immigration attorney 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..

A Strong Defense of Birthright Citizenship Before the Supreme Court

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ICE Raids, Detentions, and Your Rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Practical guidance for families

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

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

How to contact my office

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

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

FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA

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

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..

Venezuela TPS Update: Key Dates and Legal Options

Martha Arias — Wed, 08 Oct 2025 16:54:07 +0000

Understanding the Supreme Court Decision Ending Venezuela TPS — What It Means for You

Last night on Caferro News, I had the opportunity to speak about one of the most important immigration topics affecting our Venezuelan community: the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing the government to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Venezuela.

While the announcement has caused confusion and fear, it’s important to understand that TPS is not ending overnight. Those who registered before February 5, 2025, still hold valid work authorization until October 2, 2026, according to official USCIS guidance. Meanwhile, individuals from the 2021 TPS designation continue to hold valid status until November 7, 2025.

During the interview, I explained the difference between the TPS 2021 and TPS 2023 designations, as well as the potential for deferred action relief that may provide temporary protection if the administration chooses to extend it. Each case is different, and there are still possible legal pathways — including marriage to a U.S. citizen, family petitions, or asylum applications.

I also shared advice for situations involving ICE encounters, the new citizenship test effective October 20, and the importance of reviewing your DS-160 visa application if you applied through a preparer abroad. Honesty and preparation are key to any successful immigration process.

If you need personalized guidance, my team and I are available to assist you nationwide. You can reach us at (305) 671-0018.

DISCLAIMER: This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For individual guidance, please consult directly with an immigration attorney.

U.S. Supreme Court (Order, Oct 3, 2025) — Noem v. National TPS Alliance (stay granted re: Venezuela TPS termination). Supreme Court
DHS/USCIS notices (2021 TPS termination for Venezuela) — termination effective Nov 7, 2025 (newsroom/E-Verify indices summarizing the Federal Register notice). E-Verify
USCIS — TPS program overview (mirrors indicate EADs with Oct 2, 2026 expiry valid if issued on/before Feb 5, 2025). Federal Register
Federal Register — 2025 Civics Test implementation (N-400s filed on/after Oct 20, 2025; 20 Qs from 128; pass 12/20; fail at 9 wrong). Federal Register
USCIS — The Naturalization Interview and Test (public page repeating the Oct 20 cutover and 12/20 passing; stop rule). USCIS
USCIS — 2025 Civics Test & study pages (confirms 128-question pool and 20 asked). USCIS
USCIS — Fee updates (new fees effective Jul 22, 2025) & fee schedule page. USCIS
U.S. Department of State — Visa Bond Pilot (countries list; bonds $5,000–$15,000; Colombia not listed). Federal Register
ICE — Immigration Enforcement FAQs (context on enforcement/warrants; general guidance). U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA

SPANISH TRANSCRIPT:

CaferroNews:
Vamos en este momento a comunicarnos con Martha Arias. Es una gran profesional, abogada de inmigración. Lleva muchísimos años aquí en el sur de la Florida ayudando y guiando a las personas en materia de inmigración. La noticia tiene que ver con lo que se dio a conocer el pasado fin de semana, el viernes exactamente, cuando el gobierno del presidente Donald Trump ha cancelado en su totalidad el TPS para los venezolanos.

Hay mucha desinformación, temor, miedo y pánico. Pero para eso invitamos en Caferro News a personas que nos guíen, que nos den esa voz de esperanza y, sobre todo, que nos orienten sobre qué hacer en este momento, porque hay mucha confusión. Saludo nuevamente a Martha Arias, a quien le agradezco infinitamente. Nos acompaña esta noche de martes. Martha, buenas noches, bienvenida. ¿Qué podemos decirle a nuestra audiencia? Vamos a iniciar con esto del TPS para los venezolanos. ¿Cuáles son las noticias recientes?

Abogada Martha Arias:
Muchas gracias, Caferro, por la invitación. Primero que todo, felicitaciones por su proyecto, mucho éxito, y también un saludo a toda su audiencia.
¿Qué está pasando con el TPS o con inmigración? Específicamente queremos hablar del TPS de Venezuela.

CaferroNews:
Correcto, el TPS de Venezuela. Vamos a iniciar.

Abogada Martha Arias:
El TPS de Venezuela. El 3 de octubre de este año 2025, la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos emitió una decisión donde autorizó al gobierno del presidente Trump terminar el TPS de Venezuela. Sin embargo, esta decisión no se debe tomar simplemente como decir “se acabó el TPS”. Hay varias cosas que analizar aquí, Caferro. La primera es la diferencia entre el TPS del 2021 y el del 2023, y cuáles son los efectos de todas estas demandas que han ocurrido y cómo quedan las personas. Voy a tratar de explicarlo de una forma simple.

El TPS del 2023 terminó en abril de este año 2025. Sin embargo, las personas que se registraron antes del 5 de febrero de este año 2025 y que recibieron la aprobación del permiso de trabajo solicitado con su registro, ese permiso de trabajo va a ser válido hasta el 2 de octubre de 2026. Repito, los venezolanos del TPS del 2023 que se registraron antes del 5 de febrero tienen ese permiso de trabajo válido hasta el 2 de octubre de 2026.

Esto ya está publicado en la página web de USCIS o Citizenship and Immigration Services. Si la persona va a la página web de USCIS y busca “TPS Venezuela”, claramente lo dice allí, y lo voy a leer: el documento indica que las personas que recibieron un Employment Authorization Document (EAD), es decir, un permiso de trabajo, antes o hasta el 5 de febrero de 2025, y que expira el 2 de octubre de 2026, mantendrán ese estatus hasta octubre de 2026.
Es una buena noticia para aquellos del TPS del 2023 que se registraron correctamente.

Ahora, hablemos de los del 2021. Ese TPS vence el 7 de noviembre de este año 2025. ¿Qué pasa con ellos? Los que también se registraron y obtuvieron su permiso de trabajo antes del 5 de febrero de 2025 tienen la misma situación: ese permiso de trabajo será válido hasta el 2 de octubre de 2025. Los que se registraron antes del 14 de septiembre de este año 2025 igualmente pueden tener una extensión automática hasta abril del año entrante, 2026, y ese permiso de trabajo puede ser aprobado hasta el 2 de octubre de 2025.

¿Sí ves la diferencia?
Entonces, en este momento, los venezolanos del TPS 2021 tienen su estatus válido hasta el 7 de noviembre. No es que terminó el 3 de octubre, cuando la Corte dio su decisión.

CaferroNews:
Hasta el 7 de noviembre de este año, correcto.

Abogada Martha Arias:
Sí, hasta el 7 de noviembre de 2025. Pero aquellos que aprovecharon esa ventana de tiempo hasta febrero de 2025 para renovar, o hasta el 14 de septiembre, que fue la otra ventanita otorgada por las demandas y las decisiones del juez Chen en California, esos pueden mantener su TPS aprobado, al menos, hasta octubre de 2025.

CaferroNews:
Entonces, la recomendación para los venezolanos que nos están observando en este momento es: ¿tratar de cambiar el estatus, continuar o qué hacer? Porque incluso esta mañana hablaba con unos venezolanos que me decían “estamos desesperados, no sabemos qué hacer”.
Les dije: estén pendientes esta noche porque voy a hablar con una abogada de inmigración, Martha Arias, para orientarlos. ¿Cuál sería la recomendación, Martha, para estas personas?

Abogada Martha Arias:
Bueno, la primera recomendación es tener esperanza de que ocurra un milagro y pronto se extienda este TPS de alguna forma antes del 7 de noviembre.
No lo sabemos, o tal vez no, porque el gobierno está muy insistente en terminarlo.

Pero podría llegar lo que se ha estado hablando hoy: que algunos congresistas o empresarios están pidiendo al gobierno una acción diferida.
Si ustedes recuerdan, durante la primera administración del presidente Trump se habló de una “inspección diferida” y el presidente la aprobó antes del TPS.
Entonces, podríamos hablar de que si el gobierno está dispuesto, como lo hizo anteriormente, a dar una acción diferida para los venezolanos, eso sería un alivio, al menos para que puedan continuar legalmente con su permiso de trabajo aquí en los Estados Unidos. Esa es una esperanza.

Ahora, en cuanto a qué hacer: las personas que puedan casarse con ciudadanos estadounidenses o que tengan un hijo ciudadano americano, o un esposo o esposa residente, deberían buscar alternativas para presentar una petición a través de ellos, aunque eso implique pedir un perdón o salir a su país de nacionalidad.

Algunos tienen buenos casos de asilo, por lo tanto, deben continuar con su caso.
Y si no presentaron uno, deben hablar con un abogado de inmigración para ver si hay posibilidad de presentar un asilo tardío y qué opciones tiene cada persona.

Cada caso es distinto. Hay otras personas que podrían tener alternativas diferentes, pero deben buscar un abogado, no un tramitador. Un abogado licenciado aquí en los Estados Unidos y que ejerza el derecho de inmigración.

CaferroNews:
Precisamente quería ir allá, porque hay tanta información y tantos charlatanes. Muchas personas dicen: “Yo te puedo ayudar, yo te hago esto o aquello”.
No, hay que asesorarse bien con un abogado. También me preguntaron algo importante: ¿qué hacer si estás en tu vehículo y te toca la ventanilla ICE? ¿Cómo reaccionar? ¿Cómo actuar en ese momento? ¿Quedarse en silencio? ¿Preguntar si tienen orden de arresto? ¿Por qué no también orientamos en esa parte, Martha?

Abogada Martha Arias:
Yo creo que la forma de actuar es la siguiente: si la persona quiere actuar con cooperación, puede bajar la ventana y mostrar su identificación. Si tiene una situación legal, una petición pendiente o un permiso de trabajo, debe tomarlo con tranquilidad. Si la persona no tiene esa situación, puede quedarse con el vidrio arriba.

ICE realmente no puede parar a una persona así porque sí; tiene que hacerlo la policía si la persona comete una infracción de tránsito. Pero también hay casos en que los agentes están rompiendo vidrios y entrando a los vehículos, lo cual es muy delicado. Entonces, si yo estuviera en esa situación y tuviera documentación, bajaría el vidrio, mostraría mis papeles y diría: “Soy residente, tengo esta petición pendiente”.

Y si la persona no tiene nada y siente temor, puede decidir no bajar la ventana y preguntar quién es. Pienso que esa es una respuesta muy personal de cada individuo.

CaferroNews:
Claro. Ahora, hablemos de noticias recientes de inmigración. Usted, como abogada, tiene las más recientes. En el caso, por ejemplo, de la visa en Colombia: antes costaba, si no estoy mal, $138 o menos de $200, y ahora subió a más de $400. ¿Esto es para evitar que vengan o para recaudar dinero? ¿Cómo analiza esta noticia, Martha?

Abogada Martha Arias:
Bueno, creo que puede ser un poco de ambas cosas. No solo es el monto, sino que para ciertos países el gobierno ha dicho que enviaron muchos inmigrantes.
Hasta donde sé, Colombia no ha sido mencionada en esa lista todavía. La lista la está preparando el Departamento de Estado, y hasta la última vez que la revisé, incluía principalmente países africanos. Se hablaba de una multa o costo de $15,000 por persona o por familia para pedir la visa, como una fianza que debía pagar el solicitante para poder pedir la visa a los Estados Unidos.

Imagínese: si una persona viene de turista, debe pagar pasaje, hotel y todo, y además $15,000, obviamente es una barrera enorme.
Por ahora, Colombia no aparece en esa lista, pero es preocupante.

CaferroNews:
Ahora, hablando de inmigración, los formularios han subido de precio. Háblenos un poco sobre las solicitudes de residencia y ciudadanía, porque parece que se va a poner cada vez más difícil, ¿no, Martha?

Abogada Martha Arias:
Sí, se está poniendo un poco más complicado, sobre todo en cuanto a la documentación y el proceso de solicitud de residencia. Hay nuevas guías que permiten al oficial revisar el “buen carácter moral” de las personas, uno de los requisitos para la ciudadanía, de una forma más cautelosa y cuidadosa.

Van a revisar no solo si la persona paga sus impuestos, manutención de sus hijos o de su expareja (lo que aquí se llama “alimony”), sino también cosas como cuentas bancarias, historial de crédito, pagos, incluso infracciones de tránsito. Además, empezarán a realizar investigaciones vecinales y laborales: van a tocarle la puerta al vecino y preguntar si la persona es buena gente o cómo es su actitud.

Eso también lo van a empezar a hacer. Aparte de eso, hay un examen nuevo que entra en vigor a partir del 20 de octubre. Ahora el examen tiene 128 preguntas. Antes el oficial hacía 10 preguntas y había que responder correctamente al menos 6. Con el nuevo examen, si la persona falla 9 preguntas consecutivas, el oficial podrá terminar la entrevista.

CaferroNews:
Y me imagino que van a exigir más nivel de inglés, ¿no?

Abogada Martha Arias:
Claro. La parte del inglés será un poco más retadora para las personas que tienen un nivel bajo o intermedio.
Incluyeron preguntas más largas, por lo tanto, las respuestas también son más largas, y las personas con menos fluidez podrían encontrar más dificultad para responder.

En cuanto a las residencias, durante la administración anterior, la del presidente Biden, se exoneró a muchas personas de la entrevista. Sin embargo, esta administración ha vuelto a exigir entrevistas en casi todos los casos, aunque este año todavía he visto algunas aprobaciones sin entrevista, por ejemplo, peticiones de hijos por padres o de padres por hijos menores. También están revisando con mucho más detalle los casos de personas que entraron con visa de turista y luego se casaron con ciudadanos estadounidenses para pedir ajuste de estatus.

A esas personas les están preguntando mucho sobre lo que dijeron en el consulado al momento de solicitar la visa: si estaban casados, en unión libre, en qué trabajaban, cuál fue la intención del viaje, cuánto tiempo planeaban quedarse, si compraron pasaje de regreso, etc. Después, cuando presentan el matrimonio, les dicen: “Usted dijo que venía a un congreso; ¿fue al congreso? ¿Qué hizo? ¿Cuánto tiempo se quedó?”.

Entonces mi consejo es: cuando apliquen para la visa de turista, guarden una copia de la solicitud DS-160, que es la que se llena para la visa de turista.
En Colombia, muchas personas usan tramitadores para eso, así que pidan una copia al tramitador, porque he visto personas que llegan a mi oficina y no tienen idea de lo que respondieron en esa solicitud. A veces, el tramitador cambia las respuestas sin que el solicitante lo sepa, y luego eso les causa problemas cuando inmigración los entrevista.

CaferroNews:
Gran consejo, Martha, porque hay que decirlo: aquí el gobierno sabe todo de nosotros, lo que hacemos, decimos, escribimos, todo. Y lo que más valora el gobierno americano es la verdad.

Martha, ¿dónde te podemos ubicar? ¿Cuál es tu página web y tu número telefónico para una consulta? Martha Arias tiene muchísima experiencia, es una gran abogada de inmigración, y siempre saca su tiempo para guiarnos y orientarnos, especialmente en estos momentos de desinformación.

Abogada Martha Arias:
Sí, cómo no. Gracias, Caferro. El teléfono de mi oficina es 305-671-0018, lo repito: 305-671-0018. Mi página web, donde encuentran el teléfono, la dirección e incluso un correo o formulario para contactarnos desde Colombia o cualquier parte, es www.ariasvilla.com

También tengo un website que es marthaarias.com. Si van a martharias.com, los redirige automáticamente a ariasvilla.com, que es el sitio oficial.
En redes sociales también me encuentran en todas partes; el que más usamos es Instagram, y desde allí pueden acceder a Facebook y otras plataformas.
Mi usuario es @martha_arias98 — Martha con H.

CaferroNews:
Pues nada, Martha, muchísimas gracias. Esta es tu segunda intervención aquí en Caferro News, y espero que no sea la última. Esperamos tenerte una tercera y cuarta vez, porque siempre nos mantienes informados con las últimas noticias de inmigración.

Abogada Martha Arias:
Claro que sí, muchísimas gracias por invitarme. Estamos siempre a la orden.

CaferroNews:
Gracias. Martha Arias, dinámica abogada de inmigración, nos acompañó aquí en Caferro News en esta emisión especial. Hablamos sobre Venezuela, Colombia y las más recientes noticias de inmigración.

ENGLISH TRANSLATION

CaferroNews:
At this moment we are going to connect with Martha Arias. She is a great professional, an immigration attorney. She has spent many years here in South Florida helping and guiding people in immigration matters. The news has to do with what was announced this past weekend, exactly on Friday, when President Donald Trump’s administration canceled in its entirety the TPS for Venezuelans. There is a lot of misinformation, fear, and panic. But for that reason, here at Caferro News, we invite people who can guide us, who can bring a voice of hope, and above all, tell us what to do at this moment because there is much confusion.

Once again, greetings to Martha Arias, to whom I am infinitely thankful. She joins us tonight, this Tuesday evening. Martha, good evening and welcome. What can we tell our audience? Let’s begin with this topic about TPS for Venezuelans. What are the recent news updates?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Thank you very much, Caferro, for the invitation. First of all, congratulations on your project, much success, and greetings to all your audience.
What is happening with TPS or immigration? Specifically, we want to talk about Venezuela’s TPS?

CaferroNews:
Correct, Venezuela’s TPS. Let’s begin.

Attorney Martha Arias:
The Venezuela TPS. On October 3, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision allowing President Trump’s administration to end the TPS for Venezuela. However, this decision should not be taken simply as “TPS is over.” There are several things to analyze here, Caferro. The first is the difference between the 2021 TPS and the 2023 TPS, and what the effects of all these lawsuits have been and how people remain affected.
I will try to explain this in simple terms.

The 2023 TPS ended in April of this year, 2025. However, those who registered before February 5, 2025, and received approval of their work permit requested with their registration, that work permit will be valid until October 2, 2026. I repeat: Venezuelans from the 2023 TPS who registered before February 5 have that work permit valid until October 2, 2026. This is already published on the USCIS website, or Citizenship and Immigration Services. If someone goes to the USCIS website and searches for “TPS Venezuela,” it clearly states there—and I will read it—it says that those who received an Employment Authorization Document (EAD), that is, a work permit, before or up to February 5, 2025, and that expires on October 2, 2026, will maintain that status until October 2026. It is good news for those under the 2023 TPS who registered correctly.

Now, speaking about those under the 2021 TPS—it expires on November 7, 2025. What happens with them? Those who also registered and obtained their work permit before February 5, 2025, are in the same situation: that work permit will be valid until October 2, 2025. Those who registered before September 14, 2025, may also have an automatic extension until April 2026, and that work permit can be approved until October 2, 2025.

Do you see the difference?

So, at this moment, Venezuelans under TPS 2021 have their valid status until November 7. It did not end on October 3, when the court issued its decision.

CaferroNews:
Until November 7 of this year, correct?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Yes, until November 7, 2025. But those who took advantage of that window of time until February 2025 to renew, or until September 14—an additional window granted by the lawsuits and the decisions of Judge Chen in California—those people may keep their approved TPS at least until October 2025.

CaferroNews:
Then, the recommendation for Venezuelans who are watching us right now is—should they try to change their status, continue, or what should they do? Because even this morning, I was speaking with some Venezuelans who said, “We are desperate; we don’t know what to do.”
I told them: stay tuned tonight because I’ll be speaking with an immigration attorney, Martha Arias, to guide us. What would your recommendation be, Martha, for these people?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Well, the first recommendation is to have hope that a miracle happens and that this TPS is extended somehow before November 7. We don’t know if it will happen—or maybe not—because the government seems very determined to end it. But there is talk today among some congressmen and business leaders about asking the government for deferred action. If you remember, during President Trump’s first administration, there was talk of “deferred inspection,” and the president approved it before TPS existed. So, we could say that if the government is willing, as it was before, to grant deferred action for Venezuelans, that would be a relief, at least to allow them to continue legally with their work permits here in the United States. That is a hope.

Now, regarding what to do: those who can marry a U.S. citizen, or who have a U.S. citizen child or a lawful permanent resident spouse, should explore those options to file a petition through them—even if it means requesting a waiver or traveling back to their country of nationality. Some people have good asylum cases; they should continue with their asylum case.

Those who have not yet filed should speak with an immigration attorney to see if it’s possible to file a late asylum application and what options exist.
Each case is different. There may be other alternatives, but people must seek help from a licensed attorney, not a document preparer. An attorney licensed in the United States who practices immigration law.

CaferroNews:
Exactly, because there is so much misinformation and so many fraudsters. Many people say, “I can help you; I’ll take care of it,” but no—you must get proper legal advice. Another important question people asked me: what to do if you are in your car and ICE knocks on your window? How should you react? Stay silent? Ask if they have a warrant? Why don’t you guide us on that part too, Martha?

Attorney Martha Arias:
I think the proper way to act is the following: if the person wants to cooperate, they can roll down the window and show identification. If they have a legal case, a pending petition, or a work permit, they should remain calm. If they don’t have any of that, they can keep the window closed.

ICE cannot just stop a person arbitrarily—it has to be law enforcement if there’s a traffic violation. However, some agents have reportedly broken car windows and entered vehicles, which is very serious.

So, if I were in that situation and had documents, I would roll down the window, show my papers, and say: “I am a resident; I have a pending petition.”
And if someone has nothing and feels fear, they can decide not to roll down the window and ask who they are. That’s a personal decision that depends on each individual.

CaferroNews:
Of course. Now let’s talk about recent immigration news. As an attorney, you have the latest updates. For example, in Colombia, the visa used to cost, if I’m not mistaken, $138 or less than $200, and now it increased to more than $400. Is that to prevent people from coming or just to raise money? How do you interpret this news, Martha?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Well, I think it could be a mix of both. It’s not just about the amount—there’s also the fact that, for certain countries, the government has said they send many immigrants. As far as I know, Colombia has not been mentioned in that list yet. The list is being prepared by the Department of State, and last time I checked, it mostly included African countries. It mentioned a fine or cost of $15,000 per person or per family to apply for a visa—a kind of bond that the applicant would have to pay to request entry to the United States.

Imagine: if a person is just coming to visit, they already pay for airfare, hotel, and everything else—and on top of that $15,000—it’s a huge barrier.
For now, Colombia is not on that list, but it’s concerning.

CaferroNews:
Now, regarding immigration, form fees have increased. Tell us a little about applying for residency or citizenship, because it seems that it’s becoming more difficult, right, Martha?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Yes, it is getting a little more complicated, especially regarding documentation and the process of applying for residency. There are new guidelines allowing officers to review an applicant’s “good moral character,” one of the requirements for citizenship, in a more cautious and thorough manner. They will review not only whether a person pays taxes, child support, or alimony, but also things like bank accounts, credit history, payment habits, and even minor traffic infractions.

Additionally, they will begin conducting neighborhood and employment investigations—knocking on neighbors’ doors and asking if the person is a good person and how they behave.

They will also introduce a new citizenship test starting October 20. The new test includes 128 questions. Previously, the officer would ask 10 questions, and the applicant had to answer at least 6 correctly. Now, if the applicant fails 9 consecutive questions, the officer can terminate the interview.

CaferroNews:
And I imagine they will also require a higher level of English, right?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Of course. The English portion will be more challenging for those with a low or intermediate level. The new questions are longer, so the answers will also be longer, making it harder for people who are less fluent. As for residency, during the previous administration, President Biden’s administration, many applicants were exempted from the interview. However, this administration has reinstated interviews in almost all cases, although this year I have still seen some cases—such as parent-child petitions—approved without interviews.

They are also scrutinizing more carefully those who entered with tourist visas and later married U.S. citizens to apply for adjustment of status. They’re asking detailed questions about what they said at the consulate when they applied for the visa—whether they were married, living together, where they worked, the purpose of travel, how long they planned to stay, and whether they had a return ticket.

Later, when they go through the marriage interview, immigration may say: “You said you were coming for a conference—did you attend? What did you do? How long did you stay?”

So my advice is: when applying for a tourist visa, keep a copy of the DS-160 form, which is the application form. In Colombia, many people use document preparers for this process, so ask them for a copy. I’ve seen people come to my office who have no idea what answers were given in their DS-160 form.
Sometimes, the preparer enters false information without the applicant knowing, and that later causes problems during immigration interviews.

CaferroNews:
Great advice, Martha, because it’s true—the U.S. government knows everything about us: what we do, say, and write. And what Americans value most is honesty.

Martha, where can we reach you? What is your website and your phone number for consultations? Martha Arias has extensive experience, she’s a great immigration attorney, and she always makes time to guide and inform us, especially during times of misinformation.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Yes, of course. Thank you, Caferro. My office phone number is 305-671-0018—I repeat, 305-671-0018. My website, where you can find the phone, address, and even an email form to contact us from Colombia or anywhere else, is www.ariasvilla.com.

I also have another website, marthaarias.com, which redirects to ariasvilla.com, the official site. On social media, you can find me everywhere—the one we use the most is Instagram, which links to Facebook and other networks. My handle is @martha_arias98 — Martha with an H.

CaferroNews:
Well, Martha, thank you so much. This is your second appearance here on Caferro News, and I hope it won’t be your last. We look forward to having you for a third and fourth time because you always keep us updated with immigration news.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Of course. Thank you so much for inviting me. We’re always here to help.

CaferroNews:
Thank you. Immigration attorney Martha Arias joined us here on Caferro News in this special broadcast. We talked about Venezuela, Colombia, and the latest immigration updates.

The post Venezuela TPS Update: Key Dates and Legal Options appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..