CBP One Archives - Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq.

USCIS Processing Update and CBP One Parole Relief

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

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

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

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

What USCIS Actually Said

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

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

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

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

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

IMPORTANT TIPS

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

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

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

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

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

Why These Two Developments Belong in the Same Conversation?

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

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

Frequently Asked Questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disclaimer:

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

FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA

The post USCIS Processing Update and CBP One Parole Relief appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

DHS Ends the 2021 TPS Designation for Venezuela

Martha Arias — Thu, 04 Sep 2025 15:38:15 +0000

On September 3, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced it is terminating the 2021 Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation for Venezuela. DHS’s press release notes the 2021 designation was set to expire on September 10, 2025, and states that the termination will take effect 60 days after the Federal Register (FR) notice is published (that notice has not yet posted at the time of writing). U.S. Department of Homeland Security

This follows DHS’s earlier action terminating the 2023 Venezuela TPS designation, which became effective April 7, 2025, per the official Federal Register notice. Practically, that means the “redesignated” 2023 cohort has already lost TPS; the September 3 announcement addresses the original 2021 cohort. Federal Register

USCIS’s Venezuela TPS country page also reflects these changes and provides running updates, including references to the February 2025 actions and court developments. Keep checking that page for post-announcement implementation details. USCIS

Key points at a glance

Announcement date: Sept. 3, 2025 (DHS press release). U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Which group is addressed? Individuals registered under the 2021 TPS designation for Venezuela. The 2023 redesignation was already terminated effective Apr. 7, 2025. Federal Register
Expiration vs. termination timing: DHS notes the 2021 designation “will expire on Sept. 10, 2025,” and also says termination takes effect 60 days after the forthcoming Federal Register notice. The FR notice will control the exact wind-down dates and any auto-extensions of documents; watch for it. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Official status tracker: USCIS Venezuela TPS page. USCIS

Because TPS gives eligible nationals protection from removal and work authorization during the designation period, ending a designation has major implications for employment, travel, and overall lawful presence. DHS’s Sept. 3 statement frames the decision as a national-interest determination following interagency consultation—language you will see mirrored in the eventual Federal Register notice. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

What does this mean for you if you were in the 2021 TPS group?

Status & EAD timing will be set by the FR notice.
DHS’s press release previews the termination, but the Federal Register notice will spell out effective dates, any automatic EAD extensions, and instructions for employers and beneficiaries. Do not assume your work authorization has ended until the FR specifies it. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
The 2023 TPS registrants already lost TPS on April 7, 2025.
If you only qualified under the 2023 redesignation, TPS (and related EADs) ended April 7, 2025 per the FR. Federal Register
Continue to monitor USCIS’s country page and newsroom.
USCIS will post the FR link, FAQs, and any updates to filing or document validity there. USCIS

About “CBP Home” and voluntary self-departure incentives

DHS materials describe a “CBP Home” mobile app (a rebranding/expansion connected to CBP’s mobile app directory) that allows certain individuals to register intent to depart and coordinate travel. DHS and CBP pages state the program provides cost-free travel and a $1,000 “exit bonus” after confirmed return for those who use the app to voluntarily depart. If you are considering this path, get individualized legal advice before taking irreversible steps. U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Customs and Border Protection

DHS has also indicated that people who self-depart via the app may have failure-to-depart fines forgiven and that departing on your own terms can avoid detention and removal. However, this is not a grant of legal status or a promise of future immigration benefits. Your future eligibility (and any re-entry bars) depends on your personal history and applicable law. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

What To Do Next?

Verify your category (2021 vs. 2023) and your current document dates.
Watch for the Federal Register notice that implements the Sept. 3 announcement; it will set the exact legal timeline. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Talk to an attorney about possible next steps (asylum, family-based options, employment-based filings, cancellation of removal, etc.) based on your unique history. Call Our Office (305-671-0018) or Send a Message
Do not travel internationally without individualized legal advice if your TPS/EAD is ending.
If considering voluntary departure via CBP Home, understand the consequences before you act. U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Conclusion

DHS has announced the end of Venezuela’s 2021 TPS designation, with the operative dates to be finalized by the Federal Register notice. The 2023 redesignation has already ended (April 7, 2025). If you’re affected, keep an eye on USCIS’s Venezuela page and the FR, and get personalized legal advice before making decisions—especially about work, travel, or voluntary departure programs described by DHS/CBP. U.S. Department of Homeland Security | Federal Register | USCIS

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1) When exactly does TPS end for the 2021 Venezuela group?
DHS says the 2021 designation “will expire on Sept. 10, 2025,” and also that termination takes effect 60 days after the FR notice is published. Because the FR notice controls implementation, wait for the FR to confirm the precise dates and any wind-down instructions. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

2) I was approved under the 2023 redesignation. Do I still have TPS?
No. The 2023 designation ended Apr. 7, 2025, per the FR. If you only qualified under that redesignation, TPS and related benefits have already ended. Federal Register

3) Will there be automatic extensions of EADs?
Possibly, but only if the FR notice provides them. Automatic extensions (if any) are always spelled out in the FR. Check USCIS’s country page and the FR once posted. USCIS

4) Can I apply for another status now (asylum, family-based, employment-based, etc.)?
TPS termination does not bar you from seeking any separate, available immigration benefits. Eligibility is case-specific; consult a qualified attorney. (General guidance: watch USCIS program pages and any FR updates tied to your category.) USCIS

5) Is “CBP Home” real, and what does it offer?
DHS/CBP pages describe “CBP Home” as a voluntary self-departure pathway featuring cost-free travel and a $1,000 exit bonus upon confirmed return. Read the fine print and get legal advice; departures can trigger re-entry bars and other consequences. U.S. Department of Homeland Security | U.S. Customs and Border Protection +1

6) If I self-depart, does that guarantee I can come back legally later?
No. Some DHS statements suggest self-departure may “preserve the opportunity” to seek lawful return in the future, but there is no guarantee. Future eligibility depends on your case and the law at that time. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

7) Where will the official termination details appear?
In the Federal Register. USCIS will also update its Venezuela TPS country page and the newsroom with links and instructions. Federal Register | USCIS

Disclaimer

This post is general information, not legal advice. Immigration law changes frequently, and the Federal Register notice will control exact timelines and document validity. If you are affected by TPS changes, consult a qualified immigration attorney about your specific situation before you make decisions about work, travel, or departure.

DHS press release (Sept. 3, 2025): https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/09/03/dhs-terminates-2021-designation-venezuela-temporary-protected-status

USCIS newsroom note (Sept. 3, 2025): https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/news-releases/dhs-terminates-2021-designation-of-venezuela-for-temporary-protected-status

Federal Register – Termination of 2023 Venezuela TPS (effective Apr. 7, 2025): https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/02/05/2025-02294/termination-of-the-october-3-2023-designation-of-venezuela-for-temporary-protected-status

USCIS – TPS: Venezuela (country page): https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/temporary-protected-status/temporary-protected-status-designated-country-venezuela

CBP Home (DHS overview page): https://www.dhs.gov/cbphome

CBP mobile apps directory – CBP Home: https://www.cbp.gov/about/mobile-apps-directory/cbphome

CBP media release mentioning self-departure incentives: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/cbp-announces-new-cbp-link-mobile-app

DHS statement on forgiving failure-to-depart fines for self-deporters: https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/06/09/dhs-announces-it-will-forgive-failure-depart-fines-illegal-aliens-who-self-deport

The post DHS Ends the 2021 TPS Designation for Venezuela appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

Massachusetts Class Action Lawsuit Challenges Sudden Termination of Humanitarian Parole

Martha Arias — Thu, 14 Aug 2025 22:50:50 +0000

In my recent interview with journalist Orián Brito, we addressed an important legal battle now underway in Massachusetts. On August 11, a federal class action lawsuit was filed against the Department of Homeland Security, CBP, and USCIS by the Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts and three individual plaintiffs from Venezuela, Cuba, and Haiti.

The lawsuit seeks to stop the government from abruptly terminating humanitarian parole for those who entered the United States through programs such as CBP One, as well as for those who arrived at the border with parole approval. Many of these individuals still had valid parole for one or two years, along with work permits, and the sudden termination has left them at risk of expedited removal and economic hardship.

If successful, this case could restore parole for thousands, allowing them to continue working and remain in the country lawfully until their original expiration date. The plaintiffs argue that while the government has the authority to end programs, the mass termination violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to proceed on a case-by-case basis.

We also discussed recent updates for TPS beneficiaries. In Florida, the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles is now processing licenses and IDs for TPS holders from Honduras and Nicaragua until November 18, 2025, and for eligible Venezuelans until October 2, 2026, following court rulings and Supreme Court orders. This is a significant step for those who were previously unable to renew their driver’s licenses.

Lastly, I answered a viewer’s question about applying for residency with an existing deportation order. If you are in this situation, you must first reopen your deportation case before being eligible for residency. Be aware that any finding of marriage fraud (INA 204C) results in permanent inadmissibility, which must be fought with strong evidence.

Please stay informed. If you have questions or believe you may be affected by these developments, call my office at (305) 671-0018. I will continue to monitor these cases and share updates as soon as they are available.

Disclaimer: This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is different; please consult an immigration attorney about your specific situation.

Orian Brito:

Hola, amigos, y lo prometido es deuda, vamos a comenzar con varias informaciones que hoy son noticia. Si usted tiene TPS o le afectó el fin del parole, este programa es para usted. En Florida, por ejemplo, el departamento que emite las licencias ha sido ordenado a reanudar el trámite de licencias e identificaciones para beneficiarios del TPS, específicamente para Honduras y Nicaragua, con documentos vigentes hasta el 18 de noviembre de 2025. En el caso de los venezolanos, con documentos emitidos a más tardar el 5 de febrero de 2025, estos se mantienen válidos mientras sigue el litigio, en muchos casos hasta octubre de 2026.

Vamos a leer el comunicado que me llegó hace minutos más adelante. Miami-Dade ya está atendiendo bajo esta guía y, al mismo tiempo, en Massachusetts, la Asociación Venezolana de Massachusetts junto a tres personas de Venezuela, Cuba y Haití demandaron al Departamento de Seguridad Nacional por la terminación masiva del parole humanitario comunicada por correo en abril.

Invitada hoy, me alegra mucho que esté con nosotros la abogada de inmigración Martha Arias. Vamos a aclarar varios puntos sobre este tema. Los invito a que se queden hasta el final, que se suscriban y que, por supuesto, activen todas las notificaciones. Hay muchas preguntas respecto a lo que ocurrió del día de ayer a hoy. Así que, abogada, gracias por atendernos. No sé si empezar primero por lo del parole, esta demanda que se está haciendo. Personas que ingresaron con parole humanitario o a través de CBP One —que era la aplicación donde la gente llegaba a la frontera, solicitaba una cita, era entrevistada y posteriormente ingresaba al país con el parole— recibieron este correo que decía que se quedaban sin estatus, y ahora están reclamando. La batalla judicial es decisiva para muchos migrantes a esta hora.

Abogada Martha Arias:

Y es correcto, Orián. Bueno, un saludo para usted, gracias por tenerme en su programa. Efectivamente, hay una demanda federal de grupo (class action) que se presentó el 11 de agosto en el estado de Massachusetts en contra del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional (Homeland Security), de CBP y de USCIS. Esta demanda es presentada por la Asociación Venezolana de Massachusetts y también por tres individuos que representan a muchas otras personas en la misma situación.

Esta demanda pide que se revoque —o se emita un vacatur, que es como una revocación— y que se dé un juicio declaratorio o una orden judicial (injunction), es decir, que se detenga la aplicación de esta medida del gobierno de terminar el parole de forma repentina para todas aquellas personas que ingresaron con parole, incluyendo quienes ingresaron por la frontera con la aplicación CBP One.

Orian Brito:

Esta batalla buscaría que ellos recuperen ese estatus.

Abogada Martha Arias:

Es correcto. Que recuperen el estatus y se les devuelva su parole. Recuerde que muchos apenas habían ingresado recientemente y todavía tenían el parole por uno o dos años. Otros podrían continuar con sus solicitudes de asilo, pero parece que la administración, al terminar el parole, está poniendo a estas personas en procesos de deportaciones expeditas o rápidas y no les está permitiendo continuar con sus peticiones de asilo.

Los demandantes consideran que esto afecta enormemente, no solo económicamente a las familias, sino también de forma colateral a la economía del país, porque había personas que ya tenían la seguridad de permanecer temporalmente en Estados Unidos con ese parole y un permiso de trabajo.

Orian Brito:

Perfecto. Importante. Entonces, definir ahora qué va a ocurrir con esta demanda. Me imagino que para el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional su defensa es que tiene la potestad de poner fin a este tipo de programas, que ha sido el argumento que hemos visto: que ellos tienen el derecho de decidir cuándo lo mantienen y cuándo no.

Abogada Martha Arias:

Efectivamente. Una de las razones que aducen los demandantes es que, sí, el gobierno tiene la autoridad de terminarlo, pero que no debería terminarlo en forma masiva como pasó, porque consideran que es una violación a la Ley de Procedimiento Administrativo (Administrative Procedure Act), que regula ciertas conductas administrativas del gobierno.

Los demandantes dicen que esto se podía terminar caso por caso, pero no de la forma masiva en que se hizo. Las personas que entraron desde el 16 de mayo de 2023 hasta el 19 de enero de 2025 con parole son las que están dentro de este grupo.

Orian Brito:

Importante. ¿Cuál sería el mejor mensaje que le podemos dar a las personas que tienen este beneficio y que ahora están a la expectativa de lo que se pueda decidir en medio de la situación que tienen? Porque a muchos les ha llegado, repito, ese correo donde les dicen: “Mejor vete”.

Abogada Martha Arias:

Sí, de hecho el correo está listado, está escrito allí dentro de la demanda. Y una de las cosas que ellos piden es que se detenga esa terminación y que se permita a las personas continuar con su parole por el tiempo que se les había otorgado. También piden que no se haga efectiva la terminación del parole y del permiso de trabajo, para que las personas puedan seguir trabajando el tiempo que les quedaba pendiente.

Mi consejo es que las personas estén atentas a las noticias en caso de que salga una medida cautelar o una decisión. Obviamente, si la decisión es favorable, van a poder continuar con sus permisos de trabajo y con su parole hasta su vencimiento. Si la demanda no se gana, también deben estar atentas, porque esta era una esperanza y, si no se logra, ya no existirá esa posibilidad.

Orian Brito:

Genial. Estamos conversando con la abogada Martha Arias. Hay muchas preguntas respecto al TPS. Ayer compartí algunas y tengo un video con cientos de preguntas, pero seleccioné solo tres que son las que más se repiten. Por ejemplo, Irma Naranjo me dice: “Buen día, Orián, Dios te bendiga. Me preocupa el permiso de trabajo de mi hijo; lo renovó en diciembre y aún no le llega. ¿Qué puedo hacer, por favor?”. Nosotros, dice Irma, tenemos solicitud de asilo desde 2020 y TPS desde 2021. Me preocupa el permiso de trabajo y la licencia de mi hijo.

Abogada Martha Arias:

Es correcto. Muchísimas personas están en esa situación. Aplicaron para el TPS, lo renovaron, solicitaron la renovación de su permiso de trabajo y nunca les llegó la aprobación. Por lo menos, para efectos de la licencia de conducir, mientras muestren que el TPS está pendiente y el permiso de trabajo en trámite, les pueden dar una renovación de licencia, al menos aquí en Florida.

En cuanto al asilo, asumo que la persona ya lo tenía pendiente por más de 180 días, y por eso califica para el permiso de trabajo. Pero es cierto que esta administración se está demorando o no está emitiendo esos permisos. Incluso he visto que a algunas personas les han llegado requerimientos de evidencia solicitando documentos que normalmente no eran comunes. Estos requerimientos los están pidiendo ahora para poder emitir el permiso de trabajo.

Orian Brito:

Una de esas evidencias es una carta, según me dice Héctor, con TPS 2021. Él pudo renovar y, en el caso de la licencia, no tuvo problema. Existen dos cartas publicadas en internet: una para la licencia y otra para empleadores, que se pueden mostrar en caso de que el empleador lo pida. No sé dónde está esa carta; me gustaría que, si él ve este video, la comparta y nos pase el enlace, porque le puede servir a muchas personas en esta situación.

Abogada Martha Arias:

Claro. Las cartas son realmente comunicaciones de USCIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services), donde se explica que las personas con ciertas solicitudes pendientes pueden mostrarle al empleador que, si el permiso de trabajo ya está en proceso de renovación y está pendiente, igual pueden seguir trabajando porque existe una extensión automática del permiso.

Orian Brito:

Importante eso. Voy a leer rápidamente respecto a las licencias. Este correo me llegó de la oficina del Tax Collector de Miami-Dade a las 4:15 de la tarde. Es un correo a la prensa al que tenemos acceso los periodistas. En este correo presentan dos memorandum, y uno tiene que ver con el TPS para los venezolanos.

El documento, con fecha 12 de agosto de 2025, indica que el Departamento de Seguridad Vial y Vehículos Motorizados de Florida ha emitido una guía actualizada que ordena la reanudación del procesamiento de licencias de conducir y tarjetas de identificación estatales para beneficiarios elegibles del TPS, tras recientes fallos de tribunales federales que extendieron el TPS para nacionales de Honduras, Nicaragua y Venezuela.

Las personas de Honduras y Nicaragua con documentación válida de TPS son elegibles para recibir servicios hasta el 18 de noviembre de 2025. Para los nacionales de Venezuela, la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos ha ordenado que, mientras se resuelve el litigio en curso, los beneficiarios que hayan recibido cierta documentación relacionada con el TPS el 5 de febrero de este año o antes mantendrán su TPS y su documentación seguirá siendo válida hasta que concluya el litigio. Estos beneficiarios tienen derecho a recibir una licencia de conducir o tarjeta de identificación hasta el 2 de octubre de 2026.

Abogada Martha Arias:

¡Buenísimo! Ese comunicado de prensa, Orián, es excelente. Se lo voy a hacer llegar y compartir, no solo con mis colegas, sino también con mis clientes. Sé que la decisión de extender la posibilidad de obtener licencia para los TPS de Honduras y Nicaragua es un beneficio obtenido a raíz de una demanda presentada en California, en la que un juez ordenó el restablecimiento de este TPS al menos hasta noviembre, cuando habrá una nueva audiencia.

En cuanto al TPS de Venezuela, esto continúa en litigio, pero es muy buena noticia porque no estaban renovando las licencias de conducir a los TPS venezolanos del 2023. Ya sabemos que el TPS 2021, que estaba vigente hasta septiembre, ahora tiene esta extensión.

Orian Brito:

Qué bueno, y ojalá alguien que esté en sintonía lo pueda compartir con otros, así se tranquilizan y pueden sacar sus licencias según lo que dice este documento. Ya se lo mandé por correo apenas lo terminé de leer porque lo tenía allí. Cualquier cosa, al finalizar me avisa y se lo reenvío, y cualquier otra información que salga.

Concluyo con esta pregunta que me ha hecho una seguidora. Dice que se casó con un cubano, en la entrevista no le fue bien, se llama Ana, vive en Orlando. No les fue bien y se mudaron de la dirección donde estaban. Su hija ya es ciudadana estadounidense y decidió pedirla. Resulta que cuando fue a solicitarla se dio cuenta que tenía una orden de deportación. Ella tiene actualmente TPS, por cierto, y la pregunta es si debe ir a la corte para remover esa deportación para poder solicitar la residencia, o qué se hace en estos casos, cuando pides la residencia por matrimonio o por un hijo ciudadano.

Abogada Martha Arias:

Bueno, esto es más profundo de lo que parece en la pregunta.

Orian Brito:

Pueden llamar a la abogada Martha Arias para que tome cartas en el asunto.

Abogada Martha Arias:

Le explico rápidamente: cuando a una persona le niegan una petición de residencia, puede ser enviada o referida a un juez de inmigración. Aparentemente esto fue lo que le pudo haber pasado a esta señora.

En ese caso, para poder tener una nueva petición o recibir la residencia, el hijo la puede pedir, pero ella tiene que reabrir el caso de deportación, porque no se le puede otorgar la residencia a alguien que tiene una orden de deportación. Hay que reabrir el caso para ser elegible.

Eso es lo más simple. Lo más complicado es que hay una causal de inadmisibilidad bajo el Estatuto de Inmigración que se llama la 204C. Es una inadmisibilidad permanente, es decir, no importa si pasan diez, cincuenta o doscientos años: la persona seguirá siendo inelegible si se determina que cometió fraude matrimonial, es decir, que se casó solo para obtener un beneficio migratorio.

Si inmigración acusa o confirma que hubo fraude matrimonial, cualquier petición posterior será negada por esta inadmisibilidad 204C de por vida. En ese caso, la persona tendría que pelear y probar que no hubo fraude matrimonial, con evidencia. No es fácil quitarse una 204C.

Orian Brito:

Pero se puede luchar, si usted tiene la certeza de que su matrimonio fue real.

Abogada Martha Arias:

Exacto. Si tiene la certeza de que se casó de verdad, que tiene evidencia, y que simplemente le fue mal en la entrevista —porque a veces las personas no contestan igual y hay contradicciones— eso no significa que el matrimonio sea falso.

Le doy un ejemplo: tuve una pareja hace tiempo que, a simple vista, no parecían muy compatibles físicamente. Ella era muy alta y corpulenta, y él era bajito y delgado. Vivían juntos y se querían, pero en la entrevista contestaban totalmente distinto. Ella decía “blanco” y él “negro, azul o gris”.

Les negaron la residencia diciendo que había fraude. Ellos llegaron a mi oficina riéndose, diciendo “¿fraude? si esto es verdad”. Revisé su evidencia y tenían bastante. Apelamos, mostramos más pruebas, tuvieron una segunda entrevista y gracias a Dios se la aprobaron, pero fue una lucha.

En una de las preguntas les pidieron: “¿Cómo se conocieron?”. Ella contestó “en la puerta de Publix” y él dijo “nos presentó una amiga”. Los dos tenían razón, porque se conocieron en la puerta del supermercado gracias a una amiga en común. El problema es que uno respondió “dónde” y el otro “cómo”, y eso generó contradicción.

Otra pregunta fue: “¿Cuál es el plato favorito de su esposo?”. Ella dijo “espagueti” y él contestó “a mí no me gusta el espagueti… pero es lo único bueno que tú cocinas”. Para ella, ese era su plato favorito porque le gustaba cómo lo hacía ella, aunque él decía que no le gustaba.

Así fue toda la entrevista: cómica, pero complicada.

Conclusión: no basta con explicar las diferencias en las respuestas, hay que aportar evidencia de la relación. Si no hay pruebas suficientes, es muy difícil ganar un caso de 204C.

Orian Brito:

Bueno, cualquier duda sobre este y otros temas pueden llamar a la abogada de inmigración Martha Arias. Por favor, recuérdenos su número.

Abogada Martha Arias:

Claro, 305-671-0018.

Orian Brito:

305-671-0018, la abogada de inmigración Martha Arias, muy conocida en los medios del sur de la Florida. Gracias por su tiempo. Espero que esta información brinde tranquilidad y claridad a los beneficiarios del TPS y a quienes esperan una decisión positiva sobre el parole. Seguiremos en contacto por cualquier cambio migratorio. Dejen sus preguntas y comentarios.

Abogada Martha Arias:

Gracias a ustedes.

Orian Brito:

Gracias, muchas gracias.

Orian Brito:
Hello, friends, and as promised, we are going to begin with several pieces of information that are news today. If you have TPS or were affected by the end of parole, this program is for you. In Florida, for example, the department that issues licenses has been ordered to resume processing licenses and IDs for TPS beneficiaries, specifically for Honduras and Nicaragua, with documents valid until November 18, 2025. In the case of Venezuelans, with documents issued no later than February 5, 2025, these remain valid while litigation continues, in many cases until October 2026.

We will read the statement that arrived to me just minutes ago a little later. Miami-Dade is already assisting under this guidance, and at the same time, in Massachusetts, the Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts together with three people from Venezuela, Cuba, and Haiti sued the Department of Homeland Security over the mass termination of humanitarian parole communicated by mail in April.

My guest today, I am very glad to have with us immigration attorney Martha Arias. We are going to clarify several points on this topic. I invite you to stay until the end, to subscribe, and of course, to activate all notifications. There are many questions regarding what happened from yesterday to today. So, attorney, thank you for joining us. I’m not sure if we should start first with the parole matter, this lawsuit being filed. People who entered with humanitarian parole or through CBP One — which was the application where people would arrive at the border, request an appointment, be interviewed, and later enter the country with parole — received this email saying they were losing their status, and now they are making a claim. The legal battle is decisive for many migrants at this hour.

Attorney Martha Arias:
And that’s correct, Orián. Well, greetings to you, thank you for having me on your program. Indeed, there is a federal class action lawsuit that was filed on August 11 in the state of Massachusetts against the Department of Homeland Security, CBP, and USCIS. This lawsuit is filed by the Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts and also by three individuals who are representing many other people in the same situation.

This lawsuit requests that there be a revocation — or a vacatur, which is like a revocation — and that a declaratory judgment or an injunction be issued, that is, to stop the application of this government measure to end parole so suddenly for all those who entered with parole, including those who entered at the border using the CBP One application.

Orian Brito:
This battle would seek for them to recover that status.

Attorney Martha Arias:
That’s correct. That they recover the status and have their parole returned to them. Remember that many had just recently entered and still had parole for one or two years. Others could continue with their asylum applications, but it seems that the administration, by ending parole, is placing these people in expedited or fast-track deportations and is not allowing them to continue with their asylum petitions.

The plaintiffs consider that this greatly affects families economically, and also collaterally affects the country’s economy, because there were people who already had the security of at least staying temporarily in the United States with that parole and a work permit.

Orian Brito:
Perfect. Important. Then, defining now what will happen with this lawsuit — I imagine that for the Department of Homeland Security, their defense is that they have the authority to end this type of program, which has been the argument we have seen: that they have the right to decide when they maintain it and when they do not.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Indeed. One of the reasons cited by the plaintiffs is that yes, the government has the authority to end it, but that it should not end it in a massive way, as happened, because they consider this a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, which regulates certain administrative conduct by the government.

The plaintiffs say that it could be ended case by case, but not in the massive way in which it was done. The people who entered from May 16, 2023, until January 19, 2025, with parole are the ones who are within this group.

Orian Brito:
Important. What would be the best message we can give to people who have this benefit and are now awaiting what may be decided in the middle of the situation they are in? Because many have received, I repeat, that email telling them, “Better leave.”

Attorney Martha Arias:
Yes, in fact the email is listed, it is written there in the lawsuit. And one of the things they are asking is that this termination be stopped and that people be allowed to continue with their parole for the time it was granted to them. They also ask that the termination of parole and the work permit not be enforced, so that people can continue working for the time they had pending.

My advice is for people to stay alert to the news in case a preliminary injunction or a decision comes out. Obviously, if the decision is favorable, they will be able to continue with their work permits and with their parole until it expires. If the lawsuit is not won, they should also stay alert, because this was a hope, and if it is not achieved, that possibility will no longer exist.

Orian Brito:
Great. We are speaking with attorney Martha Arias. There are many questions regarding TPS. Yesterday I shared some and I have a video with hundreds of questions, but I chose only three that are the most repeated. For example, Irma Naranjo says to me: “Good morning, Orián, God bless you. I am worried about my son’s work permit; he renewed it in December and it still hasn’t arrived. What can I do, please?” She says, “We have an asylum application from 2020 and TPS from 2021. I am worried about my son’s work permit and his license.”

Attorney Martha Arias:
That’s correct. Many people are in that situation. They applied for TPS, renewed it, applied for the renewal of their work permit, and never received approval. At least for purposes of the driver’s license, while they show that TPS is pending and the work permit is in process, they can be given a license renewal, at least here in Florida.

Regarding asylum, I assume the person already had it pending for more than 180 days, and that is why they qualify for the work permit. But it is true that this administration is taking a long time or not issuing those permits. In fact, I have seen some people receive requests for evidence asking for documents that normally were not common. These requests are now being made in order to issue the work permit.

Orian Brito:
One of those pieces of evidence is a letter, according to what Héctor tells me, with TPS 2021. He was able to renew, and in the case of the license, he had no problem. There are two letters published on the internet: one for the license and one for employers, which can be shown in case the employer asks for it. I don’t know where this letter is; I would like that, if he sees this video, he shares it and sends the link, because it could help many people in this situation.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Of course. The letters are actually communications from USCIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services), where they explain that people with certain pending applications can show the employer that if the work permit is already in the renewal process and is pending, they can still continue working because there is an automatic extension of the work permit.

Orian Brito:
That is important. I am going to quickly read about the licenses. This email came to me from the Miami-Dade Tax Collector’s Office at 4:15 in the afternoon. It is an email to the press that we journalists have access to. In this email they present two memorandums, and one has to do with TPS for Venezuelans.

The document, dated August 12, 2025, states that the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles has issued updated guidance ordering the resumption of processing driver’s licenses and state ID cards for eligible TPS beneficiaries, following recent federal court rulings that extended TPS for nationals of Honduras, Nicaragua, and Venezuela.

People from Honduras and Nicaragua with valid TPS documentation are eligible to receive services until November 18, 2025. For nationals of Venezuela, the U.S. Supreme Court has ordered that while the ongoing litigation is resolved, beneficiaries who have received certain TPS-related documentation on or before February 5 of this year will keep their TPS and their documentation will remain valid until the litigation concludes. These beneficiaries have the right to receive a driver’s license or ID card until October 2, 2026.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Excellent! That press release, Orián, is excellent. I am going to send it to you and share it, not only with my colleagues but also with my clients. I know that the decision to extend the possibility of obtaining a license for TPS holders from Honduras and Nicaragua is a benefit obtained as a result of a lawsuit filed in California, in which a judge ordered the reinstatement of this TPS at least until November, when there will be a new hearing.

Regarding TPS for Venezuela, this litigation continues, but it is very good news because they were not renewing driver’s licenses for Venezuelan TPS holders from 2023. Now we know that TPS 2021, which was valid until September, now has this extension.

Orian Brito:
That’s good, and hopefully someone who is tuned in can share it with others, so they can feel calm and get their licenses according to what this document says. I already sent it by email as soon as I finished reading it because I had it there. If needed, at the end let me know and I will resend it, along with any other information.

I finish with this question from a follower. She says she married a Cuban, in the interview it didn’t go well. Her name is Ana, she lives in Orlando. It didn’t go well, and they moved from the address where they were living. Her daughter is already a U.S. citizen and decided to petition for her. When she went to apply, she realized she had a deportation order. She currently has TPS, by the way, and the question is if she should go to court to remove that deportation in order to apply for residency, or what is done in these cases, when you apply for residency through marriage or through a U.S. citizen child.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Well, this is deeper than it may seem in the question.

Orian Brito:
You can call attorney Martha Arias so she can take action on the matter.

Attorney Martha Arias:
I will explain quickly: when a person is denied a residency petition, they can be sent or referred to an immigration judge. Apparently, this is what could have happened to this lady.

In that case, to be able to have a new petition or receive residency, the child can petition for her, but she must reopen the deportation case, because a person with a deportation order cannot be granted residency. The case must be reopened to be eligible.

That is the simplest part. The most complicated part is that there is a ground of inadmissibility under the Immigration Statute called 204C. It is a permanent inadmissibility, meaning it doesn’t matter if ten, fifty, or two hundred years pass: the person will remain ineligible if it is determined that they committed marriage fraud, meaning they married solely to obtain an immigration benefit.

If immigration accuses or confirms that there was marriage fraud, any subsequent petition will be denied because of this lifetime 204C inadmissibility. In that case, the person must fight and prove that there was no marriage fraud, with evidence. It is not easy to remove a 204C.

Orian Brito:
But it can be fought, if you are certain your marriage was real.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Exactly. If you are certain you married for real, that you have evidence, and that you simply did poorly in the interview — because sometimes people do not answer the same way and there are contradictions — that does not mean the marriage is false.

I’ll give an example: I had a couple some time ago who, at first glance, didn’t look very compatible physically. She was very tall and large, and he was short and slim. They lived together and loved each other, but in the interview they answered totally differently. She would say “white” and he “black, blue, or gray.”

They were denied residency saying there was fraud. They came to my office laughing, saying “fraud? this is real.” I reviewed their evidence, and they had plenty. We appealed, showed more proof, had a second interview, and thank God it was approved, but it was a fight.

In one of the questions they were asked: “How did you meet?” She answered “at the door of Publix” and he said “a friend introduced us.” Both were right, because they met at the supermarket door thanks to a mutual friend. The problem was that one answered “where” and the other “how,” and that created a contradiction.

Another question was: “What is your husband’s favorite dish?” She said “spaghetti” and he replied “I don’t like spaghetti… but it’s the only thing you cook well.” For her, that was his favorite dish because he liked the way she made it, although he said he didn’t like it.

That’s how the entire interview went: funny, but complicated.

Conclusion: it is not enough to explain the differences in answers, you must provide evidence of the relationship. If there is not enough proof, it is very difficult to win a 204C case.

Orian Brito:
Well, any doubt about this and other topics, you can call immigration attorney Martha Arias. Please remind us of your phone number.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Of course, 305-671-0018.

Orian Brito:
305-671-0018, immigration attorney Martha Arias, very well-known in the South Florida media. Thank you for your time. I hope this information brings peace of mind and clarity to TPS beneficiaries and to those waiting for a positive decision on parole. We will remain in contact for any immigration changes. Leave your questions and comments.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Thank you to you all.

Orian Brito:
Thank you, thank you very much.

The post Massachusetts Class Action Lawsuit Challenges Sudden Termination of Humanitarian Parole appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

Critical Immigration Updates: Rights, Risks, and Family Protection

Martha Arias — Mon, 14 Jul 2025 18:32:32 +0000

Last week, I had the honor of joining Padre Alberto on Poderosa 990 AM to discuss urgent developments in U.S. immigration law. A federal judge has just blocked the recent executive order by President Trump that sought to halt asylum applications at the southern border. This decision is crucial, as it temporarily restores the right for those arriving at the border to request asylum, regardless of how they enter the country. The judge’s ruling allows a 14-day window—from July 2 to July 16—during which individuals may once again submit asylum requests while the government considers an appeal.

We also addressed widespread concerns about the sharing of Medicaid and health information between states and federal immigration authorities. Many states are now suing the federal government over confidentiality and the use of funds, reflecting just how complicated immigration issues have become.

Most importantly, we talked about the fears facing so many immigrant families: the risk of detention, the uncertainty of temporary protections like TPS and DACA, and—perhaps most distressing—the anxiety about what could happen to children if their parents are suddenly detained or deported. If you have U.S. citizen children, now is the time to get their passports and ensure a trusted friend or family member is authorized to care for them in an emergency. Proper legal documentation, signed and notarized, is essential for your children’s protection.

If you have questions about your immigration status or family safety, I encourage you to reach out to a qualified attorney who can help you prepare and safeguard your loved ones. For help, you can always contact my office at (305) 671-0018 or reach out to me on social media.

FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA

SPANISH TRANSCRIPT:

Padre Alberto:
Señores, muy buenos días, gracias por estar con nosotros. En las noticias hoy hay mucho que hablar. Yo quiero invitar a la doctora Martha Arias, es abogada especialista en el tema de inmigración, que nos hable en los minutos en este programa sobre todas las noticias del día. Doctora, buenos días, ¿cómo está?

Abogada Martha Arias:
Muy buenos días, un saludo para usted y toda su audiencia en este día lluvioso hoy.

Padre Alberto:
Ay sí, pasado por agua. Lleve su sombrilla, por favor, doctora, no se moje. Bueno, le voy a decir, doctora, un juez frena orden del presidente Trump para restringir el asilo en la frontera. Explíqueme esa noticia, ¿de qué se trata esto?

Abogada Martha Arias:
Sí, efectivamente, a principios de este año, creo que fue el 20 de enero, si no estoy mal, el presidente Trump anunció una orden ejecutiva, sí, efectivamente fue el 20 de enero, donde dijo que los inmigrantes que llegaban a la frontera eran considerados como una invasión y, por lo tanto, no podían hacer peticiones de asilo, presentar sus peticiones de asilo.

Padre Alberto:
Eso se estaba haciendo por teléfono, ¿verdad? ¿Se estaba haciendo de una forma móvil o estoy equivocado?

Abogada Martha Arias:
¿No le entendí la pregunta?

Padre Alberto:
Había una forma como que la gente pedía citas por el celular, para que le aprobaran el asilo, ¿algo de eso?

Abogada Martha Arias:
Sí, bueno, sí, es una aplicación que el presidente Biden empezó que se llama CBP One, donde las personas entraban, hacían un registro y pedían una cita para llegar a la frontera a pedir su asilo, correcto.

Padre Alberto:
¿Ya eso se acabó ya?

Abogada Martha Arias:
El presidente Trump lo terminó a través de esta orden ejecutiva. Dijo que esas personas que se acercaban a la frontera no podían pedir asilo. Y terminó con esa aplicación CBP One.

Padre Alberto:
Entonces, legalmente, ahora ¿cómo una persona pide asilo?

Abogada Martha Arias:
Bueno, sí, entonces ahí va la información de contexto para que me entiendan el anuncio del juez. Entonces viene una asociación pro-inmigrantes y presentan una demanda en Washington D.C. pidiendo que se declarara inconstitucional esa orden ejecutiva del presidente. Porque se consideraba que era inconstitucional porque las personas, según el estatuto de inmigración y según la ley, pues tienen ese derecho a pedir ese asilo. El juez, el día de ayer, salió ayer, ese juez de Washington, el juez Radolf Moos, emite una orden donde dice que esa decisión o esa orden ejecutiva del presidente es inconstitucional y no tiene fundamento legal. Por lo tanto, a partir de ayer hasta el 16 de julio de este mes, o sea, desde este año, las personas que se acercaran o que se pudieran acercar a la frontera pudieran aplicar para asilo; porque el juez da un margen de tiempo de 14 días para que si el gobierno quiere apelar, apele. Entonces, en esta ventana de tiempo, es decir, desde ayer 2 de julio hasta el 16 de julio (14 días), las personas que lleguen a la frontera pudieran hacer peticiones de asilo basadas en esta decisión del juez del día de ayer.

El juez dice, entre otras cosas, que las personas pueden pedir asilo, no importa la forma en que entren. O sea, en otras palabras, como que hace una diferenciación de por qué una persona que entra por el aeropuerto podría pedir asilo, pero una persona que entra por la frontera no. Entonces el juez dice que no hay nada en la ley que limite que uno lo pueda hacer y el otro no.

Entonces, ese es uno de los argumentos en soporte a su decisión. El otro argumento dice que solamente la Constitución y las leyes federales son las que determinan esta ley o política migratoria, que el presidente no puede pasar por el Congreso para tomar estas decisiones sobre el asilo porque es un derecho que está en la ley de inmigración, perdón.

Padre Alberto:
Ahora también, doctora, hay 20 estados de la nación. Recordemos que hay 50 estados en Estados Unidos de América. Se pudiera decir que casi más de un 40 por ciento de los estados han demandado al gobierno federal por compartir datos de Medicaid, o sea, el sistema de Medicaid con el sistema de inmigración. Cuénteme, ¿qué está pasando ahí?

Abogada Martha Arias:
Sí, los estados. Pues lo que pasa es que esto es complicado y esa parte yo no me siento competente para decir si es correcta, no me imagino que es correcta la demanda, pero como todos sabemos el Medicaid y el Medicare es manejado por los estados, definitivamente, o sea, los estados son los que administran esos programas. Sin embargo, los dos programas, tanto el Medicare como el Medicaid, reciben fondos federales.
Ahora, la cantidad de fondos federales que cada uno de estos programas recibe es lo que yo no sé. Pero entonces, el estado, al ser el que administra el programa, es obviamente el estado el que tiene esa información de quién está recibiendo ese Medicaid. Y esa es la información que le están dando al gobierno federal. Entonces, la pregunta es que…

Padre Alberto:
Específicamente, doctora, al Departamento de Homeland Security, o sea que se está compartiendo información que es altamente confidencial, que tiene que ver con la salud de las personas. Se sabe que aquí hay leyes muy estrictas. Por ejemplo, yo llamo a un doctor, yo llamo a una oficina de una medicina o de algo del seguro. Yo quiero ayudar a mi esposa, por ejemplo, y quiero hablar de la salud de mi esposa y a mí no me autorizan si ella no lo ha autorizado. O sea, es tan estricto como eso. Si la persona no ha dado autorización de compartir la información de su salud con su esposo, su esposa, hasta con su propio médico, esa información no se puede compartir. Bueno, en este caso estos 20 estados están diciendo que se ha permitido que Medicaid, escuchen, que Medicaid tenga acceso a información médica sobre personas sin la autorización de las personas ni el sistema de Medicaid. O sea, que una cosa que siempre ha estado protegida por la confidencialidad que hay en un tema de la salud. Entonces ahora esto está fuerte. Eso está fuerte.

Abogada Martha Arias:
Exacto. Y otra noticia que vi también relacionada con 20 estados. No sé si es la misma demanda, la verdad. Demandaron al gobierno federal también por usar los fondos destinados a desastres públicos y transporte, como transporte, como es el FEMA, para el forzamiento de la ley de migración, que este es el centro nuevo de detención que se hizo aquí en la Florida, el Alcatraz, que se usaron dinero supuestamente de FEMA y del Departamento de Transporte para crearlo. Entonces, estos estados también están demandando y son Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin y Vermont. Ellos consideran que este uso también de esos dineros federales para el centro de detención o para el forzamiento de la inmigración no es correcto. Eso también es una demanda que existe por 20 estados.

Padre Alberto:
Bueno, doctora, lo que la gente quizás no sabe es que aquí todo se complicó en la época que se instituyó el HIPAA. Se sabe que el HIPAA, la Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, el HIPAA. Yo como sacerdote, por ejemplo, si voy a visitar un enfermo al hospital, a mí esa información del paciente no me la dan, a no ser que la familia haya dicho, el padre Alberto está autorizado para saber esta información, tienen que firmar un papel y decir, con la ley HIPAA, él está autorizado. Pero si tú no estás autorizado, incluso a veces estoy llamando a un hospital, tú no puedes ni saber si tú no tienes el nombre del paciente. Tú no puedes decir, ah, el paciente tal, yo estoy buscando una persona. No, no, no. Tú tienes que ser autorizado para tener información sobre esa persona. Si esa persona está en hospital, si está grave, si no está grave, si se está muriendo. Si no, antes yo llamaba a un hospital y podía hablar con la enfermera inmediatamente y la enfermera me daba información sobre el estado del paciente. Y eso se cambió después de la ley HIPAA. La ley HIPAA lo que hace es que protege al paciente de que su información aún salga al público. Así que imagínense que este caso es con el gobierno federal y lo están usando con el tema de las deportaciones. Obviamente ese es el gran tema.

Hoy 3 de julio, un día que es la vigilia de la independencia de los Estados Unidos de América. ¿Cuál es la complicación más grande en este momento para la mayoría de nuestros clientes en el tema de inmigración? ¿Cómo usted lo ve? Usted trabaja en esto todos los días.

Abogada Martha Arias:
Bueno, lo que veo es mucho miedo, mucho temor, mucha incertidumbre, angustia de las personas. Las personas tienen mucho temor de lo que pueda ser su futuro migratorio, particularmente aquellos que tienen unos estatus de protección temporal. Obviamente, los que están indocumentados siempre han vivido con la zozobra de estar indocumentados. Ahora, obviamente, se hace más grave porque obviamente las leyes migratorias están siendo enforzadas de una forma más fuerte.
Pero también los que tienen protección temporal como TPS, como DACA, esas personas también tienen mucho temor. Esa es la primer temor. El temor dos es el temor de ser detenidos en centros de detención, pues como los que están mostrando, el Alcatraz, o que sean enviados a terceros países, como El Salvador y como esos otros terceros países de África que acordaron con el gobierno federal recibir inmigrantes deportados de acá.
Ese es otro temor que tiene la gente. El tercer temor muy muy sentido es el de los hijos. Hay personas indocumentadas que tienen hijos ciudadanos americanos, hijos menores de edad, y tienen miedo de que en algún momento que sean detenidos, pues sus hijos queden desprotegidos, a la deriva, sin saber con quién quedarse.
Yo diría que esos tres, más que incluso la parte financiera, obviamente la gente se preocupa si tiene propiedades, casas, qué va a pasar con su casa, qué va a pasar con sus propiedades si les pasa algo. A lo último se convierte en el menos problemático de los dilemas. El dilema mayor son esos tres que menciono, sobre todo el de los hijos. Por eso yo le digo a las personas que es momento de que hablen con un abogado de familia, cómo proteger a sus hijos, cómo determinar si, por ejemplo, como ha pasado mostrando en la noticia, creo que la semana pasada, una señora que fue deportada con su hija mayor, pero la hija menor, un bebé que tenía como tres años, no se lo dejaron llevar, no se lo dejaron recibir, que era ciudadano americano, obviamente. Entonces, ahora ese bebé está con una familia mientras procesan cómo lo mandan. Pero acuérdense que los niños, para sacar un pasaporte de un niño americano, necesita la firma de los dos padres. Si no hay la firma de los dos padres, hay que seguir ciertas reglas que tiene el departamento de pasaportes o la agencia de pasaportes. Entonces, este es el momento para que esas personas tomen control de eso. Pídanle el pasaporte a sus hijos ahora que están aquí, que están libres, que pueden firmar. Sáquenle el pasaporte. Cosa de que, en alguna cosa mala pase, Dios no lo quiera, los deporten, por lo menos ese niño tenga un pasaporte, haya un familiar o un amigo cercano que pueda coger el niño con su pasaporte, ya con previa autorización escrita, notarizada, y llevar ese hijo a su mamá o a su papá, su país de padres. Esas son cosas que se tienen que ir haciendo. Lo de los pasaportes y lo de determinar, autorizar. Si va a haber un familiar o un amigo que es el que va a ser encargado, ese familiar o amigo debe tener un documento firmado y notarizado donde diga que está autorizado a sacar ese niño de los Estados Unidos porque nadie va a querer sacar un niño de aquí si no lo autorizan por escrito, qué miedo, es como si se estuviera robando un niño, ¿no?

Entonces todo eso tiene que estar legalizado, busquen un abogado de familia que los aconseje, hagan toda esa documentación, que eso minimiza esa ansiedad, por lo menos saben que están seguros, que tienen un plan para llevarse a sus hijos en caso de que pase una eventualidad de esto.

Padre Alberto:
Bueno, doctora, le agradezco tanto este tiempo y toda su sabiduría. Espero que la gente escuche. Señores, si ustedes están en una situación de esa, o un ser querido está en situación de esa. Este es el momento para buscar orientación. Háganlo con un profesional. Gracias, doctora.

Abogada Martha Arias:
Gracias a ustedes. Feliz día. Hasta luego.

ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT:

Padre Alberto:
Ladies and gentlemen, good morning, thank you for being with us. There is a lot to talk about in the news today. I want to invite attorney Martha Arias, a lawyer specializing in immigration, to tell us in these minutes on this program about all the news of the day. Attorney, good morning, how are you?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Very good morning, greetings to you and all your audience on this rainy day today.

Padre Alberto:
Oh yes, it’s pouring. Bring your umbrella, please, attorney, don’t get wet. Well, let me tell you, attorney, a judge has stopped President Trump’s order to restrict asylum at the border. Explain this news to me, what is this about?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Yes, indeed, at the beginning of this year, I think it was January 20, if I’m not mistaken, President Trump announced an executive order, yes, indeed it was January 20, where he said that immigrants arriving at the border were considered an invasion and, therefore, could not make asylum requests, could not present their asylum applications.

Padre Alberto:
That was being done by phone, right? Was it being done in a mobile way or am I mistaken?

Attorney Martha Arias:
I didn’t understand the question?

Padre Alberto:
There was a way, like people would request appointments through their cell phone, to get asylum approved, something like that?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Yes, well, yes, it’s an application that President Biden started called CBP One, where people would go in, register, and request an appointment to come to the border and request asylum, correct.

Padre Alberto:
That’s over now?

Attorney Martha Arias:
President Trump ended it through this executive order. He said that those people who approached the border could not request asylum. And he ended that CBP One application.

Padre Alberto:
So, legally, now how does a person request asylum?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Well, yes, so there goes the background information so that you understand the judge’s announcement. So a pro-immigrant association comes and files a lawsuit in Washington D.C. asking for that executive order from the president to be declared unconstitutional. Because it was considered unconstitutional since people, according to the immigration statute and according to the law, have that right to request asylum. The judge, yesterday, yes, that judge from Washington, Judge Radolf Moos, issued an order saying that that decision or that executive order from the president is unconstitutional and has no legal basis. Therefore, starting yesterday until July 16 of this month, that is, from this year, people who approach or who can approach the border can apply for asylum; because the judge gives a margin of 14 days so that if the government wants to appeal, it can appeal. So, in this window of time, that is, from yesterday, July 2, until July 16 (14 days), people who arrive at the border can make asylum requests based on this judge’s decision from yesterday.

The judge says, among other things, that people can request asylum, no matter how they enter. In other words, he makes a differentiation as to why a person who enters through the airport could request asylum, but a person who enters through the border could not. So the judge says there is nothing in the law that limits one from being able to do it and the other not.

So that’s one of the arguments supporting his decision. The other argument says that only the Constitution and federal laws determine this immigration law or policy, that the president cannot bypass Congress to make these decisions about asylum because it’s a right that is in the immigration law, sorry.

Padre Alberto:
Now also, attorney, there are 20 states in the nation. Let’s remember there are 50 states in the United States of America. You could say that almost more than 40 percent of the states have sued the federal government for sharing Medicaid data, that is, the Medicaid system with the immigration system. Tell me, what’s happening there?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Yes, the states. Well, what happens is that this is complicated and on that part I do not feel competent to say if it’s correct, I can’t imagine if it’s correct, but as we all know Medicaid and Medicare are managed by the states, definitely, that is, the states are the ones who administer those programs. However, both programs, Medicare and Medicaid, receive federal funds.
Now, the amount of federal funds each of these programs receives is what I don’t know. But then, the state, being the one that administers the program, is obviously the state that has the information about who is receiving that Medicaid. And that is the information they are giving to the federal government. So, the question is that…

Padre Alberto:
Specifically, attorney, to the Department of Homeland Security, that is, information is being shared that is highly confidential, that has to do with people’s health. You know that there are very strict laws here. For example, I call a doctor, I call a medical office or some insurance office. I want to help my wife, for example, and I want to talk about my wife’s health and they won’t authorize me unless she has authorized it. That’s how strict it is. If the person hasn’t authorized sharing their health information with their husband, wife, or even with their own doctor, that information cannot be shared. Well, in this case, these 20 states are saying that it has been allowed for Medicaid, listen, for Medicaid to have access to medical information about people without the authorization of the people or the Medicaid system. That is, something that has always been protected by confidentiality in the health field. So now, this is strong. That’s strong.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Exactly. And another piece of news I saw also related to 20 states. I don’t know if it’s the same lawsuit, honestly. They sued the federal government as well for using funds intended for public disasters and transportation, like transportation, like FEMA, for the enforcement of immigration law, which is this new detention center that was made here in Florida, Alcatraz, that supposedly money from FEMA and from the Department of Transportation was used to create it. So, these states are also suing, and they are Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin, and Vermont. They consider that this use of those federal funds for the detention center or for immigration enforcement is not correct. That’s also a lawsuit that exists by 20 states.

Padre Alberto:
Well, attorney, what people may not know is that everything got complicated here when HIPAA was instituted. You know that HIPAA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, HIPAA. As a priest, for example, if I go to visit a sick person in a hospital, that patient’s information isn’t given to me unless the family has said, Father Alberto is authorized to know this information, they have to sign a paper and say, with the HIPAA law, he is authorized. But if you’re not authorized, sometimes even when I’m calling a hospital, you can’t even know if you don’t have the patient’s name. You can’t say, oh, the patient such-and-such, I’m looking for a person. No, no, no. You have to be authorized to have information about that person. If that person is in the hospital, if they’re in serious condition, if not, if they’re dying. If not, before I would call a hospital and could immediately speak with the nurse and the nurse would give me information about the patient’s condition. And that changed after the HIPAA law. HIPAA law protects the patient so that their information doesn’t go out to the public. So imagine that in this case, it’s with the federal government and they’re using it with the issue of deportations. Obviously, that’s the big issue.

Today, July 3, a day that is the eve of the independence of the United States of America. What is the biggest complication right now for most of our clients in the immigration issue? How do you see it? You work on this every day.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Well, what I see is a lot of fear, a lot of anxiety, a lot of uncertainty, anguish of people. People are very afraid of what their immigration future may be, particularly those who have some sort of temporary protection status. Obviously, those who are undocumented have always lived with the anxiety of being undocumented. Now, obviously, it becomes more serious because, obviously, immigration laws are being enforced in a stronger way.
But also those who have temporary protection like TPS, like DACA, those people are also very afraid. That’s the first fear. The second fear is the fear of being detained in detention centers, like the ones they’re showing, Alcatraz, or being sent to third countries, like El Salvador and those other African countries that agreed with the federal government to receive immigrants deported from here.
That’s another fear people have. The third very deep fear is about the children. There are undocumented people who have American citizen children, minor children, and they are afraid that at some point if they are detained, their children will be left unprotected, adrift, without knowing who to stay with.
I would say those three, more than even the financial part, obviously people worry if they have property, houses, what’s going to happen with their house, what’s going to happen with their properties if something happens to them. In the end, it becomes the least problematic of the dilemmas. The main dilemma is those three that I mention, especially about the children. That’s why I tell people that it’s time to talk to a family lawyer, how to protect their children, how to determine if, for example, as happened showing in the news I think last week, a lady who was deported with her older daughter, but the younger daughter, a baby who was about three years old, they didn’t let her take her, didn’t let her receive her, who was obviously an American citizen. So now that baby is with a family while they process how to send her. But remember that children, to get a passport for an American child, need the signatures of both parents. If there is not the signature of both parents, you have to follow certain rules that the passport department or the passport agency has. So this is the time for those people to take control of that. Get your children’s passport now that they’re here, that they’re free, that you can sign. Get the passport. So that if something bad happens, God forbid, they deport you, at least that child has a passport, there is a family member or a close friend who can take the child with the passport, already with prior written, notarized authorization, and take that child to his or her mother or father, to their parents’ country. Those are things that have to be done. The passports and the authorizations. If there is going to be a family member or a friend who is going to be in charge, that family member or friend must have a signed and notarized document stating that they are authorized to take that child out of the United States because nobody is going to want to take a child out of here if it’s not authorized in writing, it’s scary, it’s as if they were kidnapping a child, right?

So all that has to be legalized, look for a family lawyer to advise you, do all that documentation, that minimizes that anxiety, at least you know you are safe, that you have a plan to take your children in case something like this happens.

Padre Alberto:
Well, attorney, I thank you so much for this time and all your wisdom. I hope people listen. Ladies and gentlemen, if you are in a situation like that, or a loved one is in a situation like that, this is the time to seek guidance. Do it with a professional. Thank you, attorney.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Thank you all. Have a nice day. Goodbye.

The post Critical Immigration Updates: Rights, Risks, and Family Protection appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

IRS Data Sharing with ICE and Recent Immigration Changes

Martha Arias — Tue, 15 Apr 2025 22:51:21 +0000

This past Friday, I had the pleasure of joining Andreina Gandica on Buenos Días América at Univision Radio for our usual Immigration Wednesday segment. We discussed a critical update that could affect many immigrant families—an agreement between the IRS and immigration authorities to share certain personal information.

While this isn’t entirely new in practice, it’s now public and official. Data like addresses, phone numbers, ITINs, and even dependent details from tax forms could be used to locate individuals with pending immigration cases or removal orders. If you’ve filed taxes while undocumented, you may be wondering how this could affect you. I recommend speaking with an immigration attorney who understands how your specific history might be impacted.

We also answered several audience questions—like what to do if your spouse has a case that was closed administratively but you’re in the consular process, how long a permanent resident can be outside the U.S., and whether a pending I-130 protects someone from immigration consequences (it doesn’t!).

We touched on how the government is revoking parole status for many who entered with the CBP One app, and how the new CBP Home app can help avoid a formal deportation. I also addressed a concern from a U visa applicant needing to travel for family reasons, explaining why that travel is generally not advisable without careful planning.

My sincere thanks to Andreina for hosting me with such professionalism and warmth. These conversations are vital in helping our community stay informed and safe.

If you have questions about your immigration case, I invite you to call my office at (305) 671-0018 or visit my appointment page to schedule a consultation.

Let’s stay informed and protected.

Original Transcript

ANDREINA GANDICA:
Ya estamos conectadas con Martha Arias, quien es abogada de inmigración. Martha, buenos días y gracias por acompañarme en este miércoles de inmigración.

DRA. MARTHA L. ARIAS:
Buenos días, un saludo para ti, Andreina, y para toda la audiencia. Feliz mitad de semana.

ANDREINA GANDICA:
Sí, señora. Semana muy convulsa, ¿no? Sobre todo por esta noticia que hemos recibido, abogada, del IRS que está acordando compartir información de indocumentados con autoridades migratorias. ¿Qué significa esto? ¿Qué impacto va a tener para los migrantes que confiaron en el IRS que no compartiría su información? Cuéntanos cómo lo ve usted como abogada.

DRA. MARTHA L. ARIAS:
Bueno, sí, Andreina. A ver, esto significa que el Departamento de Rentas Internas va a compartir la dirección y ciertos datos confidenciales o privados, como teléfonos, direcciones, con el Servicio de Inmigración. No es algo nuevo, Andreina. La verdad, yo como abogada de inmigración por 21 años sé que el Servicio de Inmigración puede mirar ciertos datos con el IRS.

Por ejemplo, he visto oficiales que revisan las planillas de impuestos de las personas y, obviamente, ahí va la dirección. Lo que pasa es que ahora hay un acuerdo que se hizo público, y pues significa que en este momento el gobierno va a usar esa base de datos para buscar a las personas que considere que están en el país ilegalmente y que de pronto tengan una orden de arresto por parte de inmigración o una orden de deportación no ejecutada.

ANDREINA GANDICA:
Martha, ¿podríamos ser más específicos? ¿Cuál es esa información que tiene el IRS y que hasta este momento no había compartido con ICE y que ahora pone en aprietos a muchos indocumentados?

DRA. MARTHA L. ARIAS:
La información son direcciones, nombres completos, teléfonos, el número de seguro social en caso de que lo hayan aportado, o los ITIN. También los datos de familiares o personas dependientes que aparecen en la aplicación. Esa sería la información que el IRS puede tener y que compartiría con inmigración.

ANDREINA GANDICA:
Claro. Vámonos a las líneas. Si usted llama al 1-833-867-2346 puede hacerle preguntas a la abogada Martha Arias, experta en inmigración. Tenemos a Armando desde Texas. Armando, buenos días. Tu pregunta para la abogada, por favor.

ARMANDO:
Buenos días, Andreina, buenos días, abogada. Ciudadano pidiendo a su esposa, ya estamos en el proceso consular, pero hace más de 10 años la policía la paró y fue a dar a inmigración. El caso se cerró, pero solo administrativamente. ¿Qué se hace? ¿Cuál es el proceso a seguir?

DRA. MARTHA L. ARIAS:
Buena pregunta. Le resumo: si su esposa va a salir del país para recibir la residencia consular con la I-130 que usted presentó, asegúrese de que ya tenga aprobado el perdón 601-A, que es el perdón por presencia ilegal. Si ha estado indocumentada por más de un año, al salir, no podría regresar por 10 años. El perdón elimina esa penalidad.

Segundo, hay que hacer una moción para reabrir el caso cerrado administrativamente y pedir salida voluntaria. Ella no puede irse del país con el caso en corte, aunque esté cerrado. Eso sería autodeportarse. Si recalendariza el caso y pide salida voluntaria, no tendrá problemas en el consulado. Son dos pasos cruciales.

ANDREINA GANDICA:
Más llamadas al 1-833-867-2346. Primo, buenos días. Tu pregunta para la abogada.

CALLER:
Buenos días, Andreina, Yana, y licenciada Martha. Una persona que abandona los Estados Unidos con residencia permanente y regresa dentro de 3 o 4 años, ¿puede ser solicitada nuevamente por un hijo?

DRA. MARTHA L. ARIAS:
En principio sí, pero depende del caso. Puede haber factores como condenas penales que impidan el reingreso. Le recomiendo mejor solicitar un re-entry permit. Permite salir por hasta 2 años sin perder la residencia y puede renovarse. Se solicita estando en EE.UU.

ANDREINA GANDICA:
Abogada, el gobierno de Trump revoca estatus legal a migrantes que entraron con CBP One. ¿Qué deben saber?

DRA. MARTHA L. ARIAS:
Sí, muchos recibieron un parole que ahora se revoca. Algunos ya tienen residencia, otros aplicaron por asilo, ajuste cubano o petición familiar. Quienes no tienen esos procesos pendientes deben salir. Existe la nueva app CBP Home para que salgan voluntariamente sin quedar con deportación.

ANDREINA GANDICA:
José, desde California, adelante con tu pregunta.

JOSE:
Tengo Visa U y el permiso de trabajo de buena fe. ¿Puedo pedir parol por razones humanitarias? ¿Puedo combinarlo con una petición de hijo ciudadano para obtener la residencia más rápido?

DRA. MARTHA L. ARIAS:
Si tiene permiso de trabajo por Visa U, es porque fue considerado elegible. El proceso tarda 8-10 años. No se recomienda pedir parol ni salir. Si entró legalmente y tiene hijo ciudadano, puede ajustar por esa vía. Pero si entró sin inspección o tiene orden de deportación, no podrá ajustar por el hijo. Siga con la Visa U.

ANDREINA GANDICA:
Un oyente pregunta: tengo parol humanitario y solicité I-130 como residente para mi esposa. ¿Puedo quedarme después del 24 de abril?

DRA. MARTHA L. ARIAS:
No. La I-130 no da estatus legal ni permiso de trabajo. Si el peticionario no es cubano, no se puede quedar.

ANDREINA GANDICA:
¿Dónde la podemos encontrar?

DRA. MARTHA L. ARIAS:
Mi oficina es AriasVilla.com. Teléfono (305) 671-0018.

ANDREINA GANDICA:
Gracias, abogada, por acompañarnos este miércoles.

DRA. MARTHA L. ARIAS:
Gracias a ustedes.

ANDREINA GANDICA:
Además, va muy guapa hoy.

DRA. MARTHA L. ARIAS:
Estoy aquí después de una cita de inmigración, un caso de hace 15 años. ¡Para celebrar quinceañero! Algún día les cuento.

ANDREINA GANDICA:
¡Ese cuento lo queremos! Un abrazo.

English Transcript

ANDREINA GANDICA:
We’re now connected with Martha Arias, who is an immigration attorney. Martha, good morning and thank you for joining me on this Immigration Wednesday.

IMMIGRATION LAW ATTORNEY MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ:
Good morning, a greeting to you Andreina and to all the audience. Happy midweek.

ANDREINA GANDICA:
Yes, ma’am. A very turbulent week, right? Especially because of this news we’ve received, attorney, that the IRS is agreeing to share information about undocumented immigrants with immigration authorities. What does this mean? What impact will this have on migrants who trusted the IRS not to share their information? Tell us how you see it as an attorney.

IMMIGRATION LAW ATTORNEY MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ:
Well, yes, Andreina. Let’s see, this means that the Internal Revenue Service is going to share addresses and certain confidential or private information, like phone numbers, addresses—they will be shared with immigration services. It’s not something new, Andreina. Honestly, I’ve been an immigration attorney for 21 years and I know that immigration services can access certain IRS data.

For example, I’ve seen officers who look at people’s tax returns, and obviously those forms contain people’s addresses. What’s happening now is that there’s a formal agreement, it has been made public, and it means that right now the government may use that database, so to speak, to look for people it considers to be in the country illegally and who may have an immigration arrest warrant or an outstanding deportation order.

ANDREINA GANDICA:
Martha, could we be more specific? What is this information that the IRS has and that up until now hadn’t been shared with ICE, and now puts many undocumented immigrants in a tough spot?

IMMIGRATION LAW ATTORNEY MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ:
The information includes addresses, full names, phone numbers, Social Security numbers if the person provided one, or ITINs. It can also include family members or dependents listed in the tax application. That’s basically the data the IRS may have and that could be shared with immigration.

ANDREINA GANDICA:
Of course. Let’s go to the phone lines. If you call 1-833-867-2346, you can ask questions to attorney Martha Arias, immigration expert. We have Armando from Texas. Armando, good morning. Your question for the attorney, please.

ARMANDO:
Good morning, Andreina. Good morning, attorney. I’m a citizen petitioning for my wife. We’re in the consular process, but over 10 years ago the police stopped her and she ended up in immigration. The case was closed, but only administratively. What do we do? What’s the process to make sure everything is okay?

IMMIGRATION LAW ATTORNEY MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ:
Okay. That’s a very good question and the answer is a bit long, but I’ll try to summarize. When your wife goes to leave the U.S. to attend her consular interview with the I-130 you filed, make sure she already has the approved 601-A waiver, which forgives unlawful presence. If she’s been undocumented in the U.S. for more than one year, leaving would trigger a 10-year bar from reentry. The 601-A waiver removes that penalty so she can go, get her green card, and come back.

Secondly, she needs to file a motion to recalendar—meaning reopen the case that was administratively closed—and request voluntary departure. She cannot leave the U.S. while the case is in court, even if closed administratively, because doing so would be self-deportation. Recalendar the case and request voluntary departure. If she does that, she won’t have any problem receiving her green card through the consulate. Those are two critical steps.

ANDREINA GANDICA:
More calls to 1-833-867-2346. Primo, good morning. Your question for the attorney.

CALLER:
Good morning, Andreina, Yana, and attorney Martha. Question: if a person with permanent residency leaves the U.S. due to this turmoil and returns 3 or 4 years later, can they be petitioned again by a child?

IMMIGRATION LAW ATTORNEY MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ:
In principle, yes, but it depends on the specific facts of the case. For example, some people may have criminal convictions that make them inadmissible to receive residency again. I’d suggest a better option: apply for a re-entry permit. This permit allows a green card holder to leave the U.S. for up to 2 years without losing residency. It can be renewed. They must apply while still in the U.S. Once they have it, they can leave and remain abroad for that period without losing their status.

ANDREINA GANDICA:
Attorney, the Trump administration is revoking legal status for migrants who entered with the CBP One app under Biden. Who exactly are they and what should they keep in mind?

IMMIGRATION LAW ATTORNEY MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ:
Yes, most people who entered the U.S. using the CBP One app received a parole. That parole is now being revoked, and those individuals are supposed to leave the country. It’s about 900,000 people, but not all will be affected the same way.

Some may have already received their green cards. Others may be Cuban and eligible for Cuban Adjustment. Others may have been petitioned by a family member or married a U.S. citizen. Others may have applied for asylum. Those likely to face the harshest consequences are the ones without any of these pending processes. The government created a new app called CBP Home to help people provide their information and depart the U.S. without being deported. Some will use it, others may not, but the app is intended for those who entered with CBP One and received parole but now want to leave.

ANDREINA GANDICA:
José, from California. Go ahead with your question.

JOSE:
Thanks. I have a U visa application, not yet approved, but I have the bona fide work permit. In extreme situations, can someone with a U visa get a travel permit? And can it be combined with a petition from a U.S. citizen child to speed up getting a green card?

IMMIGRATION LAW ATTORNEY MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ:
Okay. Why would you want the travel permit? To leave and return?

JOSE:
Correct. My father is in poor health, and you never know.

IMMIGRATION LAW ATTORNEY MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ:
If you have the work permit, it’s because you’ve been found prima facie eligible. It means you’re eligible in principle and were granted a work permit while your case is pending. Decisions take 8 to 10 years now—very slow.

It’s not advisable for someone with a pending U visa to travel. A travel permit or parole is not an option at this stage. You can’t apply for it here before leaving. Maybe a travel permit exists, but I would never recommend it. If you entered legally and your child is a U.S. citizen, you might adjust status through that petition. But if you entered illegally or have a deportation order, it won’t be easy to adjust through the child. So, my recommendation is to continue with the U visa case.

ANDREINA GANDICA:
One more question via social media: I have humanitarian parole and filed an I-130 for my wife as a resident. Can I stay in the U.S. after April 24?

IMMIGRATION LAW ATTORNEY MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ:
No. The I-130 does not give legal status or work authorization. It’s just the possibility of a green card in the future. If the petitioner is not Cuban, then no, you cannot stay.

ANDREINA GANDICA:
Attorney, where can we find you?

IMMIGRATION LAW ATTORNEY MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ:
My name is Martha Arias. My website is AriasVilla.com, which is the name of my law firm. Phone number is (305) 671-0018.

ANDREINA GANDICA:
Thank you for joining us this Immigration Wednesday.

IMMIGRATION LAW ATTORNEY MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ:
Thank you, and happy rest of the week.

ANDREINA GANDICA:
You look very elegant today.

IMMIGRATION LAW ATTORNEY MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ:
I’m here after an immigration appointment—a case after 15 years. It’s like a quinceañera celebration! I’ll share the full story another time.

ANDREINA GANDICA:
Yes, attorney, you owe us that story. We’re off the air now.

IMMIGRATION LAW ATTORNEY MARTHA L. ARIAS, ESQ:
I’ll tell you that long story later. Thanks!

ANDREINA GANDICA:
Yes, thank you. A hug!

The post IRS Data Sharing with ICE and Recent Immigration Changes appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..