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

TPS for Venezuelans After the Court Decision

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA

SPANISH TRANSCRIPT:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ENGLISH TRANSLATION:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The post TPS for Venezuelans After the Court Decision appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

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..

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

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

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

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

The Legal Foundation and Rationale for the Restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

The Two Tiers of Entry Suspension

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

Tier 1: Full Suspension of Entry (12 Countries)

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

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

Tier 2: Partial Suspension of Entry (7 Countries)

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

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

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

Practical Application: Who is Affected and When?

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

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

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

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

Navigating Exceptions and Waivers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Understanding the Latest TPS Developments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA

SPANISH TRANSCRIPT:

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

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

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

Abogada, ¿cómo está?

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

Orian Brito:
¿Cómo le va?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Entonces, ¿dónde la pueden contactar?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ENGLISH TRANSLATION:

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

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

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

Attorney, how are you?

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

Orian Brito:
How are you doing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those are the analyses people must undertake before beginning.

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

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

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

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

It is quite complex, especially when the last…

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

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

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

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

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

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

the travel permit with TPS, and

the travel permit with the asylum.

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

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

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

So, where can they contact you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What You Need to Know About the New Bipartisan TPS Bill for Venezuelans

Martha Arias — Sat, 17 May 2025 14:43:05 +0000

Last week, I had the opportunity to speak with Raffa Mejías on EVTV’s program “Dígalo Aquí” about an important development in immigration policy: a new bipartisan bill introduced in Congress that would extend Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Venezuelans into 2025.

This proposal, co-sponsored by Republican María Elvira Salazar and supported by Florida Democrats, aims to secure legal protection for all Venezuelans present in the U.S. at the time of the bill’s approval. Unlike previous extensions, this new TPS legislation could benefit even those who arrived in 2024—expanding protections more broadly than before.

I explained during the interview that this bill could offer both political and legal benefits. Politically, if passed by a Republican-led Congress, it could provide the administration with leverage to show strength while delivering humanitarian support. Legally, the bill would make ongoing litigation over the previous termination of TPS moot—resolving current legal uncertainties and clearing the way for a clean and stable program.

But time is of the essence. The current TPS designation for Venezuelans expires in September 2025. For this new law to take effect and avoid delays in legal challenges, it must be passed quickly.

FOLLOW ME FOR MORE NEWS UPDATES

SPANISH TRANSCRIPT:

Raffa Mejías:
Hoy la congresista por el estado de Florida, María Elvira Salazar, a través de sus redes sociales hace este anuncio donde dice que está copatrocinando este TPS 2025.

Abogada Martha Arias:
Sí, a ver, muchísimas gracias, mira. Yo pienso que puede ser posible que el Congreso actúe a través de esta ley, es decir, que la apruebe, puede ser posible. Y me parece que sería un buen movimiento, una buena jugada de la administración. Porque, a mi pensar, la administración del presidente Trump quiere deportar al mayor número de personas y quiere mostrar fuerza o ser estricto con la inmigración. Y si este TPS lo pasa al Congreso, del cual la mayoría republicana sabemos tiene casi todo el Congreso, entonces sería un punto favorable para el presidente. Porque en vez de decir: “fui yo el que lo aprobé”, es el mismo Congreso el que lo aprueba. Entonces, eso sería un beneficio grande para el Ejecutivo y, igualmente, sería un gran beneficio para los venezolanos.

Raffa Mejías:
Abogada, el hecho de ser una ley bipartidista le da mayor oportunidad de ser aprobada. ¿Podría pasar en el primer comité? ¿Qué se podría valorar en este momento?

Abogada Martha Arias:
Yo pienso que sí. Obviamente, el ser bipartidista ayuda muchísimo. El hecho de que haya allí una republicana apoyándolo, como María Elvira, y dos demócratas de la Florida, ayuda muchísimo. Yo pienso que eso es un punto a favor. Y también el hecho de que es un tema que todos estamos… incluso muchos republicanos están a favor del TPS de Venezuela. Ahora, esto sería como un proyecto bipartidista, como que dejaría a la administración de Biden a un lado, cosa que la administración no quiere. Entonces, pienso… a mí lo único que me preocupa es, de pronto, la demora. Porque acuérdese que el TPS, todo proyecto de ley en el Congreso, usualmente toma tiempo. Ahora, si de pronto lo aprueban de una forma rápida, pues eso sería un beneficio. Tiene que ser antes de septiembre, ojalá, que es cuando terminaría el TPS de los venezolanos este año.

Raffa Mejías:
Abogada, tomando en cuenta el primer TPS para los venezolanos en 2021, posteriormente la extensión en 2023, y ahora este de 2025, ¿cuáles serían las diferencias a valorar?

Abogada Martha Arias:
Bueno, ahí yo pienso que va a haber una confusión grande. Este proyecto dice que aplicarían todos los venezolanos que estén presentes en los Estados Unidos al momento de la aprobación. Quiere decir que va a cobijar a bastantes personas. No solamente los del 2021, los del 2023, incluso los que hayan llegado el año pasado, 2024, hasta el momento de la aprobación. Eso es una ventaja. Pero mi preocupación con la confusión legal es que todos sabemos que el presidente Trump, a través del Departamento de Homeland Security, terminó el TPS, sobre todo este del 2023. Y hay un litigio en el cual se dio una medida cautelar diciendo que no aplica esa terminación del TPS por parte de la administración actual. Es decir, el TPS queda, por ahora, extendido hasta el año entrante, octubre de 2026. Con la entrada de esta ley, yo pienso que se resolvería ese problema legal, de hecho. Porque entonces ese litigio va a ser lo que se llama “moot.” “Moot” quiere decir que ya no tenemos por qué pelear, o sea, esto ya se resolvió por el Congreso. Esas demandas todas se caerían porque ya no hay ningún litigio que resolver. Entonces, eso sería el beneficio legal. Pero entonces tendrían que hacerlo rápido también para evitar perder tiempo con todas estas demandas que están cursando en muchas partes federales del país.

Raffa Mejías:
Today, the congresswoman for the state of Florida, María Elvira Salazar, through her social media, makes this announcement where she says she is co-sponsoring this TPS 2025.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Yes, thank you very much. Look, I think it is possible that Congress acts through this law, that is, that it approves it—it could be possible. And it seems to me that it would be a good move, a good play by the administration. Because, in my opinion, the administration of President Trump wants to deport the largest number of people and wants to show strength or be strict on immigration. And if this TPS is passed to Congress—which we know is mostly Republican—it would be favorable for the president. Because instead of saying, “I was the one who approved it,” it’s the Congress itself that would approve it. So, that would be a big benefit for the Executive and also a great benefit for Venezuelans.

Raffa Mejías:
Attorney, the fact that it is a bipartisan law gives it more chances of being approved. Could it pass in the first committee? What could be evaluated at this moment?

Attorney Martha Arias:
I think so. Obviously, being bipartisan helps a lot. The fact that there is a Republican supporting it, like María Elvira, and two Democrats from Florida helps a lot. I think that’s a point in its favor. Also, the fact that it’s an issue that everyone is… even many Republicans are in favor of TPS for Venezuela. Now, this would be a bipartisan project, like leaving the Biden administration aside, which is something the administration doesn’t want. So I think… the only thing that worries me is maybe the delay. Because remember that TPS, every bill in Congress, usually takes time. Now, if they approve it quickly, well, that would be the benefit. It has to be before September, hopefully, which is when the current TPS for Venezuelans ends this year.

Raffa Mejías:
Attorney, taking into account the first TPS for Venezuelans in 2021, then the extension in 2023, and now this 2025 one, what would be the differences to consider?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Well, there I think there’s going to be a big confusion. This project says that it would apply to all Venezuelans who are present in the United States at the time of approval. That means it’s going to cover a lot of people. Not only those from 2021, 2023—even those who arrived last year, 2024, up to the moment of approval. That’s an advantage. But my concern with the legal confusion is that we all know that President Trump, through the Department of Homeland Security, ended TPS—especially the 2023 one. And there is litigation where a preliminary injunction was granted saying that that termination of TPS by the current administration does not apply. That is, TPS remains, for now, extended until next year, October 2026. With the entry of this law, I think that legal or de facto problem would be resolved. Because then that litigation would become what is called “moot.” Moot means we no longer have to fight. That is, this is already resolved by Congress. All those lawsuits would fall away because there is no litigation left to resolve. So that would be the legal benefit. But then they would have to do it quickly too, to avoid wasting time with all these lawsuits ongoing in many federal districts across the country.

The post What You Need to Know About the New Bipartisan TPS Bill for Venezuelans appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

The Importance of Due Process: Discussing the Quilmar Ábrego García Case

Martha Arias — Thu, 17 Apr 2025 00:22:53 +0000

This morning, I had the pleasure of discussing an important and complex immigration issue on Noticias 670 Edición Matutina with hosts Aaron Glantz and Eduardo Alemán. We examined the highly politicized case of Quilmar Ábrego García, a Salvadoran national who was deported under the Alien Enemies Act without receiving proper due process.

In this interview, I emphasized that while our country has a legitimate interest in keeping dangerous individuals out, we must never compromise our constitutional values—particularly the fundamental right to due process. The Supreme Court has clearly stated that the government must demonstrate evidence of a person’s affiliation with terrorist or criminal organizations before deportation. However, in this specific case, the government has repeatedly failed to provide sufficient proof, which has raised concerns of constitutional violations.

This situation underscores a critical issue: the risk we face when laws are applied without adequate oversight. Today it’s Ábrego García, but tomorrow it could be someone else closer to us. Upholding constitutional guarantees isn’t optional—it’s essential to our democracy.

We also discussed practical advice for immigrants who have upcoming immigration court dates. I urged individuals to seek legal counsel and follow their attorney’s recommendations to navigate these stressful situations safely.

Stay informed and protected. If you or someone you know needs immigration advice, please call my office directly at 305-233-3310.

ORIGINAL TRANSCRIPT:

Noticias 670 Edición Matutina con Aaron Glantz y Eduardo Alemán

Host:
Amigos, vamos a hablar de inmigración, y para ello tenemos en línea telefónica a una abogada experta en este tema. Ella es Martha Arias. Abogada Arias, buenos días. Gracias por estar con nosotros.

Abogada Martha L. Arias:
Buenos días, Eduardo y Aaron. Un saludo para ustedes. Feliz mitad de semana, como digo siempre.

Host:
Bienvenida, bienvenida. Muchísimas gracias nuevamente por conversar con nosotros. Empecemos hablando sobre un caso que ha tomado tintes políticos: el caso de Quilmar Ábrego García. Quiero recordar primero palabras de la Fiscal General Pam Bondi y también de Stephen Miller, asesor del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional, respondiendo preguntas de una periodista de CNN durante la reunión del presidente Donald Trump con el presidente salvadoreño Nayib Bukele. Entró ilegalmente al país, tenía una orden de deportación, se le considera miembro de la MS-13 (Mara Salvatrucha), que es considerada una organización terrorista, y por ese hecho no tiene ningún beneficio migratorio. En términos generales, esa fue la posición tanto de Pam Bondi como de Stephen Miller. Quisiera escuchar la opinión de la abogada Martha Arias sobre este caso específico de Ábrego García.

Abogada Martha L. Arias:
Sí, muchas gracias. Según lo que entiendo—obviamente no he leído todo el expediente—esta persona fue enviada a la corte y posteriormente a su país, ya que el gobierno invocó la Ley de Enemigos Extranjeros. Al invocarla, mandaron a esta persona de regreso sin brindarle el debido proceso, sin darle la oportunidad de presentar evidencia sobre su supuesta pertenencia a estas pandillas.

La Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos, al revisar este caso, afirmó claramente que el gobierno puede utilizar esta ley, pero siempre respetando el debido proceso. Es decir, se debe demostrar previamente que la persona es miembro de una organización terrorista o justificar las acusaciones antes de proceder con la deportación. La jueza que ordenó el retorno solicitó pruebas de la supuesta membresía en pandillas y hasta ahora solo ha recibido un documento superficial que simplemente afirma que pertenece a una pandilla.

Si escuchan un ruido, es un pavo real que tengo en casa. Es curioso porque hacía años que no veía uno, y mucho menos sabía cómo cantaban. Está en un árbol grande en mi casa y ha estado dándome serenata toda la mañana.

Continuando, como abogada creo firmemente que el debido proceso es un derecho fundamental que todos tenemos. Aunque entendemos que no queremos en el país a personas vinculadas con pandillas u organizaciones criminales, no podemos saltarnos los derechos básicos de las personas. El problema es decidir arbitrariamente a quién se le aplica el debido proceso y a quién no. La jueza ha insistido en solicitar pruebas claras que vinculen a esta persona con la pandilla, y hasta ahora no se han presentado. Incluso, hace dos semanas, un abogado del gobierno fue suspendido por admitir ante la jueza que tampoco tenía evidencias.

Esta persona sí tenía una orden de deportación, pero se le había concedido un beneficio conocido como “withholding of removal”, que implica que, aunque debe ser deportado, su deportación está suspendida temporalmente debido al peligro que corre en su país. Por eso, legalmente sí podría ser enviado a un tercer país dispuesto a recibirlo.

Host:
Abogada Arias, la jueza federal encargada del caso está considerando iniciar un proceso por desacato contra la administración Trump por no presentar evidencias. ¿Puede hacer esto?

Abogada Martha L. Arias:
Sí, absolutamente. Ella está pidiendo evidencias claras y esfuerzos reales del gobierno para retornar a esta persona. Este caso pone en práctica el principio constitucional de checks and balances (pesos y contrapesos). Personalmente, me preocupa el uso arbitrario de la Ley de Enemigos Extranjeros sin pruebas contundentes, porque hoy es esta persona, pero mañana podría ser alguien más cercano a nosotros.

Host:
Según lo visto en la Casa Blanca, este asunto parece estar fuera del alcance de la justicia estadounidense, ya que está bajo custodia de la justicia salvadoreña. El presidente Bukele ha dicho que no liberará terroristas. ¿Cómo queda entonces la parte legal migratoria?

Abogada Martha L. Arias:
Es complicado. Desde mi perspectiva como abogada de inmigración y especialista en derecho internacional, si Estados Unidos deportó erróneamente a una persona, tiene la obligación de intentar regresarla. Pero si El Salvador tiene evidencias o cargos propios contra esta persona, se complicará su retorno a Estados Unidos. Por ahora, no conocemos documentación oficial que pruebe estos cargos en El Salvador. El debido proceso y la claridad legal son esenciales en toda democracia.

Host:
Finalmente, abogada, ¿qué recomienda a quienes tienen citas en cortes migratorias y tienen miedo de presentarse?

Abogada Martha L. Arias:
Recomiendo seguir el consejo específico de su abogado. Si no tienen abogado, deben buscar uno. En mi experiencia, quienes no tienen órdenes previas de deportación ni antecedentes criminales no deberían tener problemas en presentarse.

Host:
¿Dónde pueden contactar a Martha Arias?

Abogada Martha L. Arias:
Pueden visitar mi página web ariasvilla.com, o llamar al teléfono 305-233-3310.

Host:
Gracias, abogada Martha Arias, por acompañarnos.

Abogada Martha L. Arias:
Gracias a ustedes, ¡y espero que hayan disfrutado la serenata del pavo real!

Noticias 670 Morning Edition with Aaron Glantz and Eduardo Alemán

Host:
Friends, we’re going to talk about immigration, and for that, we have an immigration attorney on the phone line. She is Martha Arias. Attorney Arias, good morning. Thank you for being with us.

Attorney Martha L. Arias:
Good morning, Eduardo and Aaron. Greetings to you. Happy mid-week, as I always say.

Host:
Welcome, welcome. Thank you very much once again for speaking with us. Let’s begin by discussing a case that has taken political overtones: the case of Quilmar Ábrego García. I’d first like to recall words from Attorney General Pam Bondi and also from Stephen Miller, advisor to the Department of Homeland Security, responding to questions from a CNN journalist during the meeting between President Donald Trump and Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele. He entered the country illegally, had a deportation order, is considered a member of MS-13 (Mara Salvatrucha), which is designated as a terrorist organization, and due to that, he does not have any immigration benefit. Generally speaking, that was the position of both Pam Bondi and Stephen Miller. I’d like to hear the opinion of immigration attorney Martha Arias regarding this specific case of Ábrego García.

Attorney Martha L. Arias:
Yes, thank you very much. From what I understand—obviously, I haven’t read the entire file—this person was sent to court and subsequently to his country because the government invoked the Alien Enemies Act. Upon invoking this act, they simply sent the person back without providing due process, without giving him the opportunity to present evidence regarding his alleged affiliation with these gangs.

The Supreme Court of the United States, when reviewing this case, clearly stated that the government may use this act, but always respecting due process. In other words, it must be demonstrated beforehand that the person is a member of a terrorist organization or justify the accusations before proceeding with deportation. The judge who ordered the return requested evidence of the alleged gang membership, and until now, she has only received a superficial document simply stating he belongs to a gang.

If you hear any noise, it’s a peacock that I have at home. It’s curious because I hadn’t seen one in years, let alone knew how they sounded. It’s on a large tree in my house and has been serenading me all morning.

Continuing, as an attorney, I firmly believe that due process is a fundamental right we all possess. Even though we understand we don’t want people linked to gangs or criminal organizations in the country, we can’t bypass people’s basic rights. The problem is arbitrarily deciding who is entitled to due process and who isn’t. The judge has insisted on receiving clear evidence linking this person to the gang, and until now, it hasn’t been presented. In fact, two weeks ago, a government lawyer was suspended after admitting to the judge that he also didn’t have evidence.

This person did indeed have a deportation order, but was granted a benefit called “withholding of removal,” which means that although he must be deported, his deportation is temporarily suspended due to the danger he faces in his country. Therefore, legally he could be sent to a third country willing to accept him.

Host:
Attorney Arias, the federal judge in charge of this case is considering initiating a contempt proceeding against the Trump administration for not providing evidence. Can she do this?

Attorney Martha L. Arias:
Yes, absolutely. She is requesting clear evidence and tangible efforts from the government to return this person. This case applies the constitutional principle of checks and balances. Personally, I’m concerned about the arbitrary use of the Alien Enemies Act without solid evidence because today it’s this person, but tomorrow it could be someone closer to us.

Host:
According to what was seen at the White House, this issue seems to be beyond the reach of U.S. justice, as he is under the custody of Salvadoran justice. President Bukele has stated he will not release terrorists. How does this affect the immigration legal aspect?

Attorney Martha L. Arias:
It’s complicated. From my perspective as an immigration attorney and specialist in international law, if the United States mistakenly deported someone, it is obliged to try to bring him back. But if El Salvador has evidence or its own charges against this person, his return to the United States will be complicated. Right now, we don’t have official documentation proving these charges in El Salvador. Due process and legal clarity are essential in any democracy.

Host:
Finally, attorney, what do you recommend for people who have immigration court appointments and are afraid to attend?

Attorney Martha L. Arias:
I recommend following your attorney’s specific advice. If you don’t have an attorney, you should find one. In my experience, those who do not have previous deportation orders or criminal records shouldn’t have issues attending.

Host:
Where can people contact Martha Arias?

Attorney Martha L. Arias:
You can visit my website at ariasvilla.com or call the number 305-233-3310.

Host:
Thank you, attorney Martha Arias, for joining us.

Attorney Martha L. Arias:
Thank you, and I hope you enjoyed the peacock’s serenade!

The post The Importance of Due Process: Discussing the Quilmar Ábrego García Case appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

USCIS Ends Automatic Social Security Number Update

Martha Arias — Mon, 14 Apr 2025 20:23:06 +0000

Recent changes in the coordination between U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the Social Security Administration (SSA) could impact how you receive or update your Social Security Number (SSN).

Understanding the Change

Historically, USCIS and SSA collaborated to streamline the process of issuing SSNs to individuals who received work permits or became naturalized citizens. This coordination often meant that new SSN cards or updates to existing records were processed automatically, reducing the need for additional steps by the applicant.

However, as of early 2025, this automatic communication has been suspended. The SSA has temporarily paused the Enumeration Beyond Entry (EBE) program, which facilitated the automatic issuance and updating of SSNs for certain immigration applicants. This change affects individuals who:

Have been granted work authorization (via Form I-765) and do not yet have an SSN.
Have recently become U.S. citizens through naturalization (via Form N-400) and need to update their citizenship status with the SSA.

For Work Permit Holders Without an SSN

If you’ve received a work permit but do not have an SSN, you will now need to apply for one directly through the SSA. This involves:

Completing the Application: Fill out Form SS-5, the Application for a Social Security Card. You can start this process online through the SSA’s Online Social Security Number Application Process (oSSNAP).
Scheduling an Appointment: Most SSA field offices require an appointment. After completing the online application, you can self-schedule an appointment to present your documents in person.
Providing Necessary Documents: Bring original documents proving your age, identity, and work-authorized immigration status, such as your Employment Authorization Document (EAD).

For New U.S. Citizens

If you’ve recently become a U.S. citizen, it’s important to update your citizenship status with the SSA to ensure your records are accurate. This process includes:

Visiting the SSA Office: Schedule an appointment with your local SSA office.
Bringing Required Documents: Provide your Certificate of Naturalization or U.S. passport to verify your new citizenship status.
Completing the Update: The SSA will update your records and issue a new SSN card reflecting your citizenship status.

Utilizing the oSSNAP Process

The SSA’s Online Social Security Number Application Process (oSSNAP) is designed to streamline the application process. Here’s how it works:

Start Online: Begin your application on the SSA’s website, providing necessary information.
Schedule an Appointment: After completing the online portion, schedule an in-person appointment to present your original documents.
Complete the Process: During your appointment, an SSA representative will verify your documents and finalize your application.

This process helps reduce wait times and ensures a smoother experience at the SSA office.

Final Thoughts

Navigating these changes can be challenging, but understanding the new procedures will help you take the necessary steps to maintain accurate records with the SSA. If you have questions or need assistance, don’t hesitate to reach out to our office. We’re here to support you every step of the way.

Disclaimer: This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For personalized guidance, please consult with a qualified immigration attorney.

The post USCIS Ends Automatic Social Security Number Update appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..