la petición de padre ciudadano a hijo mayor de edad. Me preocupa por el TPS, porque no sé qué estatus va a tener mi hijo en ese caso.

AGUSTÍN:
Una pregunta para que la doctora pueda discernir bien: ¿su hijo es mayor de edad hoy, pero cuando fue lo del DACA era menor?

NILO:
Bueno, era menor de edad, pero cuando aplicó, ya era mayor. Antes estaba en grado 8 o algo así, y no pudo aplicar siendo tan niño.

DRA. MARTHA ARIAS:
Bueno, son varias cosas. Para contestar rápidamente: lo del DACA que él aplicó fue la “segunda generación,” digámoslo así, y todos sabemos que ese DACA fue demandado y lo declararon no válido. Así que, aunque él lo haya tenido pendiente, como no fue aprobado, no le dio protección.
Lo que sí lo protege es el TPS, que le sigue dando cobertura hasta que la petición de usted (padre ciudadano a hijo mayor) entre en vigencia. Imagino que es hijo adulto. Él, si está aquí, no va a poder cambiar a residencia dentro de EE. UU. directamente; tendría que salir, hay que ver si necesitará perdón, etc. Si el TPS expira y esa petición no está lista, él quedaría sin estatus y acumularía presencia ilegal.
En cuanto a retomar un asilo que la persona retiró, depende. No siempre se puede hacer. Hay casos en que sí se puede retomar y hay manuales que explican cómo los abogados pueden retomar ciertos asilos. Por ejemplo, gente que entró por la frontera, le asignaron asilo en la corte y por alguna razón el juez terminó ese caso para que siguieran con USCIS. O personas que presentaron con USCIS y la corte, y luego el juez cerró el asunto. Existen casos específicos en que se puede reabrir, pero no todos califican. Si usted pidió asilo en USCIS y lo retiró, podría solicitar una reapertura, pero no es tan fácil que reconozcan la fecha original. Hay un memorándum de la corte que indica cómo hacerlo, pero repito, no todos los casos encajan.

CARLOS:
Doctora, entiendo que el TPS ampara o amparaba a los venezolanos que estaban en Estados Unidos hasta julio del 21, si no me falla la memoria.

DRA. MARTHA ARIAS:
Sí, ese es el de 2021.

CARLOS:
Ok, si alguien estaba en el territorio hasta julio del 21 y no aplicó para el TPS por cualquier razón, ¿podría hacerlo ahora?

DRA. MARTHA ARIAS:
Buena pregunta. Ya no aplicaría para el TPS de 2021 porque la fecha de corte terminó. Entraría para el TPS de 2023, que técnicamente sigue abierto por esta pausa que puso el juez, pues regresamos a la orden de Biden de enero 12, la que unificaba los dos. Técnicamente, podría solicitarlo.

AGUSTÍN:
Y la última pregunta la hago yo, sobre los cubanos. Un cubano entró por la frontera y recibió parole humanitario o tal vez pidió asilo. Los asilos están para el día menos pensado, porque las cortes están abarrotadas. Pasa un año y un día, y ya califica bajo la Ley de Ajuste Cubano de 1966. ¿Eso resuelve su residencia, aunque el asilo todavía no se haya decidido?

DRA. MARTHA ARIAS:
Sí, si tiene parole y ya cumplió el año y un día, puede aplicar al ajuste. Hay que ver si está en la corte, para pedir la terminación de ese proceso y que USCIS tenga jurisdicción.

AGUSTÍN:
Hay que cerrar el caso del asilo, para pasarlo a la vía administrativa.

DRA. MARTHA ARIAS:
No necesariamente cerrar el asilo, pero sí el caso en la corte, porque si está en la corte, el juez tiene la jurisdicción. Uno tiene que terminar ese proceso judicial, a no ser que en el documento de entrada figure como “arriving alien,” que es otra categoría. Pero en la mayoría de los casos hay que cerrar el proceso en la corte.

AGUSTÍN:
Perfecto, amigos. Quiero cerrar, aunque la doctora no me lo ha pedido, pero lo hago con mucho gusto, porque la hemos molestado por más de media hora, sacándola de su día de trabajo para contestar preguntas de nosotros y de ustedes. Lo menos que podemos hacer es dar su teléfono. Fíjense que la situación de inmigración en este momento está muy complicada, cada caso es distinto y requiere de maniobrabilidad experta. Nosotros los hispanos tendemos a “automedicarnos” con un cocimiento, un jarabito, pero no estamos para eso ahora. Aquí hay que buscar ayuda profesional porque un error podría costar la oportunidad. Así que voy a dar el teléfono de la doctora DRA. MARTHA ARIAS Arias para quien necesite ayuda profesional. Es el 305-671-0018. DRA. MARTHA ARIAS Arias, 305-671-0018. Bueno, muchísimas gracias, doctora. Gracias, hasta el próximo lunes.

DRA. MARTHA ARIAS:
Igualmente, feliz resto de semana y muchas gracias por la invitación.

AGUSTÍN:
Claro que sí. Gracias a usted por el tiempo.

English Translation

AGUSTÍN:
All right, let’s move on. It’s 4:39 pm. We’re keeping an eye on what’s happening at the White House to bring you more details as the President finishes his address. But let’s talk a bit, Carlos, about immigration. Immigration continues to be a topic of a lot of attention and great interest here in South Florida, and almost every day different things happen in the courts, where lawsuits have been filed for different reasons: TPS, humanitarian paroles, residency, deportations, all of that. We want attorney Martha Arias to update us on whether there has been any change since her last visit to the radio station.

CARLOS:
Welcome, attorney. Thank you for being with us. And we’d like, with your permission, to also give our audience the chance to contact us if at some point they have any doubt about this, so that you, with your experience and knowledge, can help clear it up. Good afternoon. Welcome.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Good afternoon, Carlos and Agustín. A greeting to you and to the entire Actualidad Radio audience. And of course, with pleasure, I’m here to answer the listeners’ questions.

AGUSTÍN:
Since the last time we spoke, has there been anything new that has changed, any change that has come via a ruling from either a Federal Court or an Appeals Court?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Well, I do want to explain a bit more about that decision from the California court regarding TPS, if you’ll allow me.

AGUSTÍN:
Of course.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Let’s see. Initially —before reading the order in its entirety— I thought it only applied to the TPS from 2021, but after reading the judge’s entire order, I realized that in fact this order applies to both TPS, 2021 and 2023. At first, I believed it only affected 2023. What is the reason? When extending it until October 2026, President Biden also unified the 2021 TPS and the 2023 TPS on one single date. I mean, since there were two TPS with two different dates, he decided to merge them so that all Venezuelan TPS would have the same renewal date, and that’s how he extended it until October 2026.

When the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security came and issued an order to eliminate (vacate) that decision from President Biden, the official term is “vacate,” by overturning it she said, “We’re scrapping the TPS from 2023 entirely, and as for the TPS from 2021, we’ll let you know on July 12.” That was the Secretary of Homeland Security’s order. So then, by the judge pausing that decision from the Secretary of Homeland Security, we basically go back to Biden’s decision to have a single date for both TPS. So we go back to that, meaning at this time, both the 2021 TPS and the 2023 TPS cannot be canceled yet; they can be renewed.

In fact, yesterday some colleagues told me they tried to renew the 2021 TPS, the one expiring in September, and the system allowed them to do so. Personally, I haven’t done it, but some of my lawyer colleagues have, and the system is allowing them to pay. That’s good news for people who have either of those two TPS. If the system allows it, they should renew.

CARLOS:
There’s a specific question, because there’s an expression that seemed odd to me in Spanish, but it exists for you lawyers: Do all, all TPS beneficiaries have to “register”?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Yes, they should register. Either way, that’s my personal opinion. At this moment, I think they should, and if the system allows it, they should do it. Up until today (we’re on April 2), we haven’t heard any official announcement from USCIS, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration Services, about how they will implement or comply with the judge’s order. They haven’t said anything yet. So if someone doesn’t feel comfortable extending right now, they can wait for some official statement. But if there is none, I would urge people to register because that’s a protection they’ll have, and then we’ll see what happens with the USCIS decision.

CARLOS:
Okay. If you allow it, attorney, we already have quite a few calls and people waiting on the line. I want to ask our audience, please, to be absolutely precise in their questions so that everyone has the opportunity. First, for you to respond, and second, so everyone gets to participate. We’ll take calls at 305-410-1040.

AGUSTÍN:
Go ahead, Ernesto. Go ahead, Ernesto, good afternoon.

ERNESTO:
Hello, yes, good afternoon, it’s nice to listen to you. There’s a principle I believe is universal in law, which says that the administered person shouldn’t have to bear the guilt or the failing committed by the administrator. And I think that part of this has a lot to do with how the administrative matter was handled in the past period for immigrants. The truth is that there’s a group of Venezuelans, from other nationalities too, who are in a legal limbo, and time in these times is worth gold. I simply want to call out, through this medium, for my Venezuelan brothers. They’re not all criminals, far from it…

CARLOS:
Thank you for your participation. We’re absolutely aware of that, we’ve said it repeatedly, and so far there hasn’t been —and correct me if I’m wrong, attorney— any information that the Attorney General’s Office or the Homeland Security Secretary wants to challenge or appeal this decision by Judge Edward Shea.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
So far, there is no official announcement from the government about appealing that preliminary injunction. One. And two, also to answer the listener who just participated, in the judge’s decision he also says that the number of Venezuelans in the United States is highly educated and that they also contribute significantly to the United States workforce. I mean, they’re workers who are contributing to the labor system, and they have a high level of education.

AGUSTÍN:
Moreover, the conditions that prevailed when the TPS decree was issued haven’t changed; rather they’ve gotten worse in Venezuela. The political situation. If you told me, for example, in Syria, if they had given TPS to Syrians while Assad was in power, and now there’s a much better government, well, one could argue that conditions have improved, and so Syrians can return to their country, no longer under the former dictatorship. But that’s not the case in Venezuela, nor in Cuba, nor in Haiti either, because in Haiti there isn’t exactly a government dictatorship, but there is a dictatorship of criminal gangs killing whoever. So the lack of governance in Haiti is worse today than when TPS was originally granted. Ana, good afternoon.

ANA:
Good afternoon. Greetings to all. Attorney, my question isn’t about TPS, but given how difficult the immigration situation is, I want to know what I can do. I filed for my daughter, I’m a citizen. I filed for her a long time ago, and with the pandemic, the process took two more years. So after nine years, she arrived with her two children who are minors, twins, 15 years old right now. When my daughter arrived at the airport, they gave her a paper saying that with it she could get a Social Security card, and that in… that she’d get her green card in 180 days, six months. Her green card arrived, but the children’s did not. And so I want to know what can be done, because we’re afraid to go to Immigration or that they might mix up our papers. It’s a very alarming situation.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Thank you for your question. There’s no need to go to any local immigration office because they’re not going to let you in either. That’s not how it works anymore, you need an appointment. What you should do is call the Immigration 800 number. It’s a phone line… let me look it up. And I’ll say it over the radio, but you can also look it up. It’s 1-800-375-5283. I repeat, 1-800-375-5283. That’s Immigration’s number. Have on hand two important numbers, ma’am: the receipt for the $220 that Immigration charges when they grant you residency at the consular level. When they grant you consular residency, people have to pay $220. I imagine your daughter paid it, and she should have gotten a receipt because that’s paid online with a credit card. You get a receipt that typically starts with the letter “I.” Have that receipt with you, number one, and also the residency or alien number they gave the child or children, which is in the passport where the immigrant visa is stamped. Those two numbers are important, plus the name and date of birth. And you call Immigration to say you haven’t received the card. Usually we’re told to wait at least 45 days; if after 45 days it hasn’t arrived, call as I said, have your documents, and follow up on the card. It’s very common that sometimes it’s delayed, but you call and they’ll resolve it.

AGUSTÍN:
Modern green cards continue starting with the letter “A,” right?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Yes, they all begin with “A,” except before there were eight digits, and if you only had seven, you had to add a zero at the beginning. Now they’re nine numbers, so no zero is needed, they’re just nine. They’re still nine.

AGUSTÍN:
Okay, great. Let’s go with Juan. Juan, good afternoon.

JUAN:
Good afternoon, “El Caballo de Troya,” Mr. Carlos, nice to have the opportunity.

CARLOS:
Go ahead, Juan, thanks so much for listening to us. We’re listening.

JUAN:
Attorney Arias, thank you. I have a question. I’m not personally affected, but there’s a lot of people who are. TPS was for many nationalities: Nicaraguans, Cubans —some Cubans too— Hondurans, Salvadorans, Venezuelans. Did they suspend it for those nationalities aside from the lawsuit for the Venezuelans in court? Does that mean the other people, the other nationalities, lost it?

AGUSTÍN:
Good question. Let’s wait for the answer. He’s asking if people from other nationalities who received TPS, in light of the California lawsuit, are included or excluded?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
No, they’re not included in this lawsuit. The lawsuit was by seven Venezuelan plaintiffs and the National TPS Alliance, a TPS alliance, but they specifically referred to Venezuelan TPS. Although in the ruling they also mention Haiti’s TPS, but for the TPS of other countries —El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Nepal— the government hasn’t said anything, so as far as I know, they haven’t canceled or extended them.

CARLOS:
Through our YouTube channel, someone asks: A person requested TPS before their humanitarian parole expired. Is that person now accruing illegal presence in the United States?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
No. If they filed for TPS before the parole ran out, they were first with parole, protected, and upon switching to TPS they remain protected. As long as there’s no gap, no presence is accrued; TPS protects them from accruing unlawful presence.

AGUSTÍN:
Along that same line, I’ll ask a generic question, but similar. Someone from Venezuela or Cuba filed for political asylum back when TPS wasn’t granted yet. Suddenly, Biden grants TPS. Many of those people who had asylum documents already filed embrace TPS. If in the end, legally, those TPS are eliminated or expire, can people who have asylum documents go back to the asylum, or was the asylum dismissed once they got TPS?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
No, the asylum isn’t dismissed just because the person applies for TPS. That asylum is still there, and if TPS ends, the person can continue under the pending asylum petition. Obviously, that asylum must still be pending, but yes, they maintain that protection.

CARLOS:
Attorney, from what we’ve heard among the audience, some people approach us. Work permits have categories like C8, C11, C10, and some of those work permits come from TPS and others come from an asylum application from someone who did what Agustín said. They have an asylum application and their work permit is from that asylum, but now they’ve taken TPS. If an immigration officer asks them for their work permit, which one is valid for the officer?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
That’s a good question, and let me tell you, I think it’s going to be a challenge for law enforcement when they stop someone and that person shows a work permit as identification. Because if someone, for example, has both TPS and asylum, and they have permits from both benefits —a permit with category C08 (asylum) and also a permit with category A12 or C19 (TPS)— that person can show them all. But let’s say TPS is removed. The person might still have a little card that says they have a work permit with TPS valid until some date that might not have passed yet, but if TPS is eliminated, that TPS is also eliminated. So if the officer knows what they’re doing, they’ll say, “No, that work permit you have under TPS doesn’t exist anymore. Show me if you have one for asylum.” If they do, they can show it. If not, they’ll at least have to show a pending asylum so the officer knows the person is still protected by some petition. Because often people have a work permit, but that permit might be invalid if it was denied in court, or if the court gave them an order of deportation. But the person still carries a card that says it’s valid for two or three more years. Technically, that is not valid. So the police officer must be well trained, not just to look at the document but also to do an online check to see if that case is still open or not.

AGUSTÍN:
Now it’s Mr. Nilo’s turn, or maybe it’s time for him. This was the question… Here comes Nilo. Mr. Nilo, go ahead, good afternoon.

NILO:
Good afternoon, Agustín, and everyone. I wanted to ask two questions. If I had asylum, and I drop the asylum because I take TPS, and at some point they end TPS, can I go back to asylum or am I left hanging? That’s the first one. The second: I’m a US citizen. I have a son who has an open DACA application that’s still pending because the last time we did the renewal, they blocked it or stopped it. He has TPS, an older TPS, and I filed a petition for him as a citizen father to an adult child. I was worried about the TPS because I’m not sure what status he has in that situation.

AGUSTÍN:
One question so the attorney can clarify properly: your son is of legal age now, but when it was time for DACA he was underage, right?

NILO:
Well, he was underage, but when he applied, he was already an adult, because when he was underage he was quite young, like in eighth grade.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Well, there are a lot of details here. To answer quickly: about that DACA, from what you say, it was the “second generation,” so to speak, the one the government re-approved. We already know that DACA was challenged in court and declared invalid, so even if it was pending and not decided, that DACA doesn’t protect him because it wasn’t approved, and in fact the government said that program wasn’t properly authorized. So he has no protection from that. The protection he does have is TPS, which can continue to protect him until your petition —father, a US citizen to an adult child— becomes current. But presumably he can’t get residency in the US, he’d have to leave, and we have to check how long until that petition is available, and if TPS is still in force all that time. Otherwise, he’d be out of status, accruing unlawful presence, and would need a waiver.
Now, regarding asylum, whether you can get back an asylum that you withdrew, it depends, you can’t always do it. There are situations where you can, and indeed the court had issued some manuals on how we attorneys can re-open certain asylums. For example, many people entered through the border, applied for asylum in court because they were sent to court. But for some reason, maybe minors or certain conditions, the judge closed that asylum case so they could continue with USCIS, or people who filed with both USCIS and the court. In those situations, the judge ended it and the person carried on with USCIS. So yes, there are specific cases where if they withdrew it, the court can resume it at USCIS. But not all cases are the same. If you filed with USCIS and withdrew that case, you could try to request a reopening, but it’s kind of difficult for them to pick it up with the same earlier filing date. There is a court memorandum about how we can do it, but I repeat, not all cases fit that category.

CARLOS:
Attorney, I understand TPS covered or covers Venezuelans who were in the US until July of ‘21, if my memory isn’t failing me.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Yes, that’s the one from 2021.

CARLOS:
Okay, if someone was in the territory or had arrived by July of ‘21 and didn’t file for TPS for whatever reason, can they do it now?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
That’s a good question, but they’re no longer able to file for the 2021 TPS because that cutoff date passed. They’d be applying for the 2023 TPS, which is technically still open because of the pause that the judge put in place, as we revert to Biden’s January 12 order, which unified the two. So technically, yes, they could do it.

AGUSTÍN:
And the last question, from me, is about Cubans. A Cuban entered through the border and was given humanitarian parole, or maybe he applied for political asylum. We know asylums are for who knows when, because the courts are swamped. A year and a day passes, and they qualify under the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966. That resolves the residency issue if asylum still hasn’t been decided, right?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Yes, if they have parole and already have a year and a day, they can apply for adjustment. What one should do is check if the case is in court, so you ask for that case to be terminated, so that Immigration has jurisdiction.

AGUSTÍN:
You have to close out the asylum case to move it administratively.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Not necessarily close out the asylum, but if the case is in court, that’s the judge’s jurisdiction. So you have to end the court case, unless the person was labeled an Arriving Alien when they were sent to court. That’s a different box. But in most cases you have to terminate the court process.

AGUSTÍN:
Perfect, friends. I want to end, though the attorney didn’t ask me to, I gladly do it because we’ve bothered her for over half an hour, pulling her away from her workday to answer questions from us and from you. The least we can do is give out her number. Notice that the immigration situation is very grave right now, extremely complicated, and each case requires expertise and extraordinary maneuvering. Not all cases are the same. I say this because we Hispanics have a tendency to self-medicate with a home remedy, some little concoction, but that’s not where we stand. When you have a situation like this, you have to seek professional help, because if you slip up, you might lose the chance and have no way to fix it. I’ll give you the attorney’s phone number, for anyone who thinks they need professional help: you see she’s mastered the topic thoroughly. It’s 305-671-0018, Martha Arias. 305-671-0018. Well, thank you very much, attorney. Thanks, until next Monday.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Same to you, have a great rest of the week, and thank you very much for the invitation.

AGUSTÍN:
Of course. Thank you for your time.

The post TPS for Venezuelans, Parole, New Updates in Immigration Law appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

Suspension on Green Card Applications, New Background Checks, TPS, and Executive Orders

Martha Arias — Mon, 31 Mar 2025 14:05:51 +0000

It was a pleasure to appear on Actualidad Radio again—this time with hosts Carlos and Agustin—on Tuesday’s edition of “Cada Tarde.” We discussed new immigration updates that could affect many people, especially those who entered the United States recently or adjusted status through asylum. These changing regulations can create confusion, but my goal is always to help you understand your rights and options.

Key Highlights From the Interview

Temporary Suspension of Green Card Processing
We covered the Department of Homeland Security’s recent pause on certain residency applications involving individuals who entered with humanitarian parole or had their asylum approved. This is part of a broader investigation into criminal backgrounds and potential fraud.

Review of Criminal Records
The government is now taking an extra step to check criminal records from other countries, not just the United States. This is especially relevant for those who adjusted status after crossing the border.

Latest Executive Orders
We talked about the new orders that require proof of citizenship for mail-in voting and prevent non-citizens from participating in certain election-related volunteer roles.

TPS Litigation
We touched on legal arguments around the possibility of extending or canceling TPS (Temporary Protected Status). Although court cases can be complex, it’s crucial to stay informed about these developments.

Why Staying Informed Matters

Current changes in immigration law can be overwhelming. Whether you came through humanitarian parole, asylum, or are exploring a family or employment-based route, it’s wise to consult an experienced immigration attorney who keeps up with these evolving rules. If you have questions about your own situation, please feel free to reach out.

Need Help With Your Case?

I’m here to guide you and make sure you have the right information before you take any next steps. Call me at (305) 671-0018 and let’s discuss your circumstances.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For personalized guidance on your specific immigration case, please consult with a qualified immigration attorney. If you or a loved one need immigration advice, do not hesitate to seek professional legal assistance. The immigration landscape is evolving rapidly, and staying informed is essential.

TRANSCRIPCIÓN EN ESPAÑOL

Agustín:
Bueno, vamos a hablar de inmigración porque inmigración está en el tintero. Toda la tarde tenemos, casi toda la tarde tenemos cosas nuevas de inmigración. Ayer, ya cuando nos fuimos del aire, había salido, estaba saliendo una noticia de que el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional había suspendido, y la palabra que utilizaron en ese comunicado fue “suspendido temporalmente”, los trámites de la residencia. La residencia, en términos americanos, se le dice “green card”. Hace muchísimos años, en los años 60, el facsímil de una residencia era verde, pero ya cuando yo llegué a los Estados Unidos a mediados de los 70, la residencia no era verde, era blanca.

Carlos:
Pero tiene dos rayas verdes.

Agustín:
Pero le siguen diciendo el green card porque data de esa época. Ni siquiera tiene las dos rayas. Ahora no tiene nada de color.

Carlos:
No, creo que tiene un azul y un rojo por ahí con la estatua de la libertad.

Agustín:
Pero no es verde. Es el green card para mucha gente. Green card. Pero bueno, decían que la residencia, los trámites, están suspendidos temporalmente, y hoy sale una aclaración del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional que dice que lo han hecho en el marco de una investigación de fraude para determinar si hay fraude o si hay un riesgo a la seguridad nacional en el otorgamiento de la residencia a alguna persona que tal vez tenga antecedentes complicados fuera de los Estados Unidos o haya mentido en el proceso de solicitar el trámite o solicitar la residencia. Entonces, cuando tenemos estas cosas, siempre buscamos a las personas expertas. Ayer ustedes la escucharon a esta hora con nosotros, y hoy le hemos pedido que gentilmente nos atienda, y ella gentilmente ha aceptado darnos unos minutos. Se trata de la doctora Martha Arias, nuestra abogada de inmigración en este programa. Doctora, bienvenida. Muchísimas gracias.

Dra. Martha Arias:
Buenas tardes, Agustín. Un saludo para usted, para Carlos y toda la audiencia de Actualidad Radio.

Carlos:
Ya tenemos a la doctora; usted no solamente la escucha, también la puede ver si está usted conectado a nuestra página web, si está conectado a nuestra aplicación. Y en nuestro canal de YouTube.

Agustín:
Doctora, si sigue usted como va, pronto le van a quitar la licencia de abogada porque está demasiado joven y la van a mandar nuevamente al high school.

Dra. Martha Arias:
El otro día me estaban pidiendo la licencia para comprar un vinito, entonces yo me puse contenta. Cuarenta y que le pidan la licencia, eso es un halago.

Agustín:
A mí me pidieron también la licencia para el vino, pero era que el señor era miope. Bueno, cuéntenos un poco, ¿qué se sabe más allá de lo que ha dicho el gobierno en este comunicado? ¿Qué es lo que ustedes han podido averiguar?

Dra. Martha Arias:
Bueno, varias cosas. Lo primero es que todo esto es un seguimiento que se le viene haciendo precisamente a la entrada de todas esas personas que han entrado por la frontera en los últimos años. Algunos de ellos entraron y les dieron parol, y, por ejemplo, si eran cubanos, ajustaron al ajuste cubano, y otras personas pues han podido ajustar el estatus e incluso otras que pidieron asilo. Entonces, lo que el gobierno intenta es pausar esas peticiones de residencia de las personas que fueron aprobadas los asilos, para poder revisar todo lo que son los antecedentes penales aquí en los Estados Unidos y fuera.

Y déjenme decirle allí una cosa, Agustín: cuando uno le hace un proceso consular de residencia a una persona, el Departamento de Estado, a través de los consulados del Centro Nacional de Visa, le pide a uno los antecedentes penales de la persona en cualquier país que haya vivido más de seis meses después de los 16 años. Y si hay personas que han vivido en tres países, toca a esa persona conseguir esos antecedentes de todos esos países.

Sin embargo, dentro de los Estados Unidos, el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional, cuando se pide la residencia, solamente pide los antecedentes penales de aquí, de los Estados Unidos. No piden de los otros países donde hayan vivido. Eso es interesante. Por eso, tal vez, es una de las razones por las que el gobierno, sobre todas estas personas que pidieron asilo, quiere saber los antecedentes penales y quiénes son.

Yo no sé si usted también se acuerda que yo conté una historia de unos clientes que vinieron y dijeron que eran de la primera línea de Colombia y que venían a pedir asilo porque la policía de Colombia los estaba persiguiendo. Pues todos sabían que la primera línea salió en las noticias, que vandalizaron.
Entonces, por ejemplo, si a una persona de esa primera línea le hubieran aprobado la residencia, valdría la pena revisar los antecedentes de esas personas.

Agustín:
Y esto de los antecedentes penales no es una cosa nueva ni de este gobierno, del gobierno de Biden, ni del gobierno de Obama. Cuando en Madrid o cuando en España nos dimos cita allí como 50 o 60 mil cubanos, no había forma de entrar a los Estados Unidos porque no había manera. Y estaba el presidente Richard Nixon, y de alguna manera le pidieron al presidente Nixon y el Congreso aprobó otorgarle, por un plan de reunificación familiar, a esos miles de cubanos, la entrada a los Estados Unidos, pero con residencia. Mi familia y yo entramos con residencia. Y yo recuerdo que antes de que nos citaran a la entrevista consular, como cuatro o cinco meses antes, tuvimos que presentar los antecedentes penales del Ministerio del Interior de España para probar que no teníamos ningún tipo de… Yo era un muchacho, tenía 14 años… para probar, mi padre no, mi tía tampoco, eran adultos, para probar que no habíamos cometido ningún delito en España. Presentamos esos antecedentes. Fuimos a la entrevista consular, nos aprobaron la residencia, y antes de poder estamparnos el cuño, tuvimos que recertificar antecedentes penales para demostrar que entre los primeros antecedentes y esa fecha, que habían pasado como cuatro o cinco meses, estábamos limpios y no habíamos incurrido en alguna violación criminal en territorio español. Hasta tanto, no nos acuñaron la entrada a los Estados Unidos, y eso fue hace 50 años, 51 años.

Dra. Martha Arias:
En suplemento, el complemento de esta noticia—no sé si se acuerdan que en enero también hubo una orden ejecutiva del presidente Trump que dijo que también iba a suspender o poner en pausa cualquier petición de ajuste de estatus o petición que presentaran los que entraron con el parol humanitario, de solo personas que entraron con el parol humanitario, me refiero al de Cuba, Haití, Venezuela y Nicaragua, que de pronto se casaron en los Estados Unidos o presentaron cualquier otra petición y están pidiendo la residencia. A esas personas también les están pausando las peticiones para revisar, y eso es en seguimiento a lo que el gobierno considera que no hubo suficiente revisión de antecedentes penales de esas personas que entraron con el parol, en adición a lo que ya sabemos que hubo fraude con el affidavit y el Parole I-134A. Entonces, ese es otro grupo de personas que en este momento están sujetas a lo que ellos llaman FEDE.

Agustín:
Doctora, esta pausa, ¿podemos entenderla como pausa? ¿Los solicitantes cuyos papeles o planillas ya están en el túnel han quedado pausados, como cuando uno va en un ascensor y el ascensor se queda sin electricidad por el camino y se para, o es para los nuevos, las personas nuevas que todavía no han solicitado y, bueno, ahora se cierra el ascensor, no podemos entrar, nos quedamos fuera en el lobby? ¿Cuál de los dos grupos aplica para la pausa?

Dra. Martha Arias:
Lo que aplica es que va a haber un cierre administrativo, es decir, no se van a decidir finalmente, lo van a poner en “hold” o en revisión. Entonces, eso quiere decir que se va a demorar más la decisión, aprobación o negatoria, mientras lean y mientras lo revisen. O sea, va a haber como lo que en derecho o en administración se llama un cierre administrativo, que es mientras se investiga. El caso queda pausado en “hold” o en “standby.”

Carlos:
Hola, doctora, ¿eso de alguna manera tiene alguna variable del origen de la residencia? Me explico: no es lo mismo solicitar la residencia porque te aprobaron un asilo y ya tienes el tiempo correspondiente, a solicitar una residencia porque trajiste a tus padres o a un hijo menor de edad, o porque estás solicitando a un cónyuge. ¿O todas las residencias están sujetas a esta revisión?

Dra. Martha Arias:
No, solamente las que se están pidiendo a través de un asilo otorgado o las personas que entraron con el parol humanitario y pidieron algún beneficio como la residencia. Son dos grupos no más.

Carlos:
O sea, todos los demás grupos—solicitantes de padres o de hijos, de cónyuge, los que tienen una… Entiendo que la certificación laboral también podría conducir a una residencia, o algunas de las visas que conducen a residencia—siguen en desarrollo normal.

Dra. Martha Arias:
Correcto, sí.

Agustín:
Doctora, le voy a hacer una pregunta y no se sienta mal si no sabe la respuesta porque están pasando tantas cosas en los tribunales federales a tanta velocidad vertiginosa que cualquier persona no puede estar al tanto de todo lo que está ocurriendo en todo el territorio nacional. Le doy esa libertad en ese sentido. Antier—hoy es lunes—antier, en un tribunal de California, se estaba ventilando un tema sobre si el gobierno puede o no revocar o suspender los TPS. Y tengo entendido que el juez, de manera oral, no de manera escrita—no había dado el dictamen todavía—pero de manera oral dijo que él entendía que podría haber “injury,” podría haber algún tipo de lesión a las personas si se les quitaba el TPS y tenían que abandonar el territorio nacional. Me imagino que se refería a los venezolanos que tendrían que regresar a Venezuela o tal vez a los haitianos que tienen que regresar a un estado de alta violencia. ¿Ese lenguaje le da a usted algún tipo de idea de esperanza o de idea de que pueda el juez inclinarse a buscar un acomodo, una extensión, una prórroga para las personas que están sujetas a la cancelación de la renovación del TPS?

Dra. Martha Arias:
Sí, bueno, efectivamente, esa palabra o esas terminologías se usan cuando el juez está decidiendo una medida cautelar. En este caso, el juez lo que estaba decidiendo es que se le presentó lo que se llama “injunction.” “Injunction” es una medida cautelar donde se le pide al juez que ordene que no se aplique la suspensión del TPS, es decir, que continúe mientras el litigio continúa.

Entonces, si el juez tiene esa petición, el juez lo que tiene que revisar es si hay algún daño o un “injury” que se le cause a las partes que no pueda ser reversible. Entonces, si el juez determina que puede haber un daño que no sea reversible, el juez va a aprobar la medida cautelar mientras el litigio continúa. Aprobar la medida cautelar, en este caso, sería que habría una prórroga de TPS que vence ahora en abril, que es el TPS de 2023. Si esa prórroga la ordena el juez—es decir, esa “injunction”—entonces los tepecianos de 2023 pueden continuar en los Estados Unidos por la prórroga que dice el juez.

Agustín:
Excelente, bueno, creo que ha quedado aclarado todo esto. ¿Hay algo nuevo, de lo que usted se haya enterado de ayer para acá, que quiera agregar de otros temas o de otro asunto migratorio?

Dra. Martha Arias:
Sí, hay mucho nuevo, pero le voy a hacer un breve resumen, ok. No, tomo el lunes y les puedo dar.

Lo primero es que el día de ayer el presidente Trump sacó una orden ejecutiva que dice que va a pedir que aquellas personas que han votado por correo se les obligue a presentar una prueba de su ciudadanía. Ese es el número uno, y esto es porque, usted sabe, cuando la persona llena la balota electrónica, pues llena la balota y la manda y no tiene que mandar la prueba de la ciudadanía. Entonces, en esta orden ejecutiva el presidente Trump dice que va a haber obligación de mandar esa prueba. Número uno.

Número dos, también el presidente ordena que el Departamento de Homeland Security revise a todas aquellas personas extranjeras que no son ciudadanas y que en la aplicación han contestado que sí se han inscrito para votar o que han votado. Él quiere tener esa lista de esas personas que han votado en los Estados Unidos o que dijeron que han votado sin ser ciudadanos. Esa orden ejecutiva salió ayer mismo al final de la tarde.

Y hay otra orden ejecutiva también que habla de… bueno, esa está un poquito más atrás, esa fue hace días, pero que le quita todos los fondos o las ayudas a las entidades sin ánimo de lucro que ayudan a los inmigrantes. Y, de hecho, pues ya muchas de esas entidades han empezado a tener que despedir personal y abogados porque no tienen suficiente contrata dentro de estas organizaciones que también dependen de los niños que entran sin estado de divorcio. Eso quedó de las órdenes ejecutivas recientes.

Agustín:
Por cierto, la orden ejecutiva de ayer sobre la prueba de ciudadanía también ordena en uno de sus acápites que nadie que no sea ciudadano puede trabajar en nada que tenga que ver con las elecciones. O sea, no puede ser un vigilante del colegio electoral, del recinto electoral el día de las elecciones.

Carlos:
No puede ser de los voluntarios que organizan el proceso.

Agustín:
Tienen que ser ciudadanos. Doctora, ¿ha cambiado la ley? Cuando yo me hice ciudadano hace muchos años, en el año 80, lo primero que nos dijeron cuando nos entregaron el certificado de naturalización fue que no se podía fotocopiar, que estaba prohibido fotocopiarlo. Había que presentarlo para cualquier trámite, el pasaporte o algo, había que llevar el original. Y no sé si la ley ha cambiado. ¿Se puede fotocopiar hoy día el documento original?

Dra. Martha Arias:
Técnicamente no, no se puede fotocopiar. Pero en ese sentido, inmigración es bastante condescendiente, y uno manda una copia, lo posibilitan y lo aceptan.

Carlos:
Doctora, no puedo despedirla sin que me vayan a ahorcar aquí en el chat de YouTube. Un mensaje de Miguel Ángel dice que usted está muy bella y muy profesional. Otro mensaje de Carlos Fernando Castellano: muy bonita la doctora, muy profesional y muy bien preparada. Tenía que leer eso.

Agustín:
Amigos, siempre me gusta concluir la entrevista con la doctora Martha Arias dando su teléfono, porque ella ha dejado paralizado hoy su trabajo, como hizo ayer durante media hora, y lo menos que podemos nosotros hacer en reciprocidad es agradecer su visita. Así que cualquiera de ustedes que necesite la mejor ayuda, la mejor consejería, la mejor orientación en temas solamente de inmigración—cualquier otro tema de abogado no, pero inmigración sí—es el (305) 671-0018 para la ley de inmigración. La doctora Martha Arias, (305) 671-0018. Doctora, muchísimas gracias, entonces, hasta el próximo lunes.

Carlos:
Muchísimas gracias, doctor.

Dra. Martha Arias:
Gracias. Igual para usted.

ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT

ENGLISH TRANSCRIPTION
———————
Agustín:
Well, let’s talk about immigration because immigration is in the spotlight. All afternoon we have—almost all afternoon we have new immigration developments. Yesterday, right when we got off the air, a piece of news came out, it was coming out, that the Department of Homeland Security had suspended—and the word they used in that statement was “temporarily suspended”—residency procedures. Residency in American terms is called a “green card.” Many years ago, in the 1960s, the facsimile of a residence was green, but by the time I arrived in the United States in the mid-’70s, the residence was no longer green, it was white.

Carlos:
But it has two green stripes.

Agustín:
But they still call it the green card because it dates back to that time. It doesn’t even have two stripes now. Now it doesn’t have any color.

Carlos:
No, I think it has some blue and some red on it with the Statue of Liberty.

Agustín:
But it’s not green. For many people, it’s the green card. Green card. But anyway, they were saying that the residency, the procedures, are temporarily suspended, and today a clarification from the Department of Homeland Security has come out stating that they have done so as part of a fraud investigation to determine whether there is fraud or whether there is a national security risk in granting residency to someone who may have complicated records outside the United States or who may have lied in the process of applying for the procedure or applying for residency. So, when we have these situations, we always look for the experts. Yesterday you heard her at this hour with us, and today we asked her kindly to speak with us, and she has kindly agreed to give us a few minutes. This is Attorney Martha Arias, our immigration attorney on this show. Attorney, welcome. Thank you very much.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Good afternoon, Agustin. Greetings to you, to Carlos, and to the entire Actualidad Radio audience.

Carlos:
We already have the Attorney here; not only can you listen to her, but you can also see her if you are connected to our website, if you are connected to our app. And on our YouTube channel.

Agustín:
Attorney, if you keep going at this rate, they’re going to take your attorney license away because you look too young, and they’ll send you back to high school.

Attorney Martha Arias:
The other day they were asking me for my license to buy some wine, so I was happy. At forty, to be asked for my license… that’s a compliment.

Agustín:
They also asked me for my license to buy wine, but it was because the gentleman was nearsighted. Well, tell us a little bit—beyond what the government has said in this statement—what have you been able to find out?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Well, several things. First, all of this is a follow-up on the entry of all those people who have come across the border in recent years. Some of them came in and were given parole, and, for example, if they were Cuban, they adjusted under the Cuban Adjustment Act, and other people have been able to adjust status, and even others applied for asylum. So, what the government is trying to do is pause those residency applications of people whose asylums were approved, in order to review everything related to their criminal records here in the United States and abroad.

And let me tell you something there, Agustin: when you do a consular residence process for someone, the Department of State, through the consulates of the National Visa Center, asks for the criminal records of the person in any country where they have lived more than six months after turning 16. And if there are people who have lived in three countries, that person has to get those records from all those countries.

However, within the United States, the Department of Homeland Security, when residency is requested, only asks for criminal records from here, from the United States. They don’t ask for the ones from other countries where they’ve lived. That’s interesting. Perhaps that’s one of the reasons why the government, especially regarding these people who applied for asylum, wants to know the criminal records and who they are.

I don’t know if you also remember that I told a story about some clients who came and said they were from the “first line” in Colombia and that they were coming to request asylum because the Colombian police were persecuting them. Well, everyone knew that the “first line” made the news for vandalizing things.

So, for example, if someone from that “first line” had been approved for residency, it would be worthwhile to check those people’s records.

Agustín:
And this matter of criminal records is not something new from this government, from the Biden administration, or from Obama’s administration. When in Madrid or when in Spain, about 50 or 60 thousand Cubans gathered there, there was no way to enter the United States because there was no way. And President Richard Nixon was in office, and somehow they asked President Nixon, and Congress approved granting, through a family reunification plan, to those thousands of Cubans, entry into the United States, but with residency. My family and I entered with residency. And I recall that before we were called for the consular interview—about four or five months beforehand—we had to present criminal records from the Spanish Ministry of the Interior to prove that we didn’t have any kind of… I was a teenager, 14 years old… to prove, my father wasn’t, my aunt wasn’t, they were adults, to prove that we hadn’t committed any crime in Spain. We presented those records. We went to the consular interview, our residency was approved, and before they could stamp it, we had to recertify criminal records to show that between the initial records and that date—which had been about four or five months—we were clean and had not committed any criminal offenses on Spanish territory. Only then did they stamp our entry into the United States, and that was 50 years ago, 51 years ago.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Additionally, the complement to this news—do you remember that in January there was also an executive order from President Trump stating that he was going to suspend or put on hold any application for adjustment of status or petition submitted by those who entered with humanitarian parole, only those who entered with humanitarian parole—I’m referring to those from Cuba, Haiti, Venezuela, and Nicaragua—who maybe got married in the United States or submitted any other petition and are requesting residency? Those people are also having their applications paused for review, and that follows the government’s view that there was not enough review of the criminal backgrounds of those who entered with parole, in addition to what we already know about the fraud with the affidavit and Parole I-134A. So, that’s another group of people who are currently subject to what they call FEDE.

Agustín:
Attorney, can we interpret this pause as a pause for the applicants whose papers or forms are already “in the tunnel” and have been put on hold, like when you’re in an elevator and it loses power along the way and stops? Or is it for the new people, those who haven’t yet applied and, well, now the elevator is closed, we can’t get in, we’re stuck in the lobby? Which of the two does the pause apply to?

Attorney Martha Arias:
What applies is that there will be an administrative closure, meaning they are not going to make a final decision; they will put it on “hold” or under review. So that means the decision—approval or denial—will take longer while they read and review. In other words, there will be what in law or administration is called an administrative closure, which is while the case is investigated. The case remains on hold or on standby.

Carlos:
Hello, Attorney. Does that, in any way, vary depending on the origin of the residency? Let me explain: it’s not the same to request residency because you had your asylum approved and you already have the corresponding time, as it is to request residency because you brought your parents or a minor child, or because you’re petitioning for a spouse. Or are all residencies subject to this review?

Attorney Martha Arias:
No, only those requested through a granted asylum or people who entered with humanitarian parole and requested some benefit like residency. It’s just those two groups.

Carlos:
So all the other groups—people petitioning for parents or children, for a spouse, those who… I understand that labor certification could also lead to residency, or some of the visas that lead to residency—those continue as normal?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Correct, yes.

Agustín:
Attorney, I’m going to ask a question, and don’t feel bad if you don’t know the answer because so many things are happening in federal courts at such breakneck speed that no one person can keep track of everything happening across the entire country. I’ll give you that freedom in that sense. The day before yesterday—today is Monday—the day before yesterday, in a California court, there was a hearing about whether the government can or cannot revoke or suspend TPS. And I understand that the judge, orally—not in writing, because he hadn’t issued a ruling yet—but orally said that he believed there could be injury, that there could be some type of harm to people if TPS were taken away and they had to leave the country. I imagine he was referring to Venezuelans who would have to return to Venezuela or maybe Haitians who would have to return to a place of high violence. Does that language give you any sense of hope or the idea that the judge might lean toward finding an arrangement, an extension, a renewal for people who are subject to the cancellation of TPS renewal?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Yes, well, indeed, that word or that terminology is used when the judge is deciding on a preliminary injunction. In this case, the judge was deciding because they filed what is called an “injunction.” An injunction is a measure that asks the judge to order that the suspension of TPS not be enforced, meaning that it continues while the litigation continues.
So, if the judge is considering that request, the judge has to check whether there is some harm or “injury” caused to the parties that may not be reversible. If the judge determines there could be harm that isn’t reversible, the judge will approve the preliminary measure while the litigation continues. Approving that measure, in this case, would mean there’s an extension of TPS, which expires now in April, which is the 2023 TPS. If that extension is ordered by the judge—that is, that “injunction”—then those 2023 TPS holders can continue in the United States by virtue of the extension the judge declares.

Agustín:
Excellent. Well, I think everything is clear now. Is there anything new, something you found out from yesterday until now, that you’d like to add about other topics or another immigration issue?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Yes, there’s a lot that’s new, but I’ll give you a brief summary, okay.

First, yesterday President Trump issued an executive order stating that he’s going to request that people who have voted by mail be required to present proof of their citizenship. That’s number one, and that’s because, you know, when a person fills out the electronic ballot, they fill it out and send it, and they don’t have to submit proof of citizenship. So, in this executive order, President Trump says there will be an obligation to send that proof. That’s number one.

Number two, the president also orders the Department of Homeland Security to review all those foreign persons who are not citizens and who, on their application, indicated that they have registered to vote or that they have voted. He wants to have that list of those people who have voted in the United States or who said they voted without being citizens. That executive order also came out yesterday, late in the afternoon.

And there is another executive order that talks about… well, that one is a bit earlier, it was from a few days ago, but it removes all funding or aid from nonprofit entities that help immigrants. And in fact, many of those organizations have had to lay off staff and attorneys; because they don’t have enough funding. That’s what’s come out of the most recent executive orders.

Agustín:
By the way, yesterday’s executive order about proof of citizenship also provides in one of its sections that no one who isn’t a citizen can work in anything related to the elections. That is, they can’t be a monitor at a polling place, at the electoral site on Election Day.

Carlos:
They can’t be among the volunteers who organize the process.

Agustín:
They have to be citizens. Attorney, has the law changed? When I became a citizen many years ago, in 1980, the first thing they told us when they handed us the naturalization certificate was that it couldn’t be photocopied, that it was prohibited to photocopy it. For any procedure—passport or anything—you had to bring the original. And I don’t know if the law has changed. Can the original document be photocopied today?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Technically no, you can’t photocopy it. But in that sense, immigration is quite lenient, and you can send a copy, they allow it and they accept it.

Carlos:
Attorney, I can’t let you go without reading a message on the YouTube chat, or they’ll hang me here. A message from Miguel Ángel says that you look very beautiful and very professional. Another message from Carlos Fernando Castellano says you’re very pretty, very professional, and very well prepared. I had to read that.

Agustín:
Friends, I always like to end the interview with Attorney Martha Arias by giving her phone number, because she has paused her work today, as she did yesterday for half an hour, and the least we can do in return is to thank her for stopping by. So, anyone who needs the best help, the best counsel, the best guidance on immigration matters only—any other legal matter no, but for immigration, yes—call (305) 671-0018 for immigration law. Attorney Martha Arias, (305) 671-0018. Attorney, thank you very much, then, until next Monday.

Carlos:
Thank you very much, Attorney.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Thanks. Same to you.

The post Suspension on Green Card Applications, New Background Checks, TPS, and Executive Orders appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..