Political Asylum Archives - Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq. https://ariasvilla.com/tag/political-asylum/ Miami Immigration Law Attorney Thu, 04 Dec 2025 23:49:25 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0 https://ariasvilla.com/wp-content/uploads/cropped-cropped-Arias-Villa-Law-Logo-32x32.webp Political Asylum Archives - Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq. https://ariasvilla.com/tag/political-asylum/ 32 32 How New Security Screening Measures for 19 Countries Affect Immigration Process? https://ariasvilla.com/how-new-security-screening-measures-for-19-countries-affect-immigration-process/ https://ariasvilla.com/how-new-security-screening-measures-for-19-countries-affect-immigration-process/#respond Thu, 04 Dec 2025 23:49:25 +0000 https://ariasvilla.com/?p=11816 The post How New Security Screening Measures for 19 Countries Affect Immigration Process? appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

]]>

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.

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. State Department Implementation: Visa operations for these countries have been subject to limitations under the proclamation’s framework.
  4. 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..

]]> https://ariasvilla.com/how-new-security-screening-measures-for-19-countries-affect-immigration-process/feed/ 0 What the New USCIS Suspensions Mean for Asylum Seekers https://ariasvilla.com/what-the-new-uscis-suspensions-mean-for-asylum-seekers/ https://ariasvilla.com/what-the-new-uscis-suspensions-mean-for-asylum-seekers/#respond Wed, 03 Dec 2025 23:51:40 +0000 https://ariasvilla.com/?p=11810 The post What the New USCIS Suspensions Mean for Asylum Seekers appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

]]>

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.

Immigration Lawyer Martha L. Arias - Arias Villa Law - U.S. Immigration Legal Documents

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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..

]]> https://ariasvilla.com/what-the-new-uscis-suspensions-mean-for-asylum-seekers/feed/ 0 Understanding the Latest TPS Developments https://ariasvilla.com/understanding-the-latest-tps-developments/ https://ariasvilla.com/understanding-the-latest-tps-developments/#respond Wed, 19 Nov 2025 13:19:28 +0000 https://ariasvilla.com/?p=11794 The post Understanding the Latest TPS Developments appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

]]>

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..

]]> https://ariasvilla.com/understanding-the-latest-tps-developments/feed/ 0 After TPS: The Hard Truth Facing Venezuelans in the U.S. https://ariasvilla.com/after-tps-the-hard-truth-facing-venezuelans-in-the-u-s/ https://ariasvilla.com/after-tps-the-hard-truth-facing-venezuelans-in-the-u-s/#respond Wed, 12 Nov 2025 19:16:25 +0000 https://ariasvilla.com/?p=11787 The post After TPS: The Hard Truth Facing Venezuelans in the U.S. appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

]]>

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

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

FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA

The Human Impact Behind the Numbers

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

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

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

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

The Responsibility of Staying Without Legal Status

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

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

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

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

A Historical Perspective: TPS Has Always Been Temporary

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

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

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

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

Miami Immigration Lawyer - Humanitarian Parole Services

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SPANISH TRANSCRIPT:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ENGLISH TRANSLATION:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

]]> https://ariasvilla.com/after-tps-the-hard-truth-facing-venezuelans-in-the-u-s/feed/ 0 Venezuelan TPS: After the Government’s Appeal https://ariasvilla.com/venezuelan-tps-after-the-governments-appeal/ https://ariasvilla.com/venezuelan-tps-after-the-governments-appeal/#respond Thu, 11 Sep 2025 22:14:16 +0000 https://ariasvilla.com/?p=11671 The post Venezuelan TPS: After the Government’s Appeal appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

]]>

During my conversation with journalist Orian Brito on September 9, I explained where things stand for Venezuelan nationals under Temporary Protected Status (TPS). Judge Edward Chen’s recent order keeps TPS in place for now, but the Department of Homeland Security has already appealed in the Ninth Circuit. As we have seen in prior TPS litigation, the legal fight can eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

For those whose TPS (2021 designation) shows an expiration of September 10, there is an automatic 60‑day extension through November 10, 2025. In practice, that means your Employment Authorization Document (EAD) tied to TPS is also considered valid through that date, even if the card itself shows an earlier expiration. You may print the relevant USCIS notice and present it to your employer if asked for proof.

Because the litigation is fluid, I recommend re‑registering for TPS within the 60‑day window. If the courts later allow TPS to continue, your timely re‑registration helps keep you protected. If you also have other options—such as a family‑based petition, employment sponsorship, or a pending asylum case—these may offer more stability in the long run. Every situation is different; professional guidance matters.

If you need help evaluating your options or completing your TPS re‑registration, my office is here to assist at (305) 671‑0018 or ariasvilla.com. Stay informed, stay proactive, and please seek qualified legal advice before making important decisions.

Disclaimer: This post is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney‑client relationship. For advice about your specific situation, please consult a licensed attorney.

FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA

Spanish Transcript

ORIAN BRITO:
Amigos, 9 de septiembre. Más de medio millón de venezolanos con TPS en Estados Unidos están a la espera de la decisión del juez Edward Chen respecto a la apelación presentada por el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional, que busca poner fin a este beneficio migratorio. La incertidumbre es grande. Las preguntas son muchas. Ustedes me las dejan en esta red social, no solo por las licencias, sino también por qué va a pasar con el permiso de trabajo. Es una de las que leí.

Por eso, en este espacio vamos a conversar con la abogada de inmigración del sur de la Florida, Martha Arias, que nos va a ayudar a responder algunas dudas sobre lo que puede pasar con este programa, cuáles son los escenarios legales y qué significa este proceso para los venezolanos amparados bajo este estatus. Como siempre, los invito a que se queden, a que dejen sus preguntas y les agradezco que se suscriban y sean parte de esta comunidad.

Abogada, buenas tardes. El gobierno no tardó en apelar: el viernes celebramos la decisión del juez Chen y el sábado apeló. Estamos a la expectativa de lo que pueda decidirse. La apelación del gobierno pide que el juez, como que, desestime su propia decisión, algo que yo veo casi imposible, ¿no? ¿Cómo lo ve usted?

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Yo lo veo poco probable, pero tampoco imposible porque, fíjese, la apelación se hace en el Noveno Circuito, que es el circuito que le corresponde a California. El Noveno Circuito se caracteriza por ser más bien demócrata o, como la gente lo llama, liberal. Entonces, sabemos que el juez Chen tiene una tendencia más demócrata. Por eso, no veo imposible que se mantenga esa decisión del juez. Pero, igual, el gobierno está presionando fuerte porque la intención del gobierno es terminar el TPS.

ORIAN BRITO:
¿Terminarlo, terminarlo…?

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Sí. Lo mismo que pasó con el TPS del 2023 fue algo similar: ese TPS fue terminado, después el juez dijo que no; se apeló, se mantuvo esa decisión del juez; y el gobierno después fue a la Corte Suprema y la Corte Suprema fue la que finalmente dijo: “Sí, el gobierno lo puede terminar.” O sea, no fue el Noveno Circuito, la sala de apelaciones, la que dio la decisión final de terminar el TPS; la dio la misma Corte Suprema. Entonces, aquí puede pasar lo mismo.

ORIAN BRITO:
Cuando hablamos de que puede pasar lo mismo, quiere decir que, independientemente de que el juez tomó una decisión a favor, el gobierno podría —y esta pregunta me la han hecho ya esta semana— recurrir a esa vía de la Corte Suprema para decir: “Bueno, si esto lo pongo yo, ¿no tengo el derecho de quitarlo?”

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
No, pero lo que pasa es que no es, técnicamente, que él tenga el derecho de quitarlo, porque acuérdense que lo que él hizo fue una medida cautelar, que dijo: “No voy a permitir que se termine mientras el litigio continúa.” Entonces, lo que se apela es esa decisión de esa medida cautelar. Esa es la parte que puede subir a la Corte Suprema.

ORIAN BRITO:
Entre tanto, aquí hay un grupo de personas que se mantienen en un limbo. Hay dos situaciones evidentes, a juzgar por los comentarios que me hacen. Una tiene que ver con los permisos de trabajo. Algunos de estos permisos de trabajo tienen fecha de vencimiento tan pronto como mañana, 10 de septiembre, ¿no? Hay gente que me dice: “Ya sometí una extensión.” Hay gente que me dice: “Tengo dudas si es que esto automáticamente está extendido, aunque la fecha diga que vence mañana.” ¿Dónde estamos y qué se les puede decir a esas personas que tienen la incertidumbre y, por supuesto, el temor de perder su trabajo?

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Claro. Bueno, no es fácil, es complicado, pero a ver: cuando la Secretaría de Seguridad Nacional terminó el TPS del 2021 —que vence mañana—, al terminarlo, dio una prórroga automática, vamos a decir, como un periodo de prueba de 60 días. Esto quiere decir que hasta el 10 de noviembre de 2025 esos venezolanos que tenían el TPS que vence mañana, 10 de septiembre, tendrían esa prórroga automática hasta el 10 de noviembre. Eso quiere decir que su permiso de trabajo también sigue siendo válido hasta esa fecha, aunque la tarjeta diga que venció el 10 de septiembre. Es una prórroga automática.

La persona puede imprimir de la página web de inmigración la información de esa prórroga para presentársela a su empleador, si el empleador le pide esa prueba o no sabe cuál es el estatus migratorio ni la validez de ese trabajo.

Ahora, yo también les estoy recomendando a las personas que hagan una re-registración del TPS a partir de mañana, dentro de este periodo de 60 días. ¿Por qué? Porque no sabemos cómo va a continuar el litigio y, vamos a decir, que tengan la suerte de que en alguna parte de este litigio se extienda otra vez el TPS; entonces, la persona va a quedar protegida por esa re-registración que ya haya hecho.

Entonces, la situación es: la validez sería hasta el 10 de noviembre de este año, a no ser que algo, en alguna de estas cortes, autorice otra vez que se continúe con el TPS.

ORIAN BRITO:
Bueno, registrarse y entender que esa extensión podría ser, por lo pronto, para los del TPS 2021, válida por 60 días. Ahora, la gran incertidumbre es qué puede pasar después, porque los días pasan.

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
La incertidumbre es qué puede pasar después. Si hay, de pronto, alguna demanda o algo que permita que estos venezolanos puedan continuar con el TPS, pues veremos qué va a pasar. Por ahora, seguimos con el vaivén de las cosas. Todos los días es algo distinto: hay una decisión que lo termina, después una apelación dice que no, y en esas vamos. Pero, por ahora, hoy que estamos hablando, 9 de septiembre, este TPS está extendido, sigue extendido.

O sea, el gobierno apeló el sábado; esa decisión de apelación no va a salir todavía. Entonces, hoy tenemos en firme la decisión del juez Chen, del viernes, que dijo que el TPS debería continuar.

ORIAN BRITO:
OK. Aunque, en el sistema, los comentarios son variados. Hay personas que se han podido registrar, pero no les dan recibo. Otros sí lo tienen. Hay gente que no puede sacar una licencia; ha sido todo un tema…

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Los de la licencia: sí deberían permitirles sacar licencia porque el mismo boletín, o el mismo documento, dice que tiene 60 días de validez.

ORIAN BRITO:
De hecho, el propio recaudador de impuestos de Miami-Dade nos envió un comunicado donde decía que, a esas personas con ese TPS —más el permiso de trabajo—, esos eran los documentos que les permitían a la gente obtener la licencia, y lo iban a recibir hasta el 7 de noviembre de este año. Por cuánto lo van a extender o por cuánto les van a dar la licencia no me queda claro.

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Yo me imagino que si van antes, se la van a dar hasta los 60 días, hasta el vencimiento de esos 60 días, que en este caso sería el 10 de noviembre de 2025. No se la pueden dar por más tiempo, porque hasta allí es que van a tener el estatus.

ORIAN BRITO:
Claro. Bueno, quiero leer algunos de los comentarios porque, abogada, estoy contento además porque la he perseguido durante varios días; está muy full y hoy nos puede acompañar. Siempre me gusta porque —como lo digo—, abogada, hay mucha gente que entiendo que, en medio del nerviosismo, se irrita. A veces el abogado no dice lo que la gente quiere escuchar, pero yo creo que, en este momento, la preparación y escuchar, sobre todo, lo que no te gusta, es lo que te puede brindar la verdadera luz del camino a seguir, para que busques una forma y te estabilices en el país.

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Exacto. El problema es que hay personas que sí tienen una forma de resolver su estatus migratorio porque tienen un esposo ciudadano americano o residente, o tienen una petición familiar de un padre o un hermano.

ORIAN BRITO:
O un empleador.

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
O un empleador. Otros, pues, que tienen el asilo pendiente, que les puede continuar dando una protección. Pero muchas personas que no tienen ninguna otra forma de resolver su estatus migratorio —no tienen ninguna petición familiar, ninguna petición de empleador—, realmente lo que tienen que hacer es tratar de resolver su situación; si no lo pueden hacer, entonces pensar en la posibilidad de irse. Porque veo difícil que una persona se pueda quedar indocumentada en Estados Unidos, como estamos viendo las cosas: están aumentando los procesos de deportación rápida y estas deportaciones masivas que estamos viendo en esta administración.

Entonces, yo creo que sería demasiado tenso y presionante para una persona quedarse definitivamente sin estatus migratorio.

ORIAN BRITO:
Sí, sí. Y hay que estar pendiente, porque esta batalla es judicial. Aunque el juez pueda rechazar la apelación del gobierno, el gobierno va a buscar otros mecanismos para llevar esto adonde consiga lo que pretende, que es poner fin al programa.

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Correcto.

ORIAN BRITO:
Gracias. Bueno, Douglas Rodríguez, un gran abrazo. Dice: “Eres uno de los pocos que da información tal cual, sin falsas expectativas. Siempre veo tu programa y me parece excelente porque dices las cosas con claridad y sin adornos. Quien quiere escuchar la verdad sabe que aquí la consigue. No existe otro espacio igual.” Muchísimas gracias, Douglas, y un fuerte abrazo. Ese es el compromiso. Yo, insisto, abogada, yo no quería hacer de este espacio algo dedicado a la inmigración, porque hay tantos temas en el mundo: temas políticos, temas de interés, destinos que uno visita y conoce y quisiera compartir. Pero la vida y la gente me han llevado a este camino, y es el compromiso de seguir, ¿no? Para ayudarlos en la medida de lo posible.

Otra persona me pide que demos su nombre. Saludos desde Columbus, Ohio. Pudo renovar su licencia en el DMV de la zona norte. No le preguntaron nada; solo se presentó como si fuera a sacarse una cédula, con buena presencia, con buena actitud y una sonrisa. Con todo en la mano, la renovación se la dieron —escuchen— hasta 28 de marzo de 2026. Solo le pidieron la licencia que está por vencer, prueba de residencia; mostró su TPS 2021, su permiso de trabajo —este permiso de trabajo vencido en 2022— con el papel de recibido: ya está aprobado, solo tiene que esperar la carta de aprobación y los documentos. Este es por asilo. Todo fluyó bien, más de lo que pensaba. ¡Qué bueno, qué bueno! Porque tener la licencia —y sabía que ese era uno de los sitios donde más se registraban problemas—…

La pregunta es: ¿qué pasa si hay retrasos en la renovación de mi permiso de trabajo? —pregunta María Gómez.

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Sí, pero ¿el permiso de trabajo a través de TPS?

ORIAN BRITO:
De TPS, sí.

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Bueno, si hay retrasos porque la persona vaya a hacer una re-registración y su caso está en trámite, lo que habrá es que esperar el retraso. No creo que el gobierno vaya a apurarse a aprobar un permiso de trabajo cuando el mismo gobierno está pretendiendo terminar el TPS. Entonces, hacer esa re-registración y volver a pedir el permiso es como una protección, y tener ese recibo que muestra que la persona lo hizo. Pero, la verdad, no creo que esa petición de permiso de trabajo vaya a llegar muy rápido.

ORIAN BRITO:
OK. Liliana Torres: “Hoy fui a sacar la licencia —ayer, lunes— y no me la dieron porque dicen que no tienen autorización.” Es el verdadero drama. Hola, Orian: todavía no se ha publicado la decisión del juez Chen para registrarse en el TPS. ¿Debo esperar que se publique en inmigración esa decisión y si acatará la sentencia del juez Chen? ¿Cuándo podremos registrarnos o hago la registración de mi TPS 2023 sin esperar más?

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
El del 2023, no. Yo haría las re-registraciones del TPS 2021, que es el que vence mañana. El TPS del 2023 realmente está —vamos a decir— casi que muerto; pues todavía hay un litigio que continúa, pero no veo la posibilidad allí. Sí es cierto que el gobierno no ha publicado la decisión del juez Chen del viernes. Y no creo que la vaya a publicar tampoco. Yo no creo que el gobierno esté asumiendo la posición de publicar esto, y más que apelaron el sábado. Entonces, sí, es un reto porque la persona que vaya a pedir la re-registración puede que el mismo gobierno se la devuelva; puede que se la acepte y le emita el recibo. La verdad, todos estamos aquí —vamos a decir— inventando.

ORIAN BRITO:
Un día a la vez, a la buena de Dios.

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Exacto, a la buena de Dios. Esa es la palabra.

ORIAN BRITO:
Sí, es así, porque entonces usted va a intentar; si no viene, entonces no viene. Uno trata, pero esto es un sorteo. Esto es como cuando uno va a sacar la visa: uno llega a esa taquilla con buena actitud, con la mejor de las ganas, y puede ser que te reboten, que te digan que no, aunque tengas todos los documentos. Yo recuerdo que, antes de venir a este país, me la negaron dos veces. Abogada, eso para mí fue —la primera vez— un poco traumático porque, además, no pude hacer nada: estaba muy pequeño; mi mamá dijo que era madre soltera —no sé por qué dijo eso porque, aunque mi mamá estaba divorciada, yo tengo a mi papá y él se quedó—. Y la segunda vez, mi mamá había fallecido y, cuando llegué, me preguntaron —tenía 20 años, recuerdo— qué propiedad tenía. Y yo dije: “Bueno, ¿qué propiedad con 20 años podía tener?” Y me la negaron. Pero fue traumático, porque uno sale desmoralizado de ahí.

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Claro. Cualquier negatoria de un proceso migratorio afecta a las personas, sea una simple visa de turista o…

ORIAN BRITO:
Eso es horrible, horrible. Perfecto. Dos preguntas más para concluir. Alba Alcalá: “Del TPS 2021 salí del asilo de mi mamá por matrimonio con ciudadano. Permiso de trabajo por asilo. ¿Debo pedirlo por TPS? No he hecho ajuste todavía.”

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Uy, pero esas preguntas están como enredadas, porque lo que entendí es…

ORIAN BRITO:
Salió del asilo.

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
…salió del asilo porque se casó con ciudadano americano. Pero tiene TPS; vuelve y desisto. Pero, para que haya TPS, está casada con ciudadano americano…

ORIAN BRITO:
Ahora, si yo tuviese asilo y TPS, preferiría —en mi caso— pedir mi permiso de trabajo por el asilo más que por el TPS. Usted me corrige.

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Claro, claro, por el asilo, porque le va a dar más tiempo, y, pues, el asilo, en este momento, no tiene la persona la cita. En cambio, el TPS sí; ya vemos que lo están terminando.

ORIAN BRITO:
Perfecto. Otra persona dice: “Me registré, pero no he pedido el permiso de trabajo.” Bueno, tienes que pedirlo, porque lo peor es que no te lo den; pero hay que trabajar, a menos que no lo necesites, ¿no?

Bueno, abogada, me gustaría que quede su número de contacto. Gracias por dedicarnos estos minutos. Por supuesto, vamos a estar muy pendientes a la decisión, a la respuesta que pueda dar —por supuesto— el gobierno, para ampliarla a todos ustedes. Y me gustaría que cualquier persona que desee tener la asesoría de la abogada Martha Arias, que, además, tiene un espacio a las siete en América Radio 1260 AM, siempre lo utilizamos en los diversos espacios para la red de temas de inmigración… Me gusta que hoy me haya acompañado. ¿Dónde la pueden contactar?

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Sí, muchas gracias, Orian. Muchas gracias por invitarme. Efectivamente, los martes a las 7:00 p. m., en América Radio, tenemos el programa donde contestamos preguntas a los oyentes. Mi teléfono de oficina es el 305-671-0018. Pueden buscarme en mi página web ariasvilla.com.

ORIAN BRITO:
¿Cuántos años, abogada, tiene usted ejerciendo aquí en el sur de la Florida?

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Sí, como abogada de inmigración ejerciendo aquí, en el sur de la Florida, llevo 22 años, desde el 2003. Bastante tiempo. Exitosamente y con mucho orgullo he ejercido este derecho migratorio por 22 años. Me apasiona el tema, me encanta. Sí tengo que reconocer que este año ha sido uno de los años más retadores de la práctica migratoria, y en este sentido comparte la mayoría de los abogados de inmigración. Es muy difícil porque hay muchos cambios; hay unas políticas muy fuertes, agresivas, y, pues, esto hace que la práctica sea mucho más complicada y menos motivante, vamos a decir, pero, pues, tenemos que seguir en esa lucha.

ORIAN BRITO:
Además, hemos hecho un trabajo bonito porque los abogados, por un lado, explican, interpretan la ley, nos ponen al día de lo que está pasando; pero ya hemos hecho una relación entre abogados y periodistas donde drenamos, discutimos, nos reímos de las cosas de las que nos podemos reír, nos molestamos cuando hay que molestarse, pero vamos haciendo como una especie de soporte emocional, ¿no?

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Sí; o sea, en realidad es, precisamente, mostrar esa noticia diaria, mostrar esa política administrativa que, pues, lo más que uno puede es tratar de abogar porque se haga validez a la ley y a la Constitución, a los principios del derecho; pero, pues, tampoco nosotros los abogados podemos más que hacer eso. Obviamente, las políticas administrativas las establece cada nuevo presidente. Y estamos viendo que, aunque la ley no ha cambiado mucho, las políticas administrativas sí; y tenemos una cantidad de nuevas políticas administrativas en adición a una, pues, que es la más impactante en este momento, que es uno de los procesos de desnaturalización —es decir, tratar de quitarle la ciudadanía a las personas que adquirieron en algún momento su residencia o la ciudadanía misma con fraude, con mentiras—.

Entonces, estamos en un proceso de cambios muy constantes y, aparte de los cambios constantes, una política migratoria muy estricta. Por ejemplo, personas que tenían una orden de deportación y podían reabrir sus casos: uno les presentaba una petición familiar si estaban casados con ciudadano americano —por ejemplo—, o un hijo ciudadano americano, adulto, que los pedía; uno presentaba la petición y rara vez les daban una cita. Ahora les están dando cita y los están deteniendo en esa cita si tienen orden de deportación. Quiere decir que le importa la posibilidad de hacer una reapertura para esa persona para poder ajustar su estatus. Y importa muchos otros beneficios, como esos perdones que uno presentaba —la persona estando aquí— para poder ir fuera de los Estados Unidos a recibir la residencia. Si esa persona tiene una orden final, pues uno ya no va a querer presentar esa I‑130 o esa petición, porque hay una gran probabilidad de que los detengan, los arresten, al entrevistarlos.

Entonces, estos son esos cambios y esto es lo que está pasando en este momento.

ORIAN BRITO:
Gracias, abogada, por agregar esta realidad que se está viviendo, y es importante, por eso, que usted se asesore bien antes de asistir a alguna cita o someter alguna planilla. Eso es fundamental. Una asesoría en este momento puede hacer la diferencia en medio de estos cambios que se están viviendo —como lo describe la abogada Martha Arias—. Usted ya tiene aquí información precisa; hemos respondido a algunas de sus preguntas, las recurrentes. Le invito a que comparta esta información con algún familiar o conocido que esté en esta situación y, por supuesto, mañana nos volvemos a conectar con otra cosa que pueda ocurrir en el tema migratorio aquí en Estados Unidos.

Gracias, abogada, y muy buenas tardes —o buenas noches ya para todos—.

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Gracias, Orian. Felicidades para todos. Hasta la próxima.

ORIAN BRITO:
Hasta la próxima.

English Translation

ORIAN BRITO:
Friends, September 9. More than half a million Venezuelans with TPS in the United States are awaiting Judge Edward Chen’s decision regarding the appeal filed by the Department of Homeland Security, which seeks to end this immigration benefit. The uncertainty is great. The questions are many. You leave them for me on this social network—not only about driver’s licenses, but also about what will happen with the work permit. That is one of the questions I read.

That is why, in this space, we are going to talk with the immigration attorney from South Florida, Martha Arias, who is going to help us answer some doubts about what could happen with this program, what the legal scenarios are, and what this process means for Venezuelans protected under this status. As always, I invite you to stay, to leave your questions, and I thank you for subscribing and being part of this community.

Attorney, good afternoon. The government did not take long to appeal: on Friday we celebrated Judge Chen’s decision, and on Saturday it appealed. We are waiting to see what might be decided. The government’s appeal asks the judge to, sort of, dismiss his own decision—something I see as almost impossible, right? How do you see it?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
I see it as unlikely, but not impossible either, because, look, the appeal is being made in the Ninth Circuit, which is the circuit that corresponds to California. The Ninth Circuit is known for being more Democratic or, as people call it, liberal. So we know that Judge Chen has a more Democratic tendency. Therefore, I do not see it as impossible that the judge’s decision will be maintained. But still, the government is pressing hard because the government’s intention is to end TPS.

ORIAN BRITO:
End it, end it…?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Yes. The same thing that happened with TPS in 2023 was something similar: that TPS was ended; then the judge said no; it was appealed; that judge’s decision was maintained; and the government later went to the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court was the one that finally said: “Yes, the government can end it.” In other words, it was not the Ninth Circuit, the court of appeals, that gave the final decision to end TPS; it was the Supreme Court itself. So, the same thing could happen here.

ORIAN BRITO:
When we say the same thing could happen, it means that, regardless of the judge having made a decision in favor, the government could—and this question has already been asked to me this week—resort to that path to the Supreme Court to say: “Well, if I granted this, don’t I have the right to take it away?”

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
No, but what happens is that it is not, technically, that he has the right to take it away, because remember that what he issued was a preliminary injunction, which said: “I will not allow it to end while the litigation continues.” So what is being appealed is that injunction. That is the part that could go up to the Supreme Court.

ORIAN BRITO:
Meanwhile, there is a group of people who remain in limbo. There are two evident situations, judging by the comments I receive. One has to do with work permits. Some of these work permits have an expiration date as soon as tomorrow, September 10. Some people tell me, “I already submitted an extension.” Others tell me, “I have doubts whether this is automatically extended, even though the date says it expires tomorrow.” Where do we stand, and what can be said to those people who have the uncertainty and, of course, the fear of losing their jobs?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Of course. Well, it is not easy; it is complicated, but let’s see: when the Department of Homeland Security ended TPS from 2021—which expires tomorrow—upon ending it, they granted an automatic extension, let’s say, like a 60-day grace period. This means that until November 10, 2025, those Venezuelans whose TPS says it expires tomorrow, September 10, would have that automatic extension until November 10. That means their work permit also continues to be valid until that date, even if the card says it expired on September 10. It is an automatic extension.

The person can print the information about that extension from the immigration website to present it to their employer, if the employer asks for that proof or does not know the immigration status or the validity of that work authorization.

Now, I am also recommending that people re-register for TPS starting tomorrow, within this 60-day period. Why? Because we do not know how the litigation will continue, and—let’s say—they get lucky that at some point during this litigation TPS is extended again; then, the person will be protected by that re-registration already done.

So, the situation is: the validity would be until November 10 of this year, unless something, in any of these courts, authorizes once again that TPS continue.

ORIAN BRITO:
Well, re-register and understand that this extension could be, for now, for those from TPS 2021, valid for 60 days. Now, the big uncertainty is what could happen after, because the days go by.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
The uncertainty is what could happen after. If there is, suddenly, some lawsuit or something that allows these Venezuelans to continue with TPS, then we will see what will happen. For now, we continue with the back-and-forth of things. Every day it is something different: there is a decision that ends it; then an appeal says no; and that is where we are. But for now, today as we speak, September 9, this TPS is extended; it remains extended.

That is, the government appealed on Saturday; that appeal decision will not come out yet. So today we have in force Judge Chen’s decision from Friday, which said that TPS should continue.

ORIAN BRITO:
OK. Although, in the system, the comments are varied. There are people who have been able to register but are not given a receipt. Others do have it. There are people who cannot get a driver’s license; it has been a whole issue…

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
As for licenses: they should allow them to get a license because the same bulletin, or the same document, says it has 60 days of validity.

ORIAN BRITO:
In fact, the Miami-Dade tax collector himself sent us a statement saying that for those people with that TPS, plus the work permit, those were the documents that allowed people to obtain the license, and they were going to accept them until November 7 of this year. For how long they will extend it, or for how long they will issue the license, is not clear to me.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
I imagine that if they go before, they will issue it up to the 60 days, up to the expiration of those 60 days, which in this case would be November 10, 2025. They cannot issue the license for longer, because that is how long they will have status.

ORIAN BRITO:
Of course. Well, I want to read some of the comments because—attorney—I am happy; I have been trying to reach you for several days. You are very busy, and today you can join us. I always like it because—as I say—there are many people who, in the midst of nervousness, get irritated. Sometimes the attorney does not say what people want to hear, but I think that, at this moment, preparation and listening, especially to what you do not want to hear, is what can shed the true light on the path to follow, so that you can find a way and stabilize yourself in the country.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Exactly. The problem is that there are people who do have a way to resolve their immigration status because they have a U.S. citizen or resident spouse, or they have a family petition from a parent or a sibling.

ORIAN BRITO:
Or an employer.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Or an employer. Others have asylum pending, which can continue providing protection. But many people who have no other way to resolve their immigration status—no family petition, no employer petition—really what they have to do is try to resolve their situation; if they cannot, then think about the possibility of leaving. Because I find it difficult for someone to remain undocumented in the United States, as we are seeing things: the processes of expedited removal are increasing and these mass deportations we are seeing in this administration.

So I think it would be too tense and stressful for a person to remain definitively without immigration status.

ORIAN BRITO:
Yes, yes. And you have to be attentive because this battle is judicial. Even if the judge can reject the government’s appeal, the government will look for other mechanisms to take this to where it gets what it intends, which is to end the program.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Correct.

ORIAN BRITO:
Thank you. Well, Douglas Rodríguez, a big hug. He says: “You are one of the few who gives information as it is, without false expectations. I always watch your program, and I think it is excellent because you say things clearly and without embellishment. Whoever wants to hear the truth knows they can find it here. There is no other space like it.” Thank you very much, Douglas, and a big hug. That is the commitment. I insist, attorney, I did not want to make this space something dedicated to immigration because there are so many topics in the world—political topics, topics of interest, destinations one visits and knows and would like to share. But life and people have led me down this path, and it is the commitment to continue, right? To help you as much as possible.

Another person asks me to give their name. Greetings from Columbus, Ohio. They were able to renew their license at the DMV in the north area. They were not asked anything; they just showed up as if to get an ID card—with good presence, good attitude, and a smile. With everything in hand, the renewal was granted—listen—until March 28, 2026. They were only asked for the license that was about to expire, proof of residence; they showed their TPS 2021, their work permit—this work permit expired in 2022—with the receipt; it is already approved; they just have to wait for the approval notice and the documents. This one is through asylum. Everything flowed well—better than expected. How good, how good, because having the license, and I knew that this was one of the places where more problems were reported…

The question is: “What happens if there are delays in the renewal of my work permit?” asks María Gómez.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Yes, but the work permit through TPS?

ORIAN BRITO:
Through TPS, yes.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Well, if there are delays because the person is going to do a re-registration and it will be processed, what they will have to do is wait; there will be delay. I do not think the government is going to hurry to approve a work permit when the same government is intending to end TPS. So doing that re-registration and requesting the work permit again is like a protection, and having that receipt that shows the person did it. But honestly, I do not think that work permit request will be approved very quickly.

ORIAN BRITO:
OK. Liliana Torres: “Today I went to get the license—yesterday, Monday—and they did not give it to me because they say they do not have authorization.” That is the real drama. Hello, Orian: the judge Chen’s decision has not yet been published to register for TPS. Should I wait for that decision to be published on immigration and whether they will comply with Judge Chen’s ruling? When will we be able to register, or do I do my TPS 2023 registration without waiting any longer?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Not the one from 2023. I would do the re-registrations of TPS 2021, which is the one that expires tomorrow. TPS 2023 is really, let’s say, almost dead; there is still litigation that continues, but I do not see the possibility there. It is true that the government has not published Judge Chen’s decision from Friday. And I do not think they are going to publish it either. I do not think the government is taking the position to publish this, especially since they appealed on Saturday. So yes, it is a challenge because the person who goes to request the re-registration may have it returned by the government; or they may accept it and issue the receipt. Honestly, we are all here, let’s say, figuring it out.

ORIAN BRITO:
One day at a time, God willing.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Exactly—God willing. That is the word.

ORIAN BRITO:
Yes, that is how it is, because then you will try; if it does not come, then it does not come. One tries, but this is a lottery. It is like when one goes to get a visa: you arrive at the window with a good attitude, with the best disposition, and you may be rejected, told no, even if you have all the documents. I remember that, before coming to this country, I was denied twice. Attorney, that was— the first time— a bit traumatic for me because, in addition, I could not do anything: I was very young; my mother said that she was a single mother—I do not know why she said that because, although my mother was divorced, I have my father and he stayed. And the second time, my mother had passed away and, when I arrived, they asked me— I was 20 years old, I remember— what property I had. And I said, “Well, what property could I have at 20 years old?” And they denied me. But it was traumatic, because one leaves there demoralized.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Of course. Any denial of an immigration process affects people—be it a simple tourist visa or…

ORIAN BRITO:
It is horrible, horrible. Perfect. Two more questions to conclude. Alba Alcalá: “From TPS 2021 I left my mother’s asylum due to marriage to a citizen. Work permit through asylum. Should I request it through TPS? I have not done adjustment yet.”

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Wow, but those questions are a bit tangled, because what I understood is…

ORIAN BRITO:
She left asylum.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
…she left asylum because she married a U.S. citizen. But she has TPS; I go back and desist. But for there to be TPS, she is married to a U.S. citizen…

ORIAN BRITO:
Now, if I had asylum and TPS, I would prefer—in my case— to request my work permit through asylum rather than through TPS. You correct me.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Of course, of course—through asylum—because it will give more time, and, well, with asylum, at this moment, the person does not have the interview scheduled. In contrast, TPS—as we can see— they are ending it.

ORIAN BRITO:
Perfect. Another person says: “I registered but I have not requested the work permit.” Well, you have to request it, because the worst thing is that they do not grant it; but you need to work, unless you do not need it, right?

Well, attorney, I would like your contact number to remain on record. Thank you for giving us these minutes. Of course, we are going to be very attentive to the decision, to the response that the government may give, to share it with all of you. And I would like that any person who wishes to have the advice of attorney Martha Arias, who also has a segment at seven on América Radio 1260 AM, which we always use in various spaces for the network on immigration topics… I am glad you joined me today. Where can they contact you?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Yes, thank you very much, Orian. Thank you very much for inviting me. Indeed, on Tuesdays at 7:00 p.m., on América Radio, we have the program where we answer listeners’ questions. My office phone number is 305-671-0018. You can find me on my website ariasvilla.com.

ORIAN BRITO:
How many years, attorney, have you been practicing here in South Florida?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Yes—as an immigration attorney practicing here in South Florida— I have been practicing for 22 years, since 2003. Quite a long time. I have practiced this field of immigration law successfully and with great pride for 22 years. I am passionate about the topic; I love it. I do have to acknowledge that this year has been one of the most challenging years in immigration practice, and most immigration attorneys share this sentiment. It is very difficult because there are many changes; there are very strong, aggressive policies, and this makes practice much more complicated and less motivating, so to speak; but we have to keep fighting.

ORIAN BRITO:
Moreover, we have done a nice job because attorneys, on the one hand, explain—interpret the law—and keep us up to date on what is happening; and we have already formed a relationship between attorneys and journalists where we vent, discuss, laugh about the things we can laugh about, get upset when we have to, but we are building a sort of emotional support.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Yes; that is, in reality, it is precisely to show that daily news, to show that administrative policy; the most we can do is try to advocate for upholding the law and the Constitution, the principles of law; but, well, we attorneys cannot do more than that. Obviously, administrative policies are established by each new president. And we are seeing that, although the law has not changed much, the administrative policies have; and we have a number of new administrative policies in addition to one that is the most impactful at this moment, which is one of the processes of denaturalization—that is, trying to take away citizenship from people who, at some point, obtained their residence or citizenship itself through fraud, through lies.

So, we are in a process of very constant changes and, apart from the constant changes, a very strict immigration policy. For example, people who had an order of removal and could reopen their cases: one used to file a family petition if they were married to a U.S. citizen— for example— or if an adult U.S. citizen child was petitioning for them; one would file the petition and rarely would they get an interview. Now they are being given interviews and they are being detained at that interview if they have an order of removal. That means it affects the possibility of getting a reopening for that person to be able to adjust status. And it affects many other benefits, such as those waivers that one used to file—while the person was here—to be able to go outside the United States to receive the residency. If that person has a final order, then one will no longer want to file that I‑130 or that petition, because there is a high probability that they will be detained or arrested when interviewed.

So, these are the changes, and this is what is happening at this moment.

ORIAN BRITO:
Thank you, attorney, for adding this reality that is being experienced; and that is why it is important that you seek proper legal advice before attending any interview or filing any form. That is essential. Legal advice at this moment can make the difference amid these changes that are being experienced— as attorney Martha Arias describes it. You already have precise information here; we have answered some of your questions, the recurring ones. I invite you to share this information with any family member or acquaintance who is in this situation, and, of course, tomorrow we will reconnect with something else that may occur in immigration matters here in the United States.

Thank you, attorney, and good afternoon—or good evening now to everyone.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Thank you, Orian. Best wishes to everyone. Until next time.

ORIAN BRITO:
Until next time.

The post Venezuelan TPS: After the Government’s Appeal appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

]]> https://ariasvilla.com/venezuelan-tps-after-the-governments-appeal/feed/ 0 What the New U.S. Travel Ban Means for Cubans, Venezuelans, and Asylum Seekers https://ariasvilla.com/what-the-new-u-s-travel-ban-means-for-cubans-venezuelans-and-asylum-seekers/ https://ariasvilla.com/what-the-new-u-s-travel-ban-means-for-cubans-venezuelans-and-asylum-seekers/#respond Wed, 07 May 2025 00:05:37 +0000 https://ariasvilla.com/?p=11588 The post What the New U.S. Travel Ban Means for Cubans, Venezuelans, and Asylum Seekers appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

]]>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA

SPANISH TRANSCRIPT:

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

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

Agustín Acosta:
No, absolutamente. De Birmania,

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

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

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

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

Carlos Acosta:
¿Cómo está, doctora? Bienvenida.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carlos Acosta:
¿Entraría con el ESTA?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ENGLISH TRANSCRIPT

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

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

Agustín Acosta:
No, absolutely. From Burma,

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

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

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

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

Carlos Acosta:
How are you, attorney? Welcome.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carlos Acosta:
Would they enter with ESTA?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attorney Martha Arias:
Thank you, happy day!

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

]]> https://ariasvilla.com/what-the-new-u-s-travel-ban-means-for-cubans-venezuelans-and-asylum-seekers/feed/ 0 Recent Federal Court Order on Third-Country Removals https://ariasvilla.com/recent-federal-court-order-on-third-country-removals/ https://ariasvilla.com/recent-federal-court-order-on-third-country-removals/#respond Tue, 01 Apr 2025 00:35:35 +0000 https://ariasvilla.com/?p=11469 The post Recent Federal Court Order on Third-Country Removals appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

]]>

On March 28, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in the case of D.V.D., M.M., E.F.D., and O.C.G. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al., Civil Action No. 25-10676-BEM. This order limits the government’s ability to deport individuals with final orders of removal to any country other than the one officially designated during their earlier immigration proceedings—commonly referred to as a “third country”—unless certain core safeguards are satisfied.

The TRO (Temporary Restraining Order ) applies nationwide. It was issued by Judge Brian E. Murphy to address concerns that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) could remove people to a brand-new, unexpected country without proper notice or a chance to request protection under withholding of removal or the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Below is a summary of what this ruling entails and how it affects individuals with final removal orders.

Key Points of the TRO

  1. Advance Written Notice
    Under this order, the government cannot deport someone to a third country without first providing written notice of that specific country to the individual and their attorney (if they have one). This requirement ensures that no one is taken by surprise or deprived of time to prepare an appropriate legal response.
  2. Opportunity to Apply for Withholding and CAT Relief
    Before being removed to a third country, the individual must be given a “meaningful opportunity” to file an application for protection. This includes:

    • Withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) (protection from persecution on account of a protected ground), and
    • Protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) (protection from torture).
  3. No Removal Until a Final Decision
    If the person files a claim for withholding or CAT protection based on fear of harm in the third country, removal must be put on hold until there is a final decision on that application. In other words, the government cannot carry out a deportation until an immigration judge (and, if appealed, the Board of Immigration Appeals) rules on the newly raised protection claim.
  4. Nationwide Effect
    The court explicitly states these requirements protect “any individual subject to a final order of removal” who might be sent somewhere other than the country originally named in their removal proceedings. This means all immigration officers must comply, and no bond is required from affected individuals to invoke these protections.
  5. Duration of the Order
    The TRO remains in effect until the court decides on the plaintiffs’ broader request for a preliminary injunction. While temporary in legal terms, it is fully binding on the government so long as it remains in force. Failure to adhere to the TRO could lead to further court intervention.

Final Orders of Removal

A final order of removal is the endpoint in immigration court proceedings, signifying that an individual has been legally ordered to leave the United States. Once that order is final, the Department of Homeland Security generally has the authority to remove the person—unless some recognized form of protection applies.

Withholding of Removal

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3), withholding of removal protects individuals from deportation to a country where they are likely to face persecution for reasons such as race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.

  • Country-Specific: If an immigration judge grants withholding for a specific country, the U.S. government cannot send the person there. However, until this TRO, the government could sometimes attempt to remove that individual to a different “third country” instead.

Convention Against Torture (CAT)

The Convention Against Torture prohibits any signatory nation (including the U.S.) from removing someone to a country where they will probably face torture. The law implementing CAT ensures:

  • Individuals can apply for CAT protection if they can show it is “more likely than not” that they would be tortured by (or with the consent of) authorities in a particular country.
  • Once CAT is granted for that country, removal cannot happen there—though the individual may remain under a final order of removal in a broader sense.

How the TRO Changes Third-Country Removals

The recent federal court order confirms that even if a person already has a final order of removal, DHS must:

  1. Notify them if DHS contemplates sending them to a new or previously undiscussed country, and
  2. Allow them to raise or file a claim of fear (e.g., CAT) specifically tied to that third country.

Until an immigration judge or higher authority rules on that new claim, removal to that third country cannot proceed.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Who Does the TRO Affect?

The TRO applies to anyone in the United States who:

  • Has a final order of removal, and
  • Faces potential deportation to a country other than the one listed in their prior removal proceedings.

Does This Stop My Original Removal?

No. The TRO does not prevent DHS from removing someone to the country originally designated in their removal order—unless there is another form of relief or stay in place. It specifically prohibits removal to a new, unexpected country unless the government follows the steps spelled out in the order.

How Do I Apply for CAT or Withholding of Removal if a Third Country Is Proposed?

Once you (or your attorney) receive written notice of a new country of removal, you must file a request for protection with the immigration court. This generally involves:

  • Submitting Form I-589 (Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal), marking the sections for withholding and CAT if fear of torture exists.
  • Presenting documentation or testimony about the risk of harm in the newly named country.

What If I Already Have Withholding or CAT for My Home Country?

Withholding or CAT protection is country-specific. If DHS now chooses a different country for your removal, you have the right to file for new protection specific to that third country. The TRO ensures you can do so before being deported there.

How Long Will This TRO Last?

The order remains in effect until the court rules on the pending motion for a preliminary injunction. The judge may then make the restrictions longer-term or make further modifications as the case proceeds. Regardless, as of now, the TRO is fully active and binding.

Where Can I Read the Exact Order?

You can view the TRO in the file “Order granting TRO.pdf,” labeled as Document 34 in D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Civil Action No. 25-10676-BEM (D. Mass.). The signed order details the obligations the government must meet when attempting to remove individuals to a third country.

How Can I Use This Ruling if I Believe DHS Isn’t Following It?

If you or your attorney suspects DHS is bypassing these requirements—e.g., by failing to provide the mandatory notice or attempting to remove you before your application for protection is heard—this could violate the court’s TRO. Consider contacting an immigration attorney immediately to seek further relief from the federal court.

Conclusion

This Temporary Restraining Order in D.V.D. et al. v. DHS underscores the principle that no one with a final order of removal should be transferred to an unfamiliar or dangerous country without notice and a fair chance to assert protection claims. By imposing these requirements nationwide, the Court ensures that Convention Against Torture and withholding of removal safeguards remain meaningful and effective.

Key Takeaways:

  • Written notice is now mandatory if the government wants to remove you to a new country.
  • You have a legal right to apply for withholding of removal or CAT specifically for that third country.
  • Removal must pause until the immigration court finalizes any new claim for protection.
  • The TRO applies nationwide and remains in effect unless the court changes or lifts it.

Disclaimer: This article reflects current regulations and the most recent court order. It is not legal advice; individuals facing removal should consult a qualified immigration attorney for personalized guidance.

References

For official updates, check the court docket or visit the U.S. Department of Justice – Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) website.

The post Recent Federal Court Order on Third-Country Removals appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

]]> https://ariasvilla.com/recent-federal-court-order-on-third-country-removals/feed/ 0 Latest U.S. Immigration Policy Changes https://ariasvilla.com/latest-u-s-immigration-policy-changes/ https://ariasvilla.com/latest-u-s-immigration-policy-changes/#respond Fri, 28 Mar 2025 03:13:11 +0000 https://ariasvilla.com/?p=11449 The post Latest U.S. Immigration Policy Changes appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

]]>

It was great to be back on Actualidad Radio with Marian De La Fuente and Agustín Acosta. We dove into several timely immigration topics, including the cancellation of humanitarian parole, the Cuban Adjustment Act, and changing asylum policies. As always, Marian and Agustín kept the conversation moving and welcomed calls from listeners who had pressing questions about their own cases.

This in-depth discussion underscored one central theme: each person’s situation is unique, and it is critical to have accurate, up-to-date information before making important decisions about traveling, applying for legal benefits, or changing status. Proper guidance becomes even more important when dealing with complex matters like new administration policies, asylum backlogs, and shifting regulations on who qualifies for humanitarian parole.

Below is a recap of the key points discussed on air, along with a few insights that might help anyone facing similar challenges in the immigration process.

We talked about crucial immigration updates that could affect many people—especially those who came in under the now-canceled humanitarian parole program. If that’s your situation, it’s totally understandable to feel a bit lost or anxious about what comes next.

We also covered how the Cuban Adjustment Act applies when someone has completed one year and one day of lawful presence in the United States. Many callers were relieved to learn that, even if the broader humanitarian parole policy ends, they may still qualify for residency if they meet the year-and-a-day requirement. For others, though, the concern was whether their time here under humanitarian parole would count or if they needed to leave and risk everything they have built.

Another big topic was the backlog in asylum cases. I know that waiting—sometimes for years—can be frustrating. But there are times when that delay can actually open up other opportunities for you, like renewing your work permit or finding a more stable legal path. That said, no two situations are the same, which is why you should speak directly with an immigration attorney who can guide you based on your personal history.

One thing Marian and Agustín emphasized is that, these shifting policies can leave people feeling stuck, especially if they’ve been waiting for an answer from USCIS for a long time. But it’s important not to panic. If you’ve started building a life here in the U.S.—whether by working, studying, or caring for family—there may be a path forward. Sometimes, it might be a different approach than the one you first considered.

If you are concerned about the cancellation of humanitarian parole, your pending asylum, or your eligibility under the Cuban Adjustment Act, don’t hesitate to reach out for personalized advice. Even though immigration law can feel overwhelming, it helps to have someone in your corner who understands the system and genuinely wants you to succeed.

Above all, never assume you are out of options. Each call we took during the show reminded me that every person’s story is unique, and there is usually more than one way to work toward a stable status.

Take the Next Step

  • If you have questions: Call (305) 671-0018 to schedule a consultation.
  • Need immediate guidance? An experienced immigration attorney can walk you through the best steps for your situation.
  • Have friends or family with similar concerns? Share this post with them so they know they’re not alone.

Remember, the best way to protect your future in the United States is by staying informed, understanding your rights, and getting professional support from an experienced immigration lawyer who truly cares about your goals.

Immigration Law Attorney - Martha L. Arias, Esq.

How to Get Legal Assistance

For anyone needing guidance on their immigration status, I am available for consultations. My office is located in the Dadeland Office Park in Miami, right next to the Dadeland Mall. You can reach me at 305-671-0018, or contact my office for more information. My goal is to help individuals navigate the complex immigration system with clarity and legal protection.

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

Transcripción en Español

Y como les prometimos, vamos a abordar el tema de la decisión que ha tomado el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional sobre el Parol Humanitario. Vamos a saludar a la doctora Martha Arias, nuestra abogada de inmigración y la persona que siempre nos ayuda y nos consulta y nos ayuda a entender estos temas que desde hace algún tiempo para acá se están suscitando con mucha fluidez.

Doctora, la saludamos: Mariana de la Fuente y Agustina Acosta. Buenas tardes.

¿Cómo está, doctora? Buenas tardes.

Dra. Martha Arias:
Buenas tardes, Mariana y Agustina. Un saludo para ustedes. Feliz lunes y también feliz lunes para todos los oyentes. Igualmente.

Actualidad Radio:
Doctora, yo dije algo hace unos minutos, pero quisiera que usted lo revisara y, si siente que no es correcto, lo rectifique. Y si no, pues no hay problema.
Durante los años ochenta, noventa, los primeros años del nuevo milenio, la figura del parol humanitario la ejercía el gobierno ejecutivo, pero era caso por caso. Yo recuerdo que había personas, por ejemplo, cito un par de ejemplos de personas que tenían una situación de salud en Cuba muy grave, necesitaban una cirugía del cerebro; entonces no tenían forma de llegar a los Estados Unidos de otra forma. Y los congresistas les tramitaban con inmigración un parol humanitario y venía un niño a operarse con su mamá o su papá, o venía una madre a enterrar a un hijo que había muerto acá, que llegó en la balsa y se ahogó en el camino.
Pero eran casos muy aislados, en una base individual, y de pronto el gobierno de Biden utilizó esta figura legal o esta figura migratoria para tirar una especie de manto o sombrilla grande, bajo el cual metieron a cientos de miles de personas. Dígame si eso es correcto.

Dra. Martha Arias:
Sí, es correcto. La ley tiene dos frases que son bien claves. El parol se da por “urgent humanitarian reasons”, razones humanitarias urgentes, como la que usted acaba de mencionar, o “public benefit”, o sea, por un beneficio público. Esas son las únicas dos razones por las que se puede otorgar un parol humanitario.

Actualidad Radio:
Abogada, nosotros estábamos conversando antes de hacerlo con usted y estábamos haciendo un poco de “abogado del diablo”, porque realmente a veces toca también esa figura. Todos desearíamos que estos 532.000 nicaragüenses, haitianos, venezolanos y cubanos que han entrado pudieran realmente tener la posibilidad de quedarse, sobre todo la gente de bien, que hagan un “screening” y salgan, como se suele decir, los malos.
Sin embargo, hay que recordar que cuando ya se puso en marcha esta medida del presidente Biden, prácticamente de un día para otro, esta entrada de 532.000 personas se hizo sobre una base que tenía muchos vacíos legales, donde nadie sabía si era una reunificación familiar, si era un parol, sobre qué figura acogerse, y lo más importante: se hizo por dos años de duración, dos años de duración, y sobre unos requisitos que eran en aquel momento indispensables, que era contar con el famoso “sponsor”, que era además venir directamente de un país y no pasar por un tercer país, y no tener que ser una carga para el gobierno porque para eso se entregaba ese permiso de trabajo.
Sin embargo, tristemente, eso no se cumplió a rajatabla. Hubo mucho abuso también del sistema, sobre todo al final del tiempo. Y en el caso de los cubanos, tienen la ley de ajuste cubano que ya al año y un día pueden llegar a hacerse residentes o ciudadanos. En el caso de los venezolanos, muchos de ellos que han trabajado están siendo pedidos por las propias empresas donde están trabajando, otros muchos han decidido hacer familia, se han casado, es decir, ya hay un movimiento porque sabían que era algo temporal, que era de dos años. Concluidos esos dos años, ¿se le puede exigir al gobierno de los Estados Unidos en un tribunal que la extensión fuera automática?

Dra. Martha Arias:
Bueno, obviamente no es que se le pueda exigir en un tribunal. De pronto, digo yo, abogados mirarán cada una de las cosas que se dijo en el “Federal Register”, que realmente no ha sido publicado; va a ser publicado mañana, 25 de marzo, pero ya pues nosotros, los abogados, tenemos acceso a ese documento que va a ser publicado en el Registro Federal.
Dentro de las cosas que dice, que fundamentan la terminación de este parol, se habla de un cambio en la política nacional o de política de “foreign policy” (política exterior), y ese cambio, pues, por llegar la nueva administración, es una de las cosas que se menciona.
Segundo, ellos hablan en el documento en el “Federal Register” que el parol no se dio por razones realmente de interés o beneficio público ni por razones humanitarias en caso por caso, como es lo que pide la ley. La ley exige que esas razones humanitarias o de interés público sean “case by case basis”, o sea, caso por caso. Y aquí se hizo de una forma global.
Otra de las cosas que se dice en el “Federal Register” de por qué se está terminando el parol, es porque inicialmente se dijo también que era para bajar el ingreso de las personas por la frontera, lo cual sí pasó; de pronto se redujo el número de personas por la frontera, pero el gobierno, la administración, considera que esa no era una razón de interés público suficiente para otorgar paroles a todas estas personas.
Entonces, si hay algún abogado que considere que estas razones de terminación no son válidas bajo la ley o que hubo una violación administrativa, pudiera haber una demanda. Yo no soy constitucionalista, pero, pues, dentro de mi humilde entender de la Constitución y de cómo funciona el sistema legal, no veo una razón muy fuerte que pueda tener una parte demandante para este parol. Fíjese.
De pronto, de pronto, lo que más pudieran decir las personas es que no debería ser terminado en forma colectiva a través de una notificación por medio del Registro Federal. ¿Por qué? Porque el parol dentro de la regulación exige que se notifique por escrito a cada persona. Y esta notificación del Registro Federal dice que es una notificación constructiva para todos los beneficiarios de ese parol, como quien dice, no les van a mandar una carta personalizada a cada uno de ellos, sino que el Registro Federal constituye ese escrito de terminación que van a recibir, en adición a la notificación que les van a mandar en la página de USCIS que tiene cada persona, porque esto fue un proceso que se hizo electrónico, cada persona tenía que abrir una cuenta electrónica, por lo tanto esas cuentas deben todavía estar activas y allí les van a notificar.
Entonces yo diría que, de pronto, una posible demanda sería tal vez que las partes demandantes digan que no debe haber una notificación constructiva a través de un Registro Federal, sino que debería ser personalizada con una carta para cada uno, pero, pero, pero eso, a fin de cuentas…

Actualidad Radio:
…eso a fin de cuentas cambiaría un poco el procedimiento de aviso, pero no necesariamente la caducidad del parol o la fecha de terminación.

Dra. Martha Arias:
Correcto. Y lo que terminaría, si se da cuenta, es el aviso, porque a cada persona se le deberían dar esos 30 días y cada persona va a tener 30 días diferentes, ¿cierto?, a partir del momento en que le notifiquen la carta. Mientras que de esta forma, la están notificando supuestamente mañana, que sale en el Registro Federal, mañana 25 de marzo. Las personas van a tener 30 días. Todo el mundo, no importa cuándo se le vence; todo el mundo va a tener 30 días y antes de esos 30 días deberían salir del país, a no ser que tengan otra forma de quedarse, como mencionó Mariana antes, que se hayan casado, que los vayan a pedir, qué sé yo, pero esos 30 días serían igual para todos. Si hay una carta personalizada para cada uno de ellos, obviamente entonces los 30 días para cada uno pueden ser distintos.

Actualidad Radio:
Ahora, en el caso particular de los cubanos, a ver si entendemos esto correctamente: vamos a suponer que el parol lo terminan, en términos generales, el 31 de marzo. Vamos a tomar arbitrariamente la fecha del 31 de marzo. Podemos inferir que los cubanos que entraron a los Estados Unidos antes del 27 o 28 de marzo del año pasado, y para los cuales ya ha pasado más de un año y un día, a pesar de la cancelación inminente de esta figura, ya tendrían la oportunidad de acogerse a la ley de ajuste.

Dra. Martha Arias:
Claro, si llevan un año y un día lo pueden hacer, porque lo único que exige la ley para el ajuste cubano, pues dentro de lo que exige, obviamente, es que la persona sea cubana, es que tenga un año y un día de haber entrado, y que haya tenido el parol. El parol se lo pueden haber dado por un día, por tres días, por cinco días, pero lo importante es que lo tenga, no importa cuánto tiempo duró. A esas personas se los dieron por dos años, pero, pues, si ya concluyeron incluso esos dos años —porque no veo razón por la que no hayan presentado sus ajustes de estatus al año y un día—, pues ya deberían estar haciendo ese proceso de residencia.

Actualidad Radio:
Abogada, yo estaba escuchando esta mañana a un ex director de inmigración y naturalización de los Estados Unidos, también asesor de la Casa Blanca, que decía que una gran mayoría de esa figura de los 532.000 nicaragüenses, venezolanos, haitianos y cubanos que entraron, muchos de ellos ya se han ido acogiendo, como estábamos hablando, a otras figuras. Algunos lo han hecho por “Alien of Extraordinary Ability”, otros lo han hecho por las H1B, que les puede otorgar el “sponsor” del lugar de trabajo donde han estado desempeñándose por dos años, otros, como usted estaba diciendo, porque se han casado y han hecho familia, y otros porque se han acogido al famoso asilo. O sea, que habría muchas posibilidades de que uno por uno esas figuras vayan cambiando.
Pero además hay también una posibilidad que están estableciendo una comisión bipartidista entre María Elvira Salazar, la congresista Wasserman Schultz —que es demócrata—, el senador Rick Scott… Están buscando figuras legales donde poder acoger a esos otros que de repente también quedarán varados en esa reforma migratoria de la que se lleva hablando durante mucho tiempo. Pero, ¿es cierto —y eso se lo pregunto como abogada de inmigración— que mientras no se “limpie la casa”, mientras no se resuelvan todos estos programas que se han hecho con tiritas, que se han hecho “por si acaso” y que eran temporales y que se convierten en permanentes, va a ser muy difícil poder sacar una reforma migratoria per se que pueda ayudar a las personas que están en este país?

Dra. Martha Arias:
Sí y no. Hay muchas reformas migratorias que se pueden hacer, aunque no se haya sacado a todas las personas que entraron ilegales en los últimos años, porque estas personas que entraron ilegales en los últimos años no son las únicas que están sin estatus en los Estados Unidos. Créalo o no, aquí hay personas que llevan 20, 30, 40 años tratando de volver a un estado. Exacto. Y esas personas pueden ya tener esposos ciudadanos americanos, papá, mamá, que no han podido recibir la residencia aunque tengan peticiones, o porque las peticiones no están listas para una residencia y tienen que esperar, o porque, como están fuera de estatus, la ley no les permite recibir la residencia aquí. Eso sería haciendo una reforma como abrir la 245(i), que es esa ley que cerró el 30 de abril de 2001, que le permitía a la persona pagar una multa de mil dólares y recibir la residencia dentro del país. Ese tipo de beneficios, por ejemplo, reformas así, son muy posibles.
La reforma que ha planteado María Elvira Salazar es muy, muy amplia y cobija a una cantidad de figuras y de personas que están indocumentadas, que no necesariamente va a cobijar a los que llegaron recientemente. Esa reforma también ayudaría a muchas personas que están aquí desde antes.

Actualidad Radio:
Pero protege a los que ya están y que sienten que los han saltado por encima, que en muchos casos sus casos migratorios no han prosperado por la avalancha de casos migratorios que hubo después de esta apertura de fronteras.

Actualidad Radio:
Aquí hay un problema, y el problema es el relajo que se formó en los últimos cuatro años con la entrada. Ya yo no sé, porque una persona dice 8 millones, otro dice 12 millones, el otro dice 14, 15. Ok, vamos a tomar la cifra de 10 millones como un punto intermedio para acomodar todas estas cifras que andan por todos lados. 10 millones de personas en 4 años. Bien, si hubieran sido 10 millones de personas bien portadas y trabajadoras, probablemente el país lo hubiera podido absorber de cierta manera, y la gran población americana no se hubiera rasgado las vestiduras. Pero dentro de esos hipotéticos 10 millones de personas, según el propio gobierno federal, hasta el 31 de diciembre del año 2023 habían entrado 650 mil personas con antecedentes criminales, antecedentes adquiridos en sus países de origen. Y de ahí venían veintitantos mil asesinos, veintitantos mil violadores sexuales, cuarenta o cincuenta mil narcotraficantes o personas con delitos de droga. Esa gente vino para acá y no se dedicó precisamente a portarse bien.
Y luego hemos visto estas brutales noticias de asesinatos de niños, de estudiantes, violaciones sexuales, una anciana masacrada por allá, una estudiante de enfermería violada y asesinada. La prensa americana empezó a poner eso todos los días en sus medios noticiosos y luego el gobierno se dedicó a darle hoteles a estas personas, hoteles de cinco estrellas en Nueva York. Entonces muchos veteranos de guerra que sirvieron en las guerras y tienen problemas de síndrome de traumas están viviendo en las calles, no tienen buenos recursos médicos, y entonces están viendo que alguien que llegó por la frontera está recibiendo todo tipo de ayuda. Esto se magnificó de tal manera que fue un factor determinante en la pasada elección presidencial.
A este presidente lo eligen en gran medida para resolver el problema migratorio. Entonces todo este relajo ahora conspira contra la buena voluntad y el buen sentido común de personas como María Elvira, la señora Wasserman Schultz, Rick Scott y un montón de otra gente que quisieran resolver esto, sobre todo para personas que se lo merecen. Yo conocí hace como 23 o 24 años a un matrimonio colombiano, personas encantadoras, ejemplares, que tenían su propio negocio, eran dueños de su propia casa y les habían nacido dos niños acá, en los Estados Unidos, que ya deben ser personas adultas porque esto fue hace 23, 24 años. Bueno, esas personas eran ilegales.

Actualidad Radio:
Aquí en Homestead te encuentras con un montón de familias que han puesto sus propios “nurseries” de plantas, que vinieron, que son ilegales, que han hecho, como tú dices, tienen sus hijitos acá, que son gente de bien, que no tienen ni una multa de tráfico, que llevan veintipico de años acá. Y cuando hablabas con ellos te decían: “Yo lo que siento es que a mí me han ignorado. Yo no tuve ninguna de estas oportunidades y ahora tampoco están contemplándome a mí, que llevo veintipico de años, que mis hijos son americanos y que hasta tengo todo eso”, caído en este clima antiinmigrante que se ha producido por los hechos delictivos y todo el relajo que ha habido, doctora.

Dra. Martha Arias:
Bueno, efectivamente, me parece que lo que usted acaba de decir describe el problema que tenemos. Nos dimos cuenta, a través de la prensa, de todos los desastres que cometieron los criminales que entraron del tren de Aragua en New York, que veíamos lo que mostraban que estaba pasando en el Central Park: que asaltaban a la gente, que se montaban —yo no sé ni cómo conseguían motos— y hacían cosas…

Actualidad Radio:
…en Colorado, en Texas, en Georgia, y mil lugares.

Dra. Martha Arias:
Yo personalmente estuve en Chicago el año pasado, alrededor de mayo, por allí sería abril o mayo, y me quedé aterrada, pero asombrada, porque ni siquiera en Miami yo veía eso. Y eran cantidades de venezolanos en unas cuadras cerca del downtown de Chicago, que usted sabe que es un área muy buena para caminar. Es un área segura, no es que yo me hubiera metido a los suburbios. Era un área buena y eran dos o tres manzanas llenas de venezolanos en la calle, y estaban haciendo fogatas y hacían sancocho de todo allí en la calle, con ollas grandísimas que ni sé dónde las conseguían, con niños chiquitos todos durmiendo en la calle. Pues con todo lo que conlleva eso, ¿no? Porque hacer una fogata en la calle puede traer muchos otros peligros; hacer un sancocho en una olla grande en la calle, en pleno downtown, es peligroso también, pienso yo. Entonces todo eso da una mala imagen, no solamente a los que íbamos de turistas que veíamos eso, sino a los mismos locales que se dan cuenta de eso. Eso trae esta mala imagen que hemos tenido.
Y todo eso se produce, ¿por qué? Porque al haber un ingreso desmedido de personas, la capacidad de absorción de la migración se hace más difícil. Entonces, las agencias que ayudan a estas personas también estaban al tope, no podían ayudarlos. Y otros que querían ayudar, pero la gente no quería estar en esos sitios, quería estar en la calle. Entonces, y como dice el cuento, víctimas de su propio invento, porque la gente que quiso venir de esa forma y que quería establecer sus propias reglas, pues ahora se ve enfrentada a estas decisiones fuertes de la nueva administración de cogerlos a todos y deportarlos a muchos sin derecho a ver a un juez de inmigración. Entonces, por ahí dicen que para situaciones difíciles, medidas difíciles.

Actualidad Radio:
Sí, medidas extremas. Todos los que vivimos acá en el sur de la Florida, sobre todo en el condado Miami-Dade y Broward, sabemos que estamos rodeados de venezolanos emprendedores, decentes, muchos de ellos dueños de negocios. Yo estoy rodeado de ellos.

Actualidad Radio:
Estudiantes, personas decentes, los conocemos en nuestras iglesias, los conocemos en los colegios de nuestros niños, en todos los barrios, pues hay uno o dos negocios venezolanos o más de personas decentes trabajadoras. Eso no es lo que la prensa americana se dedica a proyectar. Ahora, cuando un individuo, un delincuente que estaba en una prisión en Venezuela —Maduro lo sacó y le dijo: “Oye, te voy a dar la libertad, pero te tienes que ir para los Estados Unidos”—, y ese individuo llegó aquí y asesinó a alguien, asesinó a una niña en Texas, o a un estudiante de enfermería en Georgia, o a una anciana por aquí o por allá; o ocuparon a mano armada edificios de apartamentos en Aurora, Colorado, y desalojaron a los residentes, los sacaron de ahí y se apoderaron de sus viviendas; cuando hemos visto personas que han estado practicando relaciones sexuales en las aceras, en una tienda de campaña, en las aceras de Manhattan… Eso es lo que la prensa americana promueve.
Y eso es el 0,001% de toda la comunidad venezolana que hay en los Estados Unidos. Pero eso es lo que llegó a la noticia. Entonces se creó un clima de rechazo, un clima espantosamente adverso. Y la mayoría del Congreso en este momento —esa es una realidad, nos guste o no nos guste aceptarla—, la mayoría del Congreso en este momento no se atreve a proponer una reforma para acomodar a los ilegales que se merecen quedarse aquí, porque realmente la calle está caliente y la gente está que arde con este problema, porque al gobierno pasado se le fue la mano.
Doctora, si usted nos lo permite, vamos a invitar a algunas personas a que nos llamen y le pregunten. No estamos hablando de temas políticos ahora: si alguna persona quiere hablar con la doctora, es para hacerle una pregunta legal sobre la ley de inmigración. Cualquier persona que…

Dra. Martha Arias:
…no esté política…

Actualidad Radio:
Correcto. Cualquier persona que quiera emitir un comentario político, que espere a que volvamos a abrir las líneas más adelante. Aquellos que tengan una situación de inmigración pendiente y quieran una buena asesoría, la doctora les puede dar respuesta a su pregunta.

Actualidad Radio:
En el 305-410-1040, 305-410-1040, si usted necesita esa advertencia legal, llame, que estamos con la doctora Martha Arias, abogada de inmigración.

Actualidad Radio:
Recuerden, no se pongan a opinar sobre asuntos políticos porque, por cortesía hacia ella y para maximizar el tiempo, vamos a tener que cortar la llamada de manera desagradable. No nos gustaría tener que hacer eso.

Actualidad Radio:
William, ¿cómo estás? Buenas tardes.

William:
Sí, buenas tardes. Excelente programa y gracias por la información. Gracias. Bueno, en mi caso, tengo 11 años esperando un asilo político en este país. Afortunadamente podemos renovar los permisos de trabajo cada cinco años. Mis hijas vinieron para acá pequeñas, quieren estudiar, quieren ser enfermeras, pero por nuestro estatus migratorio no somos residentes, no somos ciudadanos, no podemos conseguir ninguna beca.
Bueno, ¿posibilidades hay? Tenemos 10, 11 años esperando una decisión y toda esta gente que ha llegado en los últimos años… Me imagino que nuestros casos están “de baja a mesa”.

Actualidad Radio:
Doctora, vamos a ver qué le puede decir a William. Gracias, William.

Dra. Martha Arias:
Bueno, yo ahí tengo una posición un poco distinta. Obviamente, estoy mirando los toros desde la barrera, como diríamos. Obviamente, usted está en una situación más subjetiva y le molesta. Pero esto es lo que yo digo, señor: las personas que tienen un asilo pendiente por tantos años y, entretanto, el privilegio de tener este permiso de trabajo y de estar aquí, y de que sus hijos se eduquen en los Estados Unidos en un colegio público —que seguramente no están pagando tampoco, es un colegio público— y que hablan inglés y que han aprendido inglés, lo deberían ver positivamente.
¿Por qué? Porque los asilos son muy difíciles de ganar. Y si usted entra a ver las estadísticas de aprobación del asilo, son muy bajas. Las estadísticas muestran entre un 15% y un máximo de un 20% o 25%, en el mejor de los casos, de aprobación. La mayoría de los asilos los niegan.
¿Qué hubiera pasado si a ustedes los hubieran llamado en este momento, les niegan el asilo, los mandan a un proceso de deportación y los deportan? Tal vez sus hijos no hubieran tenido esa oportunidad de estudiar acá y de estar en este país.
Si no pueden pagar una beca, bueno, a muchos no nos dieron becas. Yo también soy una inmigrante. A mí no me dieron beca. A mí me tocó pedir préstamos. A mí me tocó trabajar para costear mis libros. Entonces, vamos a ver lo positivo de lo que hemos recibido y no exigir más, de por qué estamos aquí y no nos han dado una beca o no nos han aprobado un asilo. Esa no debería de ser la perspectiva con que miremos las cosas. Yo tengo clientes venezolanos que vienen a mi oficina y me dicen lo mismo: “Yo, 15 años esperando”. ¿Y sabe qué les estoy diciendo en este momento? “Es por su propio beneficio que siga esperando, por lo menos mientras pasa esta administración”, porque esté seguro de que si antes y durante la presidencia de Biden la aprobación de los asilos era de un 15 o 20 por ciento máximo, en este momento yo creo que bajo esta administración las órdenes son que las aprobaciones de asilo incluso van a bajar de nivel, pueden ser del 10 por ciento, van a ser del 5 por ciento. Entonces, ¿a quién le conviene que lo llamen a una cita de asilos en esta administración? No creo que a muchos. Así que vamos a agradecer lo que tenemos, sigamos con este permiso de trabajo y demos gracias, y que los hijos hagan préstamos de estudio.

Actualidad Radio:
Abogada, pero yo sí quería preguntarle, mientras pasamos a la siguiente llamada, sobre el tema de los asilos. Los asilos realmente son una condición que cada país tiene la obligación de, de repente, admitir a personas que tienen en serio peligro su vida, que no pueden regresar porque su vida realmente corre peligro. Pero ha habido una prostitución —y digo la palabra “prostitución” en general— sobre esta figura durante los últimos tiempos. Usted decía que el nivel de aprobación en la época de Biden fue mucho más bajo, un 10 o 15 por ciento, pero es que la masificación en la petición de asilos que hubo durante la administración impidió realmente que eso pudiera seguir surtiendo efecto. ¿No es así?

Dra. Martha Arias:
Sí, es así. O sea, los asilos aumentaron en un…

Actualidad Radio:
…300 por ciento.

Dra. Martha Arias:
Exacto, y mucho más. Es cierto, pero no necesariamente todos esos asilos negados fueron de los últimos que entraron dentro de esa administración; pudieron haber sido presentados antes. Yo, mire, esto es lo que digo:
La gente tiene derecho a aplicar a un asilo, claro, porque está dentro de la ley de los Estados Unidos y la ley del derecho internacional. Lo que yo le digo es que, como usted bien lo señala, se han presentado tantos casos, se ha abusado de la figura del asilo, porque tenemos que reconocerlo. Hay personas que vienen con un reclamo de “tengo miedo porque en el barrio mío la situación es muy difícil y me estaban amenazando”. Posiblemente sí estaban amenazando a dos personas, pero no cada amenaza que recibe una persona en su país constituye asilo.

Actualidad Radio:
Hay personas a quienes les han negado, perdón, otras figuras, y han decidido acogerse al asilo porque… No estoy hablando de personas como usted, que es abogada con una trayectoria inmensa, pero hay personas que caen en manos que no son las más acertadas, y la figura del asilo es la más socorrida. Gente que viene aquí buscando un futuro económico mejor, que está en su derecho porque su familia lleva cinco años acá y quiere también estar legalmente en el país, y se acogen a esa figura cuando están quitándole la posibilidad a personas que sí realmente su vida corre peligro de poder optar a ella.

Dra. Martha Arias:
Exacto. El nivel de aprobación es muy bajo y entonces las… Vamos a decir la verdad: las personas que tienen asilo pendiente por tantos años, 12, 13, 14, 15 años, lo que están más bien haciendo —y los que siguen aplicando— es beneficiándose de esa larga espera para poder estar en los Estados Unidos. Porque de no ser así, si un asilo fuera a procesarse de una forma rápida —vamos a decir, en un año—, quiere decir que esa persona tiene el 70% o el 75% o el 65% de posibilidades de que en ese año va a retornar a su país, porque si le niegan el asilo, pues entonces lo van a devolver, ¿entiende?
Entonces, póngase a ver la perspectiva: si lo niegan en un 25% y lo van a resolver en un año o en dos años, quiere decir que usted tiene el 70% de posibilidades de regresar a su país en dos años, mientras que si siguen esperando, como están ahora que están retrasados y se han demorado 12 años, por lo menos han tenido la oportunidad de estar en este país todo ese tiempo. Entonces yo pienso que todo se mira desde distintas perspectivas. Yo lo veo como un beneficio que han tenido las personas. Aunque claro, todo el mundo quiere que le resuelvan su caso rápido, pero pues ese es el sistema que tenemos en este momento.

Actualidad Radio:
Amigos, estamos conversando con la doctora Martha Arias. Voy a dar el teléfono de su bufete, porque la hemos molestado durante media hora y lo menos que debemos hacer es ayudarla también. Ella es abogada de inmigración, solamente de inmigración. Si alguno de ustedes necesita consultarla legalmente, necesita una buena asesoría, es una persona muy experimentada, como acaban de escuchar; está todas las semanas con nosotros. Y el teléfono del bufete es el 305-671-0018. Lo voy a repetir al final, pero ahora vamos a conversar con Roberto. Buenas tardes.

Roberto:
Buenas tardes, Agustina, Mariana, doctora. Agustina, luego yo sé que este es un espacio ahorita para hacer preguntas acerca de migración y le tengo una pregunta a la doctora, pero me gustaría en algún momento, no sé cómo hacer para que tú y Mariana… Porque de verdad que tengo… Yo hago Uber y tengo unos comentarios. Yo quiero expresarte ciertas cosas que están sucediendo.

Actualidad Radio:
¿Qué pasa? Adelante, vamos a abrir el teléfono para otras cosas más tarde. Ahora, hágale la pregunta a la doctora sobre inmigración.

Roberto:
Sí, la pregunta, doctora… Mariana, perdón, doctora Martha. En este momento se está hablando de que Venezuela podría ser parte de los países que van a estar baneados para no entrar a…

Dra. Martha Arias:
¿Yo qué sucede con una persona que es venezolana pero que tiene una nacionalidad italiana? ¿Podría entrar desde Venezuela? ¿Podría entrar? ¿Qué opina usted? Lo que yo entiendo es que son nacionales de Venezuela, no importa si tienen otra nacionalidad. Si son venezolanos, no importa. Y me imagino, si entran con el pasaporte de Venezuela… No creo que si tienen doble nacionalidad les… Sinceramente, pienso que si sale el “travel ban”, no creo que, si bien tienen doble nacionalidad y entran con el pasaporte, vamos a decir, español o italiano, qué sé yo, vayan a tener problemas. Pero esperemos a que salga la prohibición para no especular, porque no sé qué va a decir la prohibición.

Actualidad Radio:
Yo me imagino que también si la persona vive en Caracas o reside en Caracas y tiene un pasaporte de la Unión Europea, le convendría, no sé, viajar a Aruba, viajar a Curazao o viajar a un sitio fuera del territorio de Venezuela, para poder entrar a Estados Unidos con su pasaporte de la Unión Europea, porque aunque tenga pasaporte de la Unión Europea, si viene de Caracas, a lo mejor ahí se traba la cosa.

Actualidad Radio:
Pero la abogada ha dicho algo muy interesante: todavía esto no es una ley, no, no, no, esto es una especulación y no sabemos ni siquiera cuáles serían las bases sobre las que se sostendría. Hay que esperar. Eduardo, buenas tardes.

Eduardo:
Hola, sí, buenas tardes. Excelente programa. Es lo siguiente: mi esposo y yo acabamos de adquirir prácticamente, empezando el año, la residencia permanente, y el paso inmediato era viajar a México para actualizar los pasaportes venezolanos. Pero ahí va la pregunta, y me imagino que ya la interpretaron: ¿es conveniente ahorita ir a México a renovar el pasaporte venezolano, teniendo en cuenta que cuando vengamos de regreso, a pesar de que tenemos la residencia permanente, no nos dejen entrar o no? Entonces estamos en ese dilema.

Dra. Martha Arias:
No salgan todavía. Espere a que salga el anunciado “travel ban”, la prohibición de viaje, para poder estar seguros de qué es lo que dice, cuáles son los que van a prohibir entrar y si eso va a incluir residentes o no. Entonces es mejor que esperen a que salga la regulación y viajen cuando ya tengamos una certeza de lo que hay allí. Antes yo no le aconsejaría que viaje, señor.

Actualidad Radio:
Muy bien. Doctora, una última pregunta y le voy a poner unas fechas ilustrativas para la pregunta.
Un cubano que haya entrado a los Estados Unidos, digamos, agosto o septiembre del año pasado y que, por lo tanto, el año y un día para la ley de ajuste sería en agosto o septiembre de este año, dependiendo de la fecha en que entró en agosto o septiembre del año anterior. Si la cancelación del parol humanitario fuera efectiva, por ejemplo, el primero de abril próximo, y esa persona todavía no tiene el año y un día para aprovechar la residencia…
Si ese cubano decide meterse en el clóset de una familia amiga y quedarse ahí tranquilo, sin salir a la calle para no exponerse a ser interceptado, llegado el año y un día, en agosto o septiembre, ¿puede acogerse a la ley o el mero hecho de haber estado un tiempo sin estatus después de la cancelación del parol humanitario lo invalida para la ley de ajuste cubano?

Dra. Martha Arias:
No, no lo invalida. Puede aplicar para el ajuste cubano al completar el año y un día.

Actualidad Radio:
Ok, o sea, puede estar escondido por ahí debajo de una piedra para no levantar… Hasta que, para que no sea detectado. Pero sí se puede quedar, mientras cumpla un año y un día, está perfecto. Ok.

Actualidad Radio:
Muy bien. Bueno, vamos a reiterar el teléfono del bufete de la doctora. Es el 305-671-0018. Recuerden que ella es abogada de inmigración, nada más que de inmigración. 305-671-0018. No vaya a ser que alguien le diga: “Mira, yo me quiero divorciar”. Para eso hay que buscar otro abogado.

Dra. Martha Arias:
Oiga, Agustina, mire, me quedé callada cuando ustedes dijeron eso porque, ¿cómo le parece que el sábado 22 de marzo el presidente emitió un memorando? Se llama “memorando”, ya lo puse en mi página de Instagram oficialmente de la página de la Casa Blanca, que dice que el gobierno va a empezar a encauzar, a disciplinar a los abogados de inmigración que presenten asilos o peticiones no meritorias o que presenten “motions” con la intención de dilatar los procesos. O sea que nosotros, los abogados de inmigración, ya también estamos en la mira. Entonces, el tipo de consejo… Ahora, yo siempre he sido muy cuidadosa, obviamente, porque voy con la ley. Pero el problema es que, a veces, la ley también es interpretaciones, ¿no? La ley no es blanco y negro. Uno pensaría que es así, pero las interpretaciones… De hecho, por eso hay muchísimos casos: las cortes están llenas de casos, porque cuando hay una parte que considera que interpreta la ley de una forma y la otra la interpreta de otra, pues por eso existen los juicios.
Y entonces, pues, ahora nosotros tenemos que ser más cuidadosos, aparte de lo que siempre hemos sido, porque pues nosotros también, ya a partir del 22 de marzo, estamos en la mira. Este memorándum salió el sábado. La Casa Blanca lo emitió y fue dirigido al Departamento de Homeland Security, y dice que incluso el gobierno debe iniciar medidas disciplinarias en contra de abogados en las respectivas salas.

Actualidad Radio:
Yo voy a explicar esto un poco más. A la persona que nos está escuchando… Cuando va a utilizar un servicio profesional en los Estados Unidos, en el caso de la ley y una cosa tan complicada, complicada en este momento como nunca antes en el pasado, como la ley de inmigración, debe buscar totalmente, número uno, que sea abogado. No un notario, no un contador público, no alguien que no es un activista comunitario, no. No, abogado. Y abogado graduado de los Estados Unidos, no abogado de la Conchinchina: abogado graduado aquí. Y después que usted se cerciora de que esa persona es abogado, que sea practicante de la ley de inmigración exclusivamente, porque si usted tiene un dolor de muela, usted no va a ir a un carpintero, y tampoco va a ir a un neurólogo ni a un quiropráctico. Va a ir a un dentista, ¿verdad?, porque es el que se dedica a la boca. Con la ley americana ocurre igual. Hay abogados que se especializan en divorcio solamente, hay otros que se especializan en contratos de bienes raíces solamente; pero la ley de inmigración es una ley que, como ustedes acaban de escuchar a la doctora, todos los días, todas las semanas, evoluciona; hay cambios nuevos que vienen por la vía judicial o por la vía administrativa. Entonces, imagínense si usted se busca un abogado que lo que practica es la ley de, qué sé yo, de contratos laborales y de esto no sabe nada, no sabe nada, entonces lo va a embarcar. Mucho menos un notario público o una persona que tiene una agencia abierta ahí. Ha habido casos aquí de gente que les han cogido montones de miles de dólares a las personas en fraudes, en esquemas de fraude; no son abogados de inmigración, los han embarcado. Así que tengan mucho, mucho cuidado con el terreno que pisan.

Actualidad Radio:
Abogada, me gustaría solamente dos segundos hacerle una pregunta que una persona nos está lanzando por acá. Buenas tardes, María: si uno tiene un asilo pendiente por 11 años y dentro de mi asilo está mi hijo, que cumple mañana 21 años, ¿él seguiría dentro de la petición de asilo? ¿Tendría que buscar por su cuenta otra figura legal?

Dra. Martha Arias:
Él sigue dentro de la petición de asilo, aunque cumpla 21 años, siempre y cuando no se case. O sea que, mientras esté soltero, puede tener 30 años y sigue en la petición de asilo. Lo importante es que no se case. En el momento en que un menor cumple, en ese caso así tenga 17, si se casa, queda fuera del asilo.

Actualidad Radio:
Buenísimo. El teléfono de la doctora, de nuevo: 305-671-0018, 305-671… Si no tuvo ahora lapicero para apuntar, porque va en el vehículo, la puede encontrar por Facebook con su nombre y apellido, “Martha Arias” —pero Martha se escribe con TH, M-A-R-T-H-A—. Pone en su buscador de Facebook “Martha Arias Immigration Attorney” y le va a aparecer el bufete de la doctora. Aquí va el teléfono de nuevo: 305-671-0018.
Doctora, muy agradecidos por todo el tiempo y por la gentileza de conversar con nuestros oyentes.

Dra. Martha Arias:
Gracias a ustedes y feliz resto de semana para todos.

English Transcript

And as we promised, we are going to address the issue of the decision made by the Department of Homeland Security about the Humanitarian Parole. We now greet Attorney Martha Arias, our immigration attorney, the person who always helps us and answers our questions, and helps us understand these issues that for some time now have been arising very frequently.

Attorney, we greet you: Mariana de la Fuente and Agustina Acosta. Good afternoon.

How are you, Attorney? Good afternoon.

Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq.:
Good afternoon, Mariana and Agustina. A greeting to both of you. Happy Monday, and also happy Monday to all the listeners. Same to you.

Actualidad Radio:
Attorney, I said something a few minutes ago, but I would like you to review it and, if you feel it is not correct, please correct it. And if not, then no problem.
During the eighties, nineties, and the early years of the new millennium, the humanitarian parole figure was used by the executive government, but on a case-by-case basis. I remember there were people, for example—I will cite a couple of examples—people who had a very serious health situation in Cuba, who needed brain surgery; then they had no way to get to the United States otherwise. And the congresspeople would arrange with immigration a humanitarian parole, and a child would come to have surgery with his mom or dad, or a mother would come to bury a child who had died here, who arrived on a raft and drowned on the way.
But these were very isolated cases, individually based, and suddenly the Biden administration used this legal figure or migratory figure to cast a sort of large umbrella under which they brought in hundreds of thousands of people. Tell me if that is correct.

Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq.:
Yes, that is correct. The law has two key phrases. Parole is granted for “urgent humanitarian reasons,” as you just mentioned, or for “public benefit.” Those are the only two reasons why humanitarian parole can be granted.

Actualidad Radio:
Attorney, we were talking before speaking with you, and we were taking on something of a “devil’s advocate” role, because sometimes that is necessary. We all wish that these 532,000 Nicaraguans, Haitians, Venezuelans, and Cubans who have entered could really have the chance to stay, especially the decent people, that they do a screening and weed out, as one might say, the bad ones.
However, it must be remembered that when this measure by President Biden was put into effect, basically overnight, this entry of 532,000 people was carried out based on many legal loopholes. No one knew whether it was a family reunification, a parole, or which category was to be invoked, and most importantly, it was done for a two-year period—two years—and with requirements that, at that time, were essential: having the famous sponsor, also arriving directly from a country rather than going through a third country, and not being a burden on the government, because that’s what the work permit was for.
Unfortunately, that was not strictly followed. There was also a lot of abuse of the system, especially at the end of that period. And for Cubans, they have the Cuban Adjustment Act that, after one year and a day, they can become residents or citizens. For Venezuelans, many of those who have worked are being petitioned for by the very companies where they have been working; many others have decided to start families, they have gotten married, meaning that there is a movement because they knew it was something temporary, that it lasted two years. Once those two years are up, can the government of the United States be required, in a court of law, to automatically extend it?

Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq.:
Well, obviously it is not that it can be demanded in court. Maybe, I say, attorneys will look at everything that was stated in the Federal Register, which actually has not been published; it is going to be published tomorrow, March 25, but we attorneys already have access to the document that will be published in the Federal Register.
Among the things it says, which support the termination of this parole, it mentions a change in national policy or foreign policy, and that change, upon the arrival of the new administration, is one of the points it raises.
Second, they mention in the Federal Register document that the parole was not really granted for reasons of true public interest or humanitarian reasons on a case-by-case basis, as the law requires. The law requires that these humanitarian or public interest reasons be on a “case by case basis.” And here it was done in an all-encompassing way.
Another point mentioned in the Federal Register about why parole is being ended is that it was initially also said it was to reduce the flow of people across the border, which indeed happened—perhaps the number of people crossing the border was reduced—but the government, the administration, believes that was not sufficient public interest grounds to grant parole to all these people.
So, if there is any attorney who believes these grounds for termination are invalid under the law or that there was an administrative violation, there could be a lawsuit. I am not a constitutional lawyer, but within my modest understanding of the Constitution and how the legal system works, I do not see a very strong reason for a plaintiff to sue over this parole. Notice that.
Maybe, maybe, what people might most likely say is that it should not be ended collectively through a notice in the Federal Register. Why? Because under the regulations, parole requires written notice to each individual. And this Federal Register notice says that this is a constructive notice for all the beneficiaries of that parole, meaning they are not going to mail a personalized letter to each of them, but the Federal Register constitutes that written termination notice that they will receive, in addition to the notice they will be sent on their USCIS online account page, because this was a process done electronically; each person had to open an online account, so those accounts should still be active, and they will be notified there.
So I would say that maybe a possible lawsuit might be that the plaintiffs argue there should not be a constructive notice through the Federal Register, but rather a personalized notice letter to each one. But, but, but that, in the end…

Actualidad Radio:
…in the end, that would slightly change the notification procedure, but not necessarily the expiration of the parole or the termination date.

Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq.:
Correct. And what would be changed, if you think about it, is the notice, because each person should be given those 30 days, and each person will have a different 30-day period, right, starting when the letter is delivered to them. Whereas, in this manner, supposedly tomorrow it is published in the Federal Register, tomorrow, March 25. People will have 30 days, everyone, regardless of when it expires; everyone will have 30 days, and before those 30 days they should leave the country unless they have another way to stay, as Mariana mentioned before, who might have gotten married or someone to petition them, I don’t know, but those 30 days would be the same for everyone. If there is a personalized letter to each of them, obviously then the 30 days for each could differ.

Actualidad Radio:
Now, in the particular case of Cubans, let’s see if we understand this correctly: let’s assume that the parole is ended, generally speaking, on March 31. We’ll arbitrarily pick March 31 as the date. We can infer that Cubans who arrived in the United States before March 27 or 28 of last year, and who therefore have already passed the one year and one day mark, despite the imminent cancellation of this measure, would still have the opportunity to take advantage of the adjustment act.

Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq.:
Sure, if they have a year and a day, they can do it, because the only requirement under the Cuban Adjustment Act, among others, obviously, is that the person be Cuban, that they have a year and a day since their entry, and that they had parole. They might have been granted parole for a day, for three days, for five days; the important thing is that they have it, no matter how long it lasted. These people were given two years, but if those two years have even run out—I see no reason why they would not have filed for adjustment of status at the year and a day mark—they should already be in that residency process.

Actualidad Radio:
Attorney, I was listening this morning to a former director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the United States, who is also a White House adviser, and he said that a great majority of those 532,000 Nicaraguans, Venezuelans, Haitians, and Cubans who came in have already been switching over, as we were discussing, to other categories. Some have done it via Alien of Extraordinary Ability, others have done it via H1B, which can be granted by the sponsor from the workplace where they have been for two years, another, as you were saying, because they have gotten married and have started a family, and others because they have applied for that famous asylum. So there are many possibilities that, one by one, these categories might shift.
But in addition, there is a possibility that a bipartisan committee is being set up with María Elvira Salazar, Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz—who is a Democrat—and Senator Rick Scott. They are looking for legal options to accommodate the others who may also be left stranded in that immigration reform that has been talked about for a long time. But is it true—and I ask you this as an immigration attorney—that as long as the house is not “cleaned up,” as long as all these programs done as temporary patches, “just in case,” that end up becoming permanent, are not resolved, will it be very difficult to pass an immigration reform per se that can help the people in this country?

Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq.:
Yes and no. There are many immigration reforms that could be done even if not all the people who entered illegally in recent years have been removed, because these people who entered illegally in the last few years are not the only ones who are without status in the United States. Believe it or not, there are people who have spent 20, 30, 40 years trying to regain status. Exactly. And those people might already have American citizen spouses, a father, a mother, who have not been able to get them residency even though they have petitions, or because the petitions are not ready for residency yet and they have to wait, or because, since they are out of status, the law does not allow them to get residency here. That would be done through a reform like reopening 245(i), which is that law that closed on April 30, 2001, which allowed a person to pay a thousand-dollar fine and get residency inside the country. That kind of benefit—for example, reforms like that—are very possible.
The reform proposed by María Elvira Salazar is very, very broad and covers a large number of categories and undocumented people who would not necessarily include only those who have arrived recently. That reform would also help many people who have been here longer.

Actualidad Radio:
But it protects those who are already here and feel they have been skipped over, as many of their immigration cases have not progressed because of the avalanche of immigration cases that occurred after this border opening.

Actualidad Radio:
Here’s the problem: the mess that was created in the last four years with all these entries… Now, I don’t know, because one person says 8 million, another says 12 million, another says 14 or 15. Okay, let’s take 10 million as a midpoint to encompass all these figures floating around. 10 million people in 4 years. Fine, if those 10 million had been well-behaved, hardworking people, probably the country might have absorbed that in some way, and the larger American population would not have been outraged. But among those hypothetical 10 million people, according to the federal government itself, as of December 31, 2023, 650,000 people had entered with criminal records, records from their home countries. And among them were twenty-something thousand murderers, twenty-something thousand sexual offenders, forty or fifty thousand drug traffickers or people with drug-related offenses. These people came here and did not precisely dedicate themselves to behaving well.
And then we have seen these brutal news stories of children being killed, students being killed, sexual assaults, an elderly person slaughtered here or there, a nursing student raped and murdered. The American press began putting that on the news every day, and then the government started giving these people hotels, five-star hotels in New York. Then many war veterans who served in wars and have trauma syndrome are living in the streets, do not have good medical resources, and then they see that someone who arrived across the border is getting all kinds of help. This got so huge that it was a determining factor in the last presidential election.
This president was elected largely to solve the immigration problem. So now this whole mess works against the good will and common sense of people like María Elvira, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Rick Scott, and a bunch of others who want to fix this, especially for the people who deserve to stay. I met about 23 or 24 years ago a Colombian couple, wonderful, exemplary people, who had their own business, owned their own home, and had two children born here in the United States who must be adults by now because that was 23 or 24 years ago. Well, those people were undocumented.

Actualidad Radio:
Here in Homestead, you find a ton of families who have their own plant nurseries, who arrived, who are undocumented, and who have, as you say, their kids here, who are decent people, who don’t even have a traffic ticket, who have been here twenty-something years. And when you talked to them, they would say, “I feel like I’ve been ignored. I didn’t have any of those opportunities, and now they’re not taking me into account either, me who’ve been here twenty-something years, my kids are American, I have all this,” now overshadowed by this anti-immigrant climate that has come about because of these criminal acts and all the mess that has been going on, Attorney.

Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq.:
Well, indeed, I think what you just said describes the problem we have. We found out through the press about all the disasters committed by criminals who entered from the Tren de Aragua in New York, where we saw what they showed was happening in Central Park: they were robbing people, they got on—I don’t even know how they got motorcycles—and they did things…

Actualidad Radio:
…in Colorado, in Texas, in Georgia, and so many places.

Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq.:
I personally was in Chicago last year, around May—perhaps it was April or May—and I was astonished, I was shocked, because not even in Miami did I see that. And there were large numbers of Venezuelans in a few blocks near downtown Chicago, which, as you know, is a very nice area for walking. It’s a safe area; it’s not like I was in the suburbs. It was a good area, and there were two or three blocks full of Venezuelans on the street, and they were lighting campfires and making sancocho and everything right there on the street, with huge pots—I don’t even know where they got them—and very young children all sleeping on the street. So with everything that entails, right? Because lighting a campfire in the street can bring many other dangers; making a big pot of sancocho in the middle of downtown is also dangerous, I think. So all of that creates a bad image, not only for those of us who were tourists who saw it, but also for the locals who notice it. That creates this negative image we’ve had.
And it all happened, why? Because when there is an excessive influx of people, the capacity to absorb immigration becomes more difficult. So the agencies that help these people were also at their limit; they couldn’t help them. And others who wanted to help, but people didn’t want to be in those shelters; they wanted to be out on the street. So, as the saying goes, “victims of their own invention,” because the people who wanted to come in that manner, wanting to establish their own rules, now face these harsh decisions from the new administration to round them all up and deport many without the right to go before an immigration judge. So, as they say, for tough situations, tough measures.

Actualidad Radio:
Yes, extreme measures. All of us living here in South Florida, especially in Miami-Dade County and Broward, know that we are surrounded by entrepreneurial, decent Venezuelans, many of them business owners. I am surrounded by them.

Actualidad Radio:
Students, decent people—we see them in our churches, we see them in our children’s schools, in every neighborhood, there are one or two Venezuelan businesses or more, owned by hardworking, decent people. That is not what the American press focuses on. Now, when an individual, a criminal who was in a prison in Venezuela—Maduro released him and told him, “Hey, I’m giving you your freedom, but you have to go to the United States”—and that individual got here and murdered someone, murdered a child in Texas, or a nursing student in Georgia, or an elderly person here or there. Or they forcibly seized apartment buildings in Aurora, Colorado, evicted the residents, kicked them out, and took over their homes. When we have seen people having sexual relations on the sidewalks, in a tent, on the sidewalks of Manhattan… That’s what the American press promotes.
And that is 0.001% of all the Venezuelan community in the United States. But that is what made the news. Then a climate of rejection was created, an appallingly hostile climate. And the majority of Congress at this time—that’s a reality whether we like it or not—the majority of Congress right now does not dare to propose a reform to accommodate undocumented people who deserve to be here, because the public is really outraged and people are furious about this problem, because the past administration went too far.
Attorney, if you permit us, we will invite some people to call in and ask you questions. We are not talking about political issues now—if anyone wants to talk with the Attorney, it’s to ask her a legal question about immigration law. Anyone who…

Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq.:
…is not political…

Actualidad Radio:
Correct. Anyone who wants to share a political viewpoint should wait until we reopen the lines a bit later. Those who have an ongoing immigration issue and want good advice, the Attorney can answer your question.

Actualidad Radio:
At (305) 410-1040, (305) 410-1040—if you need that legal advice, call us. We are here with Attorney Martha Arias, immigration attorney.

Actualidad Radio:
Remember, do not start giving political opinions because, out of courtesy to her and to make the most of our time, we will have to end the call in an unpleasant manner. We wouldn’t like to do that.

Actualidad Radio:
William, how are you? Good afternoon.

William:
Yes, good afternoon. Excellent show, and thank you for the information. Thanks. In my case, I’ve been waiting 11 years for a political asylum decision in this country. Fortunately, we can renew our work permits every five years. My daughters came here as children, they want to study, they want to become nurses, but because of our immigration status we are not residents, we are not citizens, we can’t get any scholarship.
So, what possibilities are there? We’ve been waiting 10, 11 years for a decision, and all these people who have arrived in recent years… I imagine our cases are put aside.

Actualidad Radio:
Attorney, let’s see what you can tell William. Thanks, William.

Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq.:
Well, I have a slightly different view here. Obviously, I’m outside looking in, as we say. Of course, you are in a more subjective situation, and it bothers you. But here’s what I say, sir. People who have had an asylum pending for so many years and, meanwhile, the privilege of having this work permit and being here, and of having their children educated in the United States in a public school—certainly they are not paying for that either, it’s a public school—and they speak English, they have learned English, they should see it positively.
Why? Because asylum cases are very hard to win. And if you look at the statistics on asylum approvals, they are very low. The statistics show between 15% and at most 20% or 25%, in the most generous scenario, are approved. The majority of asylum cases are denied.
What would have happened if you had been called in right now, they deny you the asylum, send you to a deportation proceeding, and deport you? Perhaps your children would not have had the opportunity to study here, to be in this country.
If you can’t get a scholarship, well, many of us weren’t given scholarships. I am also an immigrant. I didn’t get a scholarship. I had to get loans. I had to work to pay for my books. So, let’s look on the bright side of what we have received and not demand more about why we are here, why we haven’t gotten a scholarship, why we haven’t had the asylum granted. That shouldn’t be the perspective with which we look at things. I have Venezuelan clients who come into my office and tell me the same: “I’ve been waiting 15 years,” and you know what I’m telling them now? “It’s to your own benefit to keep waiting, at least while this administration is in place,” because rest assured that if before and during Biden’s presidency the approval rate for asylum was 15 or 20 percent at most, at this time I believe under this administration the orders are that asylum approvals will drop even further, they may be 10 percent, they may be 5 percent. So who wants to be called for an asylum interview under this administration? I don’t think many people do. So let’s be grateful for what we have, let’s keep using that work permit, let’s give thanks, and let the kids get student loans.

Actualidad Radio:
Attorney, but I did want to ask you, while we move on to the next call, about asylum. Asylum is really a status that each country has a duty, at some point, to admit people who are genuinely in danger, who cannot go back because their lives are truly in danger. But there has been a prostitution—and I use the word “prostitution” in a broad sense—of this figure in recent times. You said that the approval rate in the Biden era was much lower, 10 or 15 percent, but that’s because mass asylum applications during that administration made it impossible for that to continue functioning as it had. Isn’t that right?

Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq.:
Yes, that’s correct. I mean, asylum claims increased by…

Actualidad Radio:
…300 percent.

Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq.:
Exactly, and even more. That’s right, but not necessarily all those denied asylums are only from those who entered in that administration; they might have been filed before. Look, here’s what I say:
People have the right to apply for asylum, sure, because it’s under the law of the United States and international law. What I say is that, as you rightly noted, so many were filed, there has been abuse of asylum, because we have to acknowledge it. There are people who come with a claim of “I’m afraid because my neighborhood is very dangerous, and they threatened me.” Possibly two people were indeed threatened, but not every threat a person receives in their country is grounds for asylum.

Actualidad Radio:
There are people who were denied, sorry, other categories, and decided to file for asylum because… I’m not talking about people like you, who have a broad track record as an attorney, but there are people who fall into the wrong hands, and the asylum process is the most common resource. People who come here seeking a better economic future—who are within their rights, because their family has been here for five years and they also want to be here legally—and they cling to that measure, even though they may be taking the spot from people whose lives truly are in danger, who need to request it.

Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq.:
Exactly. The approval rate is very low, and so let’s say it: People who have had asylum pending for so many years—12, 13, 14, 15 years—are basically benefiting, as are those who continue applying, from that long wait, so they can remain in the United States. Because otherwise, if an asylum case was processed quickly—let’s say in a year—it means that person would have a 70% or 75% or 65% chance of going back to their country in that year, because if they’re denied, they will send them back, you see?
So think about it. If the denial rate is 25% but they resolve it in a year or two, that means you have a 70% chance of returning to your country in two years, whereas if you keep waiting, as it’s happening now with these backlogs—12 years, for instance—at least they’ve had the opportunity to be in this country all that time. So I think everything can be viewed from different perspectives. I see it as a benefit that these people have gotten. Although of course everyone wants their case resolved quickly, but that’s the system we have at this moment.

Actualidad Radio:
Friends, we are speaking with Attorney Martha Arias. I’m going to give the phone number of her law firm, because we’ve taken up half an hour of her time, and the least we can do is also help her. She is an immigration attorney, only immigration. If any of you need to consult her legally, need good advice, she is very experienced, as you have heard. She is on with us every week, and the law firm’s phone number is (305) 671-0018. I’ll repeat it at the end, but now let’s speak with Roberto. Good afternoon.

Roberto:
Good afternoon, Agustina, Mariana, Attorney. Agustina, then I know that this is a space now for immigration questions, and I have a question for the Attorney, but I’d also like, at some point—I don’t know how we can work it out—for you and Mariana… Because truly, I… I drive for Uber, and I have some comments, I want to share certain things that are happening.

Actualidad Radio:
What’s going on? Go ahead, we’ll open the phone line for other issues later. For now, please ask the Attorney your immigration question.

Roberto:
Yes, the question, Attorney… Mariana, sorry, Attorney Martha. Right now it’s being discussed that Venezuela could be among the countries that are going to be banned from entering…

Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq.:
In my opinion, what happens with a person who is Venezuelan but also has Italian nationality? Could they enter from Venezuela? Could they enter? What do you think? From what I understand, they are Venezuelan nationals, no matter if they have another nationality. If they are Venezuelan, that’s it. And I imagine, if they come with a Venezuelan passport… I don’t think if they have dual nationality they’ll… Sincerely, I think that if the travel ban is issued, I don’t believe that if they have dual nationality and come in with, say, a Spanish or Italian passport, they will have any problem. But we should wait for the ban to be published so as not to speculate, because I don’t know what exactly it will say.

Actualidad Radio:
I imagine that if the person lives in Caracas or resides in Caracas and has a European Union passport, they might, I don’t know, travel to Aruba, travel to Curaçao, or go somewhere outside Venezuela, to be able to enter the United States with that European Union passport, because even if they hold a European Union passport, if they come directly from Caracas, maybe that’s where things could get tricky.

Actualidad Radio:
But the attorney has said something very interesting: it’s not a law yet. No, no, no, it’s just speculation, and we don’t even know the basis on which it would rest. We have to wait. Eduardo, good afternoon.

Eduardo:
Hello, yes, good afternoon. Great show. The thing is, my spouse and I just obtained, practically at the start of this year, our permanent residency, and the immediate next step was to travel to Mexico to update our Venezuelan passports. But here’s the question, and I imagine you already see it: is it advisable to go to Mexico now to renew the Venezuelan passport, bearing in mind that when we come back, even though we have permanent residency, we might not be allowed back in? So we’re stuck in that dilemma.

Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq.:
Don’t leave yet. Wait for the announced travel ban, the ban on travel, to come out, so we can be sure of what it says, who they’re going to prohibit from entering, whether it will include residents or not. So it’s best to wait for the regulation to be published and then travel once we have a certainty about it. Before that, I would not advise you to travel, sir.

Actualidad Radio:
All right. Attorney, one last question, and I’m going to give you some hypothetical dates for this question.
A Cuban who arrived in the United States in, say, August or September of last year, and therefore the one-year-and-a-day requirement for the adjustment act would be in August or September of this year, depending on the date he arrived last August or September. If the cancellation of the humanitarian parole is effective, for example, on April 1, and that person still does not have the one year and one day to take advantage of residency…
If that Cuban decides to hide in a closet at a friend’s house and stay there quietly, without going out on the street so as not to risk being caught, once the year and a day is reached in August or September, can he take advantage of the act, or does simply having had a period without status after the cancellation of humanitarian parole invalidate him for the Cuban Adjustment Act?

Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq.:
No, it does not invalidate him. He can file for Cuban adjustment upon completing the one year and one day.

Actualidad Radio:
Okay, so he can hide somewhere under a rock and not cause any ripples… so he won’t get caught. But yes, he can remain, as long as he meets that one-year-and-a-day requirement, that’s fine. OK.

Actualidad Radio:
Very well. Well, let’s restate the phone number of the Attorney’s law firm. It’s (305) 671-0018. Remember, she’s an immigration attorney, only immigration. (305) 671-0018. We wouldn’t want someone to say, “Hey, I want to get divorced.” You’d have to look for a different lawyer for that.

Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq.:
Listen, Agustina, check this out: I stayed quiet when you said that because—can you believe that on Saturday, March 22, the President issued a memorandum? It’s called a memorandum, I already posted it on my Instagram page, and officially on the White House page, which says that the government is going to start to direct and discipline immigration attorneys who submit asylum applications or petitions that are not meritorious, or who file motions with the intention of delaying proceedings. So we, immigration attorneys, are also under scrutiny now. So the type of advice… Now, I’ve always been very careful, obviously, because I stick to the law. But the problem is that sometimes the law is also subject to interpretation, right? The law is not black and white. One might think it is, but interpretation… In fact, that’s why there are so many cases: the courts are full of cases, because when there’s one side that interprets the law one way and the other side interprets it differently, that’s why lawsuits exist.
And so now we have to be even more cautious, in addition to what we always have been, because we, too, as of March 22, are under scrutiny. This memorandum came out on Saturday. The White House released it and directed it to the Department of Homeland Security, saying that the government must even initiate disciplinary actions against attorneys in their respective courts.

Actualidad Radio:
I’m going to elaborate a bit more for the person listening. When you hire a professional service in the United States—in this case, the law, and an area as complicated as it is now, more than ever, immigration law—you really have to look for, number one, someone who is a lawyer. Not a notary, not a public accountant, not a community activist. No. No, a lawyer. And a lawyer who graduated in the United States, not an attorney from Timbuktu—a lawyer who graduated here. Then, once you are sure that person is an attorney, make sure they practice immigration law exclusively, because if you have a toothache, you do not go to a carpenter, nor do you go to a neurologist or a chiropractor. You go to a dentist, right, because that’s who specializes in teeth. The same with American law. There are attorneys who only practice divorce law, there are others who only handle real estate contracts. But immigration law is a field which, as you have just heard from the Attorney, evolves all the time, every week; there are new changes that come via judicial or administrative channels. So imagine if you hire an attorney who mainly does, I don’t know, labor contracts, and they don’t know anything about this. They don’t know anything. So they’re going to get you in trouble. Much less a notary public or someone who simply has an office open out there. We’ve had cases here of people who have scammed others out of tens of thousands of dollars in fraud schemes. They are not immigration lawyers, but they’ve messed people up. So be very, very cautious about the path you choose.

Actualidad Radio:
Attorney, I’d like just a couple of seconds to ask you one question that someone has sent us here. Good afternoon, María: if someone has had an asylum pending for 11 years, and within my asylum case is my son, who tomorrow turns 21, does he remain under my asylum claim, or does he have to find another legal path?

Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq.:
He remains part of the asylum claim even if he turns 21, as long as he does not get married. Meaning, as long as he is single, he can be 30 years old and still be under the asylum claim. It’s important that he not get married. If a minor, in that case, even if he’s 17, if he marries, he’s excluded from the asylum.

Actualidad Radio:
Great. The Attorney’s phone number again: (305) 671-0018. If you didn’t have a pen handy because you’re in your car, you can find her on Facebook under her name and surname, “Martha Arias,” but spelled with TH, M-A-R-T-H-A. Type in “Martha Arias Immigration Attorney” in your Facebook search, and her law firm page will show up. Here’s the phone number again: (305) 671-0018.
Attorney, we are very grateful for all your time and for kindly speaking with our listeners.

Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq.:
Thank you, and have a great rest of the week, everyone.

The post Latest U.S. Immigration Policy Changes appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

]]> https://ariasvilla.com/latest-u-s-immigration-policy-changes/feed/ 0 Cuban Nationals, Venezuelan TPS, Asylum Applications, and Travel Bans https://ariasvilla.com/cuban-nationals-venezuelan-tps-asylum-applications-and-travel-bans/ https://ariasvilla.com/cuban-nationals-venezuelan-tps-asylum-applications-and-travel-bans/#respond Tue, 18 Mar 2025 17:43:46 +0000 https://ariasvilla.com/?p=11423 The post Cuban Nationals, Venezuelan TPS, Asylum Applications, and Travel Bans appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

]]>

On Friday, I had the pleasure of joining Agustín and Carlos Acosta on Actualidad Radio to discuss pressing immigration issues affecting our community here in South Florida. We covered several key topics, including recent detentions, Venezuelan TPS expirations, asylum applications, and travel concerns, especially for Cuban nationals.

First, we addressed the situation involving Cuban nationals detained during scheduled check-ins at the ICE office in Miramar, Broward County. Unfortunately, yes, detentions can happen at these appointments. The Miramar office handles not only individuals awaiting court decisions but also those under final orders of deportation who are under supervision. Recently, under President Trump’s executive actions, there’s been an increase in expedited deportations for individuals who entered the U.S. less than two years ago. Particularly vulnerable are those with Form I-220A, “Release on Recognizance,” which currently faces uncertainty in qualifying as parole under the Cuban Adjustment Act. The key difference in these situations is the timing of entry into the United States.

Know your rights if I.C.E. stops you in public.We also explored urgent questions from our Venezuelan community regarding the Temporary Protected Status (TPS). Many Venezuelans who initially opted for TPS due to its ease and speed might still have valid reasons for political asylum—such as past persecution for journalism or activism—but did not file within the one-year deadline. Late asylum filings require demonstrating extraordinary circumstances justifying the delay, such as severe medical conditions or traumatic events. Simply not knowing or lacking money to pay fees typically isn’t enough. It’s still unclear whether initially choosing TPS over asylum could qualify as extraordinary circumstances, leaving the decision to individual judges or immigration officials.

Additionally, we clarified that if someone applied for asylum, received a work permit and social security number, then switched to TPS, their asylum application remains active and provides ongoing protection even if TPS expires.

Regarding travel concerns, particularly around returning to Cuba after receiving political asylum, we corrected widespread misinformation. If someone travels back to their country of persecution within a year after being granted asylum and before obtaining residency, they risk losing their asylum status by law. However, those who have received permanent residency and travel frequently or stay long periods abroad may face scrutiny from immigration officials upon return or during citizenship applications. Immigration could revoke residency within five years if fraud or misrepresentation is proven, though this scenario is complex and not very common.

Green Card Thru Marriage - Arias Villa Law - Miami Immigration Lawyer - Martha AriasResidents who gained their status through the Cuban Adjustment Act shouldn’t generally face re-entry issues unless they have criminal convictions. Even minor offenses, such as possession of small amounts of marijuana or petty theft, can lead to complications at re-entry under current laws. Always consult with an immigration lawyer if you have a criminal record and plan to leave the U.S.

An interesting and less-known issue we discussed was polygamy—having multiple relationships simultaneously. Although it’s not a criminal offense in Latin America, maintaining dual households can cause issues when applying for U.S. citizenship, as immigration evaluates moral character. Recent cases involved applicants denied citizenship for maintaining families in two countries simultaneously.

We also talked about ongoing legal battles concerning Venezuelan TPS, with several court cases aiming to halt its expiration in April. While these cases are pending, no strong injunctions have been issued, and the arguments presented so far have appeared weak.

Lastly, we mentioned emerging reports of a potential new “travel ban” under consideration by immigration authorities, potentially affecting nationals from Ecuador, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. This development remains ongoing, and I’ll closely follow and update our community.

Remember, having dual nationality doesn’t impact eligibility for U.S. citizenship—the United States simply prioritizes its nationality within its jurisdiction.

If you have further questions or need personalized legal assistance, please contact my office at (305) 671-0018. My team and I are dedicated to providing professional and effective guidance to ensure your immigration matters are handled with expertise and care.

Please note that the information provided here is general in nature and does not constitute specific legal advice. For detailed guidance tailored to your particular situation, we recommend scheduling a consultation.

The post Cuban Nationals, Venezuelan TPS, Asylum Applications, and Travel Bans appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

]]> https://ariasvilla.com/cuban-nationals-venezuelan-tps-asylum-applications-and-travel-bans/feed/ 0 USCIS Issues New Form Editions Without Grace Period https://ariasvilla.com/uscis-issues-new-form-editions-without-grace-period/ https://ariasvilla.com/uscis-issues-new-form-editions-without-grace-period/#respond Tue, 11 Mar 2025 04:17:14 +0000 https://ariasvilla.com/?p=11376 The post USCIS Issues New Form Editions Without Grace Period appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

]]>

In early 2025, USCIS released new editions of numerous immigration forms (including Form I-485, I-918, I-134, G-325A, and others) and required their use effective immediately, initially with no grace period for prior versions​ aila.org. This abrupt change meant older form editions would be rejected upon rollout of the new forms​ uscis.gov, catching many applicants and attorneys by surprise.

Substantively, the new form editions reverse certain inclusivity measures introduced in recent years. Notably, the “Another Gender Identity” option has been removed, leaving only binary “Female” or “Male” choices for gender on these forms​. Additionally, USCIS has reinstated the term “alien” in place of “noncitizen” or “foreign national” throughout the forms and instructions​. These terminology changes align with policy shifts under the new administration and mark a return to traditional legal language.

The immediate enforcement of new forms without an overlap period caused confusion, delays, and concern among applicants and legal practitioners​. Applicants who unknowingly filed older versions risked rejection of their applications. In response to advocacy (including litigation by the American Immigration Lawyers Association, AILA), USCIS acknowledged the concerns. By March 8, 2025, USCIS updated its guidance to allow a short one-month grace period for these forms, meaning prior editions would be accepted until specified dates in March/April 2025​.

This late concession provided some relief, but the window is brief – emphasizing the need for immediate compliance. Overall, the changes highlight a shift in administrative priorities (focusing on traditional terminology and data collection) and serve as a reminder that applicants must stay vigilant for sudden procedural updates.

Form I-485 – Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status

Gender Identification
Terminology and Wording
Public Charge and Other Content
Structural Format
Instructions and Other

Form I-485 Supplement A – Adjustment under Section 245(i)

Purpose – Content Changes – Format

Form I-485 Supplement J – Confirmation of Job Offer (for Employment-Based Applicants)

Purpose – Content Changes – Formatting

Form I-918 – Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status

Gender Field – Terminology – Other Content – Format/Structure

Form I-914 – Application for T Nonimmigrant Status

Gender Field – Terminology – Content – Formatting

Form I-192 – Application for Advance Permission to Enter as a Nonimmigrant

Purpose – Changes – Formatting

Form I-134 – Declaration of Financial Support

Purpose – Changes – Structural/Formatting

Form G-325A – Biographic Information (for Deferred Action)

Purpose – Changes – Formatting

Form I-131 – Application for Travel Document (now titled “Application for Travel Documents, Parole Documents, and Arrival/Departure Records”)

Title and Scope – Gender Field – Content/Use – Formatting

Form N-400 – Application for Naturalization

Gender Field – Terminology – Other Content – Formatting

Form I-356 – Request for Cancellation of Public Charge Bond

Purpose – Changes – Formatting

Employment-Based Applicants

Adjustment of Status (I-485)
Supplement J (Job Offer Confirmation)
Nonimmigrant Workers and Sponsors
Nonbinary / Transgender Applicants in EB category

Family-Based Applicants

Adjustment of Status (I-485)
Financial Support Forms (I-864 vs I-134)
Biographic Information (G-325A)
Immigrant Visa (Consular) Applicants

Asylum Seekers and Humanitarian Applicants

Form I-589 (Application for Asylum)
Form I-131
Form I-918 (U visa for crime victims)
Form I-914 (T visa for trafficking victims)
Form I-192 (waiver of inadmissibility)
Form I-134
Form I-821 (Temporary Protected Status)
Form I-821D (DACA recipients)
Form I-589 (Asylum Seekers)
U Visa Applicants (Victims of Crime)
T Visa Applicants (Victims of Trafficking)
VAWA Self-Petitioners
Humanitarian Parole Programs
Refugee/Asylee Derivatives & Travel

Investors and Entrepreneurs

International Entrepreneur Parole (Form I-941)
EB-5 Investors (Form I-526 and I-829)
E-2 Investors or Other Entrepreneurs

Other Relevant Categories and Applicants

Naturalization Applicants
DACA Recipients
Students and Exchange Visitors
Attorneys and Preparers

Recommendations for Applicants

1. Always Use the Latest Form Version
2. Double-Check Filing Instructions and Fees
3. Fill Out Forms Completely and Accurately (No Blanks for Gender)
4. Anticipate and Prevent Rejection Issues
5. Plan for the End of Grace Periods
6. Leverage USCIS and Legal Resources
7. Prepare for Potential Processing Delays
8. Stay Informed on Future Changes
9. Consider Impact on Personal Situation
10. Monitor Your Case Status and Correspondence

The following is a side-by-side comparison of the old and new versions of each major form affected by the updates. It highlights structural modifications, content updates, formatting adjustments, and other notable differences introduced in the edition dated 01/20/2025 (now the current edition for all forms below). In general, most changes across forms are consistent – mainly the removal of non-binary gender options and the return of the term “alien” – but specific forms have unique adjustments as detailed:

Form I-485 – Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status

Gender Identification:

Old Version – Allowed three gender options (“Male,” “Female,” and “Another Gender Identity”) for the applicant’s sex/gender.

New Version – The form now permits only binary options (“Female” or “Male”), eliminating the nonbinary/“Another Gender Identity” choice​. The field label itself was changed from “Gender” to the more biological term “Sex,” reflecting the narrowed options.

Terminology and Wording:

Old Version – Used the word “noncitizen” (or “foreign national”) in various questions and instructions when referring to the applicant or others (consistent with the prior administration’s language policy).

New Version – Reverts to the term “alien” in all references to individuals who are not U.S. citizens​. For example, instructions regarding inadmissibility and public charge now refer to “the alien” instead of “the noncitizen,” and any mention of immigration status uses the statutory term “alien.” This change appears in sections related to public charge determinations and military service exemptions, among others​, but otherwise does not alter the legal criteria being discussed.

Public Charge and Other Content:

Old Version – Reflected the 2022 public charge rule (with relatively limited evidence requirements) and did not use the term “alien.”

New Version – No change in substantive eligibility questions or evidence requirements for public charge; however, wording in the form instructions and any relevant form items now uses “alien” consistently. The content of questions (e.g. regarding criminal history, security, immigration violations) remains the same. There is no new eligibility criterion introduced on the form; the changes are primarily linguistic.

Structural Format:

Old Version – The form had the gender question with a third checkbox and used labels like “USCIS Online Account Number” alongside “A-Number.”

New Version – With the removal of one checkbox, the overall layout is slightly adjusted (the space for the gender question now has two checkboxes instead of three). Question numbering and section ordering on Form I-485 remain unchanged aside from this omission – for instance, the questions that followed the gender question keep the same numbers. Any references to an “USCIS Account Number” vs. “Alien Registration Number” are now standardized to just “Alien Registration Number (A-Number)” in the form and instructions (the form explicitly uses the legal term “Alien” again). These formatting tweaks are minor; the form’s length and section structure are essentially the same as the previous edition.

Instructions and Other:

Old Version – Included inclusive language and possibly FAQs about the gender field (since the “Another Gender Identity” had been introduced in 2023).

New Version – Instructions no longer mention the third gender option and may instruct applicants to select a sex that matches their documents. All occurrences of “noncitizen” in the instructions (for example, in explaining eligibility categories or grounds of inadmissibility) are replaced with “alien”​. No additional instructions or evidentiary requirements were added. Filing instructions (addresses, fee amounts) remain the same except that applicants must use this 01/20/25 edition; USCIS explicitly notes that as of April 3, 2025, it will reject prior editions of Form I-485​ uscis.gov.

Form I-485 Supplement A – Adjustment under Section 245(i)

Purpose:

Supplement A is used by certain applicants adjusting status under INA 245(i) (typically those with old immigration violations who pay a penalty fee). The changes mirror those on the main I-485.

Content Changes:

Old vs New – The gender item removal and terminology switch to “alien” apply here as well. If the supplement collects any biographic information from the applicant, it now only recognizes male/female. Any reference in instructions to the person (such as “the immigrant under 245(i)”) now uses “alien.” No changes to the eligibility questions about grandfathering under 245(i) were made – the supplement still asks about the petition or labor certification date, etc., in the same manner.

Format:

No significant structural alterations; the supplement remains a short form to be filed with the I-485 if needed. The edition date is updated to 01/20/25, and USCIS set the same April 3, 2025 cutoff for using old versions​ uscis.gov.

Form I-485 Supplement J – Confirmation of Job Offer (for Employment-Based Applicants)

Purpose:

Supplement J is filed to confirm a bona fide job offer or request portability to a new job under INA 204(j) for certain employment-based adjustment applicants.

Content Changes:

Old vs New – This supplement primarily collects the applicant’s and employer’s information and a job description. The new edition does not appear to add or remove any sections; however, if there were any fields for gender/sex of the applicant or other parties, they would now be limited to male/female (most likely, Supplement J did not ask for gender since it’s focused on the job offer). The main change is in terminology: any mention of the applicant as a “foreign national” or “noncitizen worker” in instructions is now “alien.” For example, the form’s certification wording might now read “confirm that the job offer to the alien remains available…” whereas previously “to the noncitizen” might have been used.

Formatting:

The structure (sections for applicant info, petitioner info, job details) remains identical. The edition date updated to 01/20/25; USCIS initially required immediate use, then allowed prior versions until April 3, 2025​ uscis.gov.

Form I-918 – Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status

Gender Field:

Old Version – Allowed “another gender identity” option for the petitioner (applicant) and any derivatives’ gender, in addition to male/female.

New Version – Allows only “Male” or “Female,” removing any non-binary option. U visa petitioners must now select one of the two, aligning this form with the new binary-only standard.

Terminology:

Old Version – Used terms like “self-petitioner” or “applicant” and generally avoided “alien” in favor of “individual” or “person.”

New Version – Replaces references with “alien” where applicable. For instance, in instructions regarding inadmissibility waivers (many U applicants also file Form I-192), the text now refers to the “alien petitioner”​. However, the core requirements for U visa eligibility (proof of being a crime victim, helpfulness to law enforcement, etc.) remain unchanged.

Other Content:

No new questions were added to Form I-918. The certification from law enforcement (Form I-918, Supplement B) remains required and unchanged in substance. The primary differences are linguistic – aligning terms with statutory language – and ensuring the form reflects the updated edition date.

Format/Structure:

No structural changes (same sections for applicant info, qualifying crime details, etc.). The edition date is 01/20/25, and after an initial announcement of no overlap, USCIS is allowing the prior edition through May 5, 2025​ uscis.gov (a slightly longer grace period for U visas, likely recognizing the complexities in coordinating certification documents) before rejecting old versions.

Form I-914 – Application for T Nonimmigrant Status

Gender Field:

Old Version – Included an “Another Gender Identity” option for applicants (victims of trafficking).

New Version – Only “Male” or “Female” may be selected, removing any third option​. This mirrors the change on Form I-918 and I-485.

Terminology:

Old Version – Used “applicant” or “individual” language;

New Version – Refers to the applicant as “alien” in formal instructions. For example, statements about eligibility (being physically present on account of trafficking, etc.) would now describe “the alien” instead of “the applicant” in legal reasoning sections, to conform to standard legal terms​.

Content:

No substantive eligibility changes – the form still asks about the trafficking circumstances, cooperation with law enforcement, etc., exactly as before. Evidence requirements (such as providing personal statements and supporting documentation) are unchanged. Only the descriptors have changed (gender and terminology).

Formatting:

No new sections or reordering. The form’s edition is 01/20/25; USCIS originally required immediate use but now accepts the prior edition until March 24, 2025​ uscis.gov.

Form I-192 – Application for Advance Permission to Enter as a Nonimmigrant

Purpose:

This form is a waiver application for certain inadmissible noncitizens (now aliens) who need permission to enter the U.S. temporarily. It’s commonly used by U and T visa applicants, VAWA self-petitioners, and others ineligible for a visa or admission without a waiver.

Changes:

Old vs New – The title and purpose remain the same, but language is adjusted. Notably, the form’s instructions now refer to the applicant as an “alien” seeking advance permission instead of “person” or “nonimmigrant” in a general sense. If the form asked for gender (applicant’s biographical info), it is now binary-only (consistent with all other forms). There were no structural additions; the form still requires explanation of inadmissibility and supporting evidence (e.g. why a waiver is merited) just as before.

Formatting: Minimal change besides the edition date update (01/20/25). The prior edition of Form I-192 is accepted until April 3, 2025​ aila.org.

Form I-134 – Declaration of Financial Support

Purpose:

Form I-134 is an affidavit of support used in certain circumstances (for example, sponsors of visitors or parolees use it to show they will support the beneficiary financially; it’s also used for K-1 fiancé(e) visa sponsors).

Changes:

Old vs New – The content of the financial support declaration remains the same (sponsor provides information about income, assets, and the beneficiary). However, any fields capturing personal information of the sponsor or beneficiary adhere to the new standards. If the form collected the gender of the beneficiary or sponsor, those fields are now just “Male” or “Female” (the previous edition had an option for “Another Gender Identity” if it collected gender – it likely did, as it asks biographical info of the person being supported). Now, the sponsor must designate the beneficiary’s sex as either male or female​. All references to “person being supported” in instructions might now say “alien” if referring to the immigrant benefiting from support​. For example, where it might have said “the individual for whom you are providing support,” it could now read “the alien for whom you are providing support,” aligning with the reinstated terminology.

Structural/Formatting:

No major structural changes; Form I-134 is still a relatively short form. One notable clarification is that USCIS has distinguished Form I-134 (Declaration of Financial Support) from the newer Form I-134A (Online Request to be a Supporter for parole) – the update of I-134 does not affect I-134A, which is a separate process. The edition date updated to 01/20/25 and prior editions are accepted through April 3, 2025​ aila.org.

Form G-325A – Biographic Information (for Deferred Action)

Purpose:

Form G-325A was historically used to collect biographical data (such as names, birth dates, addresses, and employment history) for certain applications. It was discontinued for most cases a few years ago (with information collected directly on main forms), but USCIS has reintroduced G-325A specifically for Deferred Action cases aila.org. The new edition is dated 01/20/25.

Changes:

Old vs New – The old version of G-325A (last used widely before being retired) included fields for name, alias, date of birth, gender, marital status, residence and employment history, etc. The new G-325A is likely very similar in content, but updated to current standards. The gender field on G-325A is now binary-only (previously, when last used, it only had male/female; it never had a nonbinary option because it hadn’t been updated during the brief period those options were introduced elsewhere). The main change is that USCIS is now requiring this form again for certain Deferred Action requests – a structural change in process. For example, beneficiaries of approved family-based visa petitions who receive deferred action, or those in U visa backlog granted deferred action, may need to submit the new G-325A for background checks.

Formatting:

The form remains one page long (as in the past) and captures the biographic data in a standardized format. The edition date is 01/20/25 and USCIS will not accept previous (obsolete) versions after April 3, 2025​ aila.org. Essentially, this is a revival of a form that had been phased out; its reintroduction itself is a notable change, aimed at ensuring USCIS collects detailed background info for deferred action cases.

Form I-131 – Application for Travel Document (now titled “Application for Travel Documents, Parole Documents, and Arrival/Departure Records”)

Title and Scope:

The new edition of Form I-131 has an expanded title, explicitly referencing Parole Documents and Arrival/Departure Records aila.org. This suggests a slight broadening or clarification of the form’s scope.

Old Title – “Application for Travel Document” (covering re-entry permits, refugee travel documents, advance parole).

New Title – “Application for Travel Documents, Parole Documents, and Arrival/Departure Records,” indicating the form may now also be used to request or replace an I-94 (arrival/departure record) in certain cases. The inclusion of “Arrival/Departure Records” is new and may relate to processes for those seeking a documented entry record or parole entry documentation.

Gender Field:

Old Version – Included a gender field (likely with Male/Female/Other if updated under the prior admin’s inclusivity policy).

New Version – Binary only (Male or Female) for the applicant’s sex, consistent with other forms. Applicants for re-entry permits or advance parole must now choose one of the two, as the “X” or third option is removed.

Content/Use:

The core uses of Form I-131 remain: applying for a re-entry permit (for permanent residents), a refugee travel document (for asylees/refugees), or advance parole (for those with pending applications needing to travel). The new mention of “Parole Documents” likely covers humanitarian parole requests as well, and “Arrival/Departure Records” could mean if someone needs a replacement I-94 or official evidence of entry, they might use I-131 instead of the older Form I-102. However, no major new sections were added – the form still asks for the class of document requested and supporting information (dates of travel, purpose, etc.). Instructions have been updated to use “alien” terminology where appropriate. For instance, when explaining eligibility for a re-entry permit, it might now say “If you are a permanent resident alien who will be outside the U.S. for over a year…” etc.

Formatting:

Aside from the title change and removal of the nonbinary checkbox, formatting is similar. The edition is 01/20/25; prior editions (which were dated 08/24/22, for example) are acceptable only until April 4, 2025​ uscis.gov. After that, any submission must use the new form or it will be rejected.

Form N-400 – Application for Naturalization

Gender Field:

Old Version – The N-400 asks for the applicant’s gender as part of their biographical information. Under the 2023 edition, it likely offered “Male,” “Female,” or “Another Gender Identity.”

New Version – Only “Male” or “Female” can be selected, removing the inclusive option. This is a straightforward change on the form’s first page.

Terminology:

Old Version – Generally, the N-400 form and instructions refer to the applicant as “you” (since it’s filled out by the applicant themselves) and didn’t often use the term “noncitizen” except perhaps in describing eligibility (e.g., “a noncitizen national of the U.S. may also use this form”).

New Version – Any references in instructions to “noncitizen” or “foreign national” are replaced with “alien.” Importantly, the USCIS Policy Manual on citizenship was updated to use “alien” for lawful permanent residents where appropriate​ uscis.gov, and the N-400 instructions align with that. For example, discussion of continuous residence might refer to time the “alien has spent outside the US” in legal terms. The oath and substantive eligibility questions (about good moral character, loyalty, etc.) are unchanged.

Other Content:

No new questions were added to the naturalization application. The controversial 2020 civics test changes were already dealt with separately; this form update does not introduce anything new on that front. It is purely an edition update for consistency with the new administration’s standards.

Formatting:

The form retains the same number of pages and sections (information about residence, employment, trips abroad, moral character, etc.). The edition date is updated to 01/20/25, and USCIS will require this version for any applications post-April 4, 2025 (with the previous edition accepted through April 3, 2025)​ uscis.gov.

Form I-356 – Request for Cancellation of Public Charge Bond

Purpose:

This form is used to cancel a public charge bond that was posted on behalf of an immigrant. (Public charge bonds were seldom used in recent years, since the 2019 public charge rule that introduced them was vacated; however, a few cases might still have bonds in place, and the new administration could use this mechanism again in future policy.)

Changes:

Old vs New – The content remains focused on requesting bond cancellation, which requires showing the immigrant has either naturalized, left the U.S., died, or has been a resident for 5 years without becoming a public charge​ uscis.gov. The new edition likely updates terminology, referring to the bonded individual as an “alien” (e.g., “once the alien has become a U.S. citizen, you may request cancellation of the bond”). The form did not have a gender field in the past (it primarily identifies the individual by name and A-Number), so the gender binary issue is not directly relevant here. No structural changes were made; it’s a simple form.

Formatting:

Same format, with updated edition date 01/20/25. Initially, only the new form would be accepted, but after outcry, the prior edition is accepted until March 24, 2025​ aila.org. The mailing address and filing instructions remain the same. The instructions continue to cite the legal authority for bond cancellation (INA 213, 8 CFR 103.6)​ uscis.gov and direct where to file uscis.gov, unchanged except for using “alien” consistently.

Aside from the specific points above, all these forms now carry the edition date 01/20/25, reflecting approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on that date. USCIS typically prints the edition date at the bottom of each page of the form. Applicants must ensure all pages of the form they submit are from the same edition and that none are missing​ uscis.gov. USCIS has warned it will reject filings that mix pages from old and new editions or have missing pages. In summary, the old versions vs. new versions differ mainly in two areas: (1) removal of certain fields/options (gender identity) and (2) word substitutions (alien vs noncitizen). Structurally and legally, the forms ask for the same information and have the same filing scope as before, with minimal formatting tweaks (such as revised titles or updated form numbers on each page). Applicants and petitioners must use the new versions going forward, as prior editions will be rejected after the brief grace periods noted above​ aila.org.

The recent form changes affect a wide range of applicant categories in the U.S. immigration system. Below is an analysis of how different groups are impacted:

Employment-Based Applicants

Forms Affected:

Employment-based immigrants and nonimmigrants are primarily touched by changes to Form I-485 and its supplements (for those adjusting status based on a job offer or labor certification) and Form I-131 (Advance Parole for those with pending employment-based AOS). Additionally, if they later naturalize, the N-400 changes apply. Employment-based applicants filing petitions like Form I-140 or Form I-129 are indirectly affected to a lesser extent (those forms had been updated earlier for the 2024 fee rule​ uscis.gov and already use “alien” in their titles, e.g. Petition for Alien Worker).

  • Adjustment of Status (I-485): Many high-skilled workers (H-1B, L-1, etc.) transitioning to permanent residence through employer sponsorship must file Form I-485. These applicants now need to use the updated I-485 edition​ aila.org. Substantively, there is no change to eligibility – their ability to adjust status is the same. However, they should be aware that if they previously would have selected an “X” gender marker, they no longer can. In practice, most employment-based applicants will simply check “Male” or “Female” as appropriate, so this change has minimal impact on the majority, except for non-binary individuals (discussed below). More significantly, employment-based filers (and their attorneys) must ensure they submit the correct form edition, since any old version filed after the cutoff date will be rejected, potentially jeopardizing time-sensitive green card processes. This is especially critical for cases nearing visa number availability deadlines or age-out situations. In short, the impact is mostly procedural – they need to download and use the new forms immediately to avoid delays.
  • Supplement J (Job Offer Confirmation): Applicants with pending employment-based I-485 cases changing jobs under AC21 portability or completing the process must submit Supplement J. The changes here (terminology) do not affect the substance of job portability or verification of an offer. Employers and immigrants just need to use the new form and will notice the language now refers to the worker as an “alien” again. There is no policy change in how USCIS adjudicates job offer validity; it’s purely a formality of using the new edition.
  • Nonimmigrant Workers and Sponsors: Forms like the I-129 (used for H-1B, L-1, O-1, etc.) were not part of this immediate update cycle (they were recently updated in 2024 for new fees). However, employers petitioning for nonimmigrant workers should keep an eye on form instructions and policy terminology – USCIS policy guidance now uses “alien” throughout, which could signal future form revisions for these categories as well​ uscis.gov. For now, the main impact on nonimmigrant employment-based cases is indirect: if any supporting forms (e.g., an I-134 for a work visa holder’s dependents or an I-131 for travel on advance parole) are needed, those must be the new versions.
  • Nonbinary / Transgender Applicants in EB category: A small but important subset of employment-based applicants – those who identify as nonbinary or transgender – could feel a personal impact. If an applicant’s gender identity does not fit “male” or “female,” they must now choose one for the purposes of the form. This could cause discomfort or concern about mismatched records. For example, a transgender applicant who has an “X” gender on their passport might now have to select “Male” or “Female” on the I-485, which could create a discrepancy. USCIS has not issued specific guidance for this scenario, but the practical advice is to select the gender that corresponds to other official documents (passport, birth certificate, etc.) to minimize confusion​. While this is a cross-cutting issue affecting all categories, employment-based applicants tend to have representation (lawyers or employer HR) who can guide them through it. They should also be aware that leaving the gender field blank is not advisable – it could trigger a rejection or RFE. In summary, for EB applicants, compliance with the new form versions is the key impact; their substantive immigration process (priority dates, eligibility for visas) is unchanged.

Family-Based Applicants

Forms Affected:

Family-based immigrants use many of the updated forms as well: Form I-485 (for those applying for green cards through marriage, parents, children, etc.), possibly Supplement A (245(i) cases in family context), Form I-130 (Petition for Alien Relative, which notably already uses “Alien” in its title – it wasn’t updated in this round, but it’s worth noting the terminology was always traditional there), Form I-134 (used by some family-based applicants for financial support in cases where the I-864 is not required, such as K-1 fiancé(e) visa stage or certain parole programs), and Form I-131 (advance parole for those with pending family AOS, or re-entry permits for LPRs). Also, if they later naturalize, N-400 changes apply.

  • Adjustment of Status (I-485): Spouses, parents, children, and other relatives adjusting status in the U.S. must use the new I-485 edition​ aila.org just like employment-based applicants. The impact here is procedural (use the correct form) and linguistic. There is no change to who qualifies for adjustment (e.g. immediate relatives remain immediate relatives), and the form questions are the same. Family applicants should be mindful that if they prepare forms in advance (for example, some applicants might have filled out an I-485 weeks or months ago while gathering documents), they will need to discard any old version and refiled on the new 01/20/25 version or risk rejection. Given that family-based cases often involve petitions and forms for multiple people (e.g., a U.S. citizen petitioner, a beneficiary, possibly derivative children), using the latest forms for each is critical – although the I-130 petition itself was not part of this specific update, the I-485 and others are. The use of “alien” on the I-485 may feel jarring to applicants (especially since the previous administration had shifted to the friendlier “noncitizen”), but there is no negative legal effect – it’s a stylistic/regulatory term. Applicants might notice terms like “alien registration number” on forms and instructions, which had been called “USCIS number” by some – this is essentially the same A-Number they’ve always had.
  • Financial Support Forms (I-864 vs I-134): The primary affidavit of support for most family immigrants is Form I-864, which was not updated in this batch (and it already uses “sponsor” and “alien” terminology mandated by law). However, Form I-134 was updated​. Family-based applicants may encounter I-134 in certain situations: for example, a U.S. citizen petitioner brings a fiancé(e) on a K-1 visa – at the visa interview the petitioner must provide Form I-134 to show capability to financially support the fiancé(e). Those petitioners now must use the new I-134 edition (with “alien” language and no third gender option). Similarly, if a family-based immigrant is paroled into the U.S. for humanitarian reasons, sponsors may have used I-134 (as was done under programs like Uniting for Ukraine or parole for Venezuelans, etc. before I-134A existed). Going forward, any use of I-134 must be on the new form. The impact on these family sponsors is minor: they need to download the new form and fill it out, and they might notice the language shift (the person being supported is referred to as an “alien” on the form). There’s no change in the financial criteria or required evidence (pay stubs, bank statements) for support.
  • Biographic Information (G-325A): In the past, spouses filing I-130 petitions had to submit Form G-325A for themselves and the beneficiary to provide biographic history. That requirement was eliminated a few years ago when forms were streamlined. The G-325A is now back but only for deferred action cases – typical family-based applicants do not need to submit a G-325A with an I-130 or I-485 in 2025 (the biographic info is already captured in those forms). So for most family-based immigrants, the reissuance of G-325A has no direct impact. It’s targeted to deferred action contexts (likely U visa waitlists, etc.).
  • Immigrant Visa (Consular) Applicants: Those pursuing family visas via consular processing aren’t directly using USCIS forms like the I-485, but they might use I-864 and DS-260 (State Department forms). The DS-260 (online immigrant visa application) is a State Department form that did allow an “X” gender marker. If the State Department follows the lead of USCIS and the administration’s policy, consular applicants might see changes in the visa application process as well (though as of this update, the State Department had already removed the “X” from passports​). For now, the main effect is if a consular applicant’s petitioner had to submit any USCIS form (e.g., an I-130 or I-864 or I-134) – they need to ensure those are on current editions. Petitioners for family visas should double-check the USCIS Forms Updates page before sending forms to NVC or USCIS.

Overall, family-based applicants experience similar impacts as employment-based: the need to comply with new form editions immediately, and a reversion in language. There may be an emotional or psychological impact for some – for instance, some applicants or petitioners might feel the return of the word “alien” is less welcoming. Practically, however, their cases will not be judged differently because of these form changes. It’s crucial they use the new forms to avoid rejections that could separate families or delay reunification.

Asylum Seekers and Humanitarian Applicants

Forms Affected:

Asylum seekers and refugee applicants are not directly filing forms like I-485 or I-918 at the initial stage, but humanitarian categories are broadly impacted by several updated forms:

  • Form I-589 (Application for Asylum) was not updated in this batch (asylum seekers continue to use the existing edition). However, if an asylum seeker later applies for a green card after one year of asylum status, they will use the updated I-485 (with the new requirements).
  • Refugees and asylees applying for a Refugee Travel Document use Form I-131, which is updated as described (binary gender only, new title) and must be the new edition.
  • Form I-918 (U visa for crime victims) and Form I-914 (T visa for trafficking victims) were directly updated and have significant humanitarian applicant populations.
  • Form I-192 (waiver of inadmissibility) is often filed by U and T applicants (and VAWA self-petitioners if they need a waiver) – this form is updated and affects those populations.
  • Form I-134 could be used by supporters of certain humanitarian parole programs (for example, family reunification parole or others) – those supporters now need the new form.
  • TPS (Temporary Protected Status) applicants use Form I-821 (not in this update cycle) and DACA recipients use Form I-821D (also not updated now). But if TPS holders adjust status or apply for advance parole, the new forms apply.
  • Asylum Seekers (Form I-589): No immediate change to the asylum application form itself at this time. Asylum seekers can continue to file the existing I-589. However, they should be aware of the broader policy environment: the USCIS Policy Manual and communications now refer to applicants as “aliens” again​ uscis.gov, which could signal future form or policy tweaks. More pressing is for asylees/refugees who need to travel: they must use the new I-131 for Refugee Travel Documents – a critical document for those who fled persecution and need a passport-substitute. Using an outdated I-131 could result in rejection and loss of travel opportunity.
  • U Visa Applicants (Victims of Crime): U visa seekers (who are often in the U.S. waiting in a long backlog) must now ensure any new Form I-918 they submit (or any re-filing) is on the 01/20/25 edition​ uscis.gov. For those already with pending cases, the main impact is if they had an RFE or need to submit an updated form (or if filing for extension of status, etc.) – they should use the new form. The removal of the gender identity option can be sensitive: LGBTQ+ individuals, including some U visa applicants who are victims of hate crimes or domestic violence, may have identified as nonbinary or transgender. They will now face the same challenge of selecting a binary gender on forms. This could cause distress or fear that their identity is not recognized by the system. While this doesn’t change the merits of their case, it’s an additional hurdle in an already difficult process. Advocates may need to counsel these applicants to choose the option that best aligns with their other IDs to avoid confusion, and possibly note it in a cover letter if relevant. The use of “alien” in U visa instructions (for example, discussing inadmissibility waivers or eligibility requirements) does not change any benefits – U applicants are still eligible for work permits, deferred action, etc., as before. It’s largely a shift in tone and language.
  • T Visa Applicants (Victims of Trafficking): Similar to U applicants, T applicants (often also vulnerable individuals) must use the new I-914 form. The considerations are alike: making sure attorneys and organizations assisting trafficking victims are aware of the edition change (to avoid old forms being sent, which could lead to rejection of a trafficking victim’s application – a grave outcome if missed). The content changes won’t affect how a trafficking claim is evaluated; they’re administrative. T applicants often also file Form I-914, Supplement B (law enforcement endorsement) – that supplement likely did not change, but it should be submitted with the principal form which did change. So, coordination is needed to ensure the principal I-914 is current. As with U’s, nonbinary trafficking victims will now not see themselves represented in the gender field, which is an unfortunate step back inclusivity-wise and could be disheartening, though it does not reduce their eligibility.
  • VAWA Self-Petitioners: VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) self-petitioners use Form I-360 to petition. Form I-360 was not listed among the updated forms in this batch. However, VAWA beneficiaries often file for adjustment of status (I-485) or for advance parole (I-131) or inadmissibility waivers (I-601, I-212 if needed – those forms weren’t mentioned either). So indirectly, once a VAWA self-petitioner is filing for a green card, they face the new I-485 with the same gender/terminology changes. Additionally, if a VAWA self-petitioner has an approved petition but must wait for a visa number, they might use deferred action in the meantime – USCIS could require the new G-325A for deferred action cases, which might include some VAWA cases. So that is a potential impact: such individuals may be asked to submit a G-325A biographic form now, which previously wasn’t required, to facilitate background checks while on deferred action.
  • Humanitarian Parole Programs: In recent years, USCIS rolled out special parole programs (for Ukrainians, Venezuelans, family reunification, etc.) using either Form I-134 or I-134A. The I-134 change (new edition) means supporters/sponsors in these programs must submit the new form where applicable. If they mistakenly use an old I-134, their sponsorship could be rejected, delaying parole for someone abroad in need. The impact is mainly on the paperwork side; there’s no change in criteria to be a supporter. It’s worth noting that these programs emphasized inclusivity before; now the language might be less so (using “alien” for beneficiaries), which could signal a shift in tone by the administration towards even humanitarian entrants.
  • Refugee/Asylee Derivatives & Travel: Refugees abroad and asylee/refugee family reunification cases (Forms I-730) are not directly changed. But a refugee who adjusts to a green card (after 1 year) uses I-485 (updated), and an asylee who needs to travel uses I-131 (updated). The impact on them is straightforward: use new forms, and be aware of terminology. Asylees and refugees generally are familiar with being called “aliens” in law, so that may not be surprising. Removing the “X” gender marker could be more impactful if any asylee had their sex listed as “X” on some documents (the State Department’s removal of “X” on passports might have already forced many to revert to binary for travel docs​).

In summary, humanitarian applicants are impacted in ensuring form compliance and facing a less inclusive form format. The humanitarian category often has representation from non-profit legal service providers; those providers have had to mobilize quickly to update form packages and inform clients. The lack of a grace period initially was particularly concerning for this group – e.g., a pro se asylum seeker could easily mail an old I-131 and lose precious weeks. The slight grace period now in effect (till late March or early April for most forms) is helping mitigate immediate fallout, but going forward the new norms will apply to all humanitarian filings.

Investors and Entrepreneurs

Forms Affected:

The investor/entrepreneur community is primarily affected by the update to Form I-941, Application for Entrepreneur Parole aila.org. Additionally, some might use Form I-485 (for EB-5 investors adjusting status to permanent residence) and Form I-131 (if obtaining a re-entry permit or advance parole), and eventually N-400 for naturalization.

  • International Entrepreneur Parole (Form I-941): This form, used by startup founders to request parole to work on their startup in the U.S., was updated to the 01/20/25 edition​ aila.org with immediate effect (and now a short grace period to March 24, 2025).
  • Impact: Entrepreneurs applying for this program must use the new form; old editions will be rejected. The content changes mirror others: the form likely asks for the applicant’s biographical information including gender – now restricted to male/female. Any references to the entrepreneur in instructions (previously “individual” or “applicant”) might use “alien” (e.g., “alien entrepreneur”). The criteria for the parole (like ownership stake, capital investment raised, etc.) remain exactly the same, so the rule and evidence needed (proof of investment, proof of role in the startup) are unaffected. For many, the impact is minor: this is a relatively small population of highly educated entrepreneurs who will adapt to the form change easily. They should, however, ensure they have the correct edition when applying, especially since some may have been preparing applications under the assumption of the previous form. Any delay from using an outdated form could disrupt timing (for example, if someone’s NIV status is expiring and they need parole quickly).
  • EB-5 Investors (Form I-526 and I-829): Interestingly, the main investor green card forms (I-526 petition for investor and I-829 petition to remove conditions) were not part of this update. They likely still use their prior editions. However, EB-5 investors already see the term “alien” in the title of Form I-526 (“Immigrant Petition by Alien Entrepreneur”) – which was always there by statute. So in a sense, EB-5 processes already used traditional terminology and are unaffected by the language reversion. If an EB-5 investor is adjusting status in the U.S., they use Form I-485, which as described has changed. This means their adjustment application must be on the new form and if the investor was someone who would have used an “X” gender marker (perhaps rare in this category, but possible), they cannot now.
  • Impact on EB-5 cases: minimal beyond using the new form. Similarly, if an investor travels on advance parole or applies for a re-entry permit (many EB-5 investors travel frequently), they’ll need the new I-131.
  • E-2 Investors or Other Entrepreneurs: While not a USCIS immigrant benefit, some entrepreneurs in E-2 status might apply for a change of status or extension using Form I-129. The I-129 was updated last year for fees and likely already dropped the “gender identity” option or never had it. That aside, if any of these entrepreneurs have to file forms like I-131 (for travel documents) or eventually adjust status through a different category, they face the same changes as others.

In summary, investors and entrepreneurs face a straightforward adjustment: ensure the forms they use (notably I-941 for parole) are the latest version. They tend to have counsel and resources to stay updated, so the risk of using an old form is lower. The substantive requirements for their immigration benefits have not changed at all with these form updates.

Other Relevant Categories and Applicants

Beyond the groups above, a few additional categories worth mentioning:

  • Naturalization Applicants: Applicants for U.S. citizenship (often former employment-based or family-based immigrants) must use the new Form N-400 uscis.gov. The impact on them is minimal in terms of eligibility (no changes to requirements or questions), but they should be careful to use the new form to avoid rejection. Many citizenship applicants file on their own without attorneys, so they should double-check the form edition on USCIS’s website before filing. Those who might have difficulty with the binary gender requirement (e.g., a nonbinary legal permanent resident who waited to naturalize hoping to see “X” recognized) will have to select M or F now. This could also impact how they are scheduled for oath ceremonies (historically, some oath ceremony letters have “Mr.” or “Ms.” which correspond to gender on the form). It’s a small administrative detail, but one to be aware of.
  • DACA Recipients: While not directly touched by these updates (Forms I-821D and I-765 for DACA weren’t updated in this batch), DACA recipients often apply for Advance Parole using Form I-131 to travel abroad. So, DACA recipients seeking Advance Parole for educational or humanitarian reasons must use the new I-131. They should note the form’s new title includes “Parole Documents” explicitly, reaffirming that mechanism. The removal of the “gender identity” option is a setback for DACA recipients who identify as LGBTQ+, given DACA has a significant number of LGBTQ+ recipients. They must now navigate that issue like others. It’s possible USCIS will update the DACA forms in the near future similarly, so they should stay tuned.
  • Students and Exchange Visitors: F-1 or J-1 applicants don’t typically file USCIS forms to obtain status (they use consular DS-160/260 and SEVIS I-20/DS-2019). However, if they marry and file I-485, or if they later work and file for OPT EAD (Form I-765, which likely will be updated soon to remove the third gender option if it hasn’t already), they will encounter these changes. At present, Form I-765 was not listed, but we expect similar updates across all forms in due course. The impact on them is indirect but notable when it comes to OPT or change-of-status filings – they should be cognizant that USCIS forms are in flux and always verify they have the latest version.
  • Attorneys and Preparers: Though not an “applicant category,” it’s important to note the impact on legal preparers. Immigration attorneys and accredited representatives have had to scramble to update form software, inform clients of new signature requirements on different pages, and adjust filing practices within a matter of days. The lack of a grace period meant they risked filings getting rejected en masse. Many attorneys report that these abrupt changes caused anxiety for clients whose filings were already sent or about to be sent. The subsequent allowance of a short grace period (one month) has mitigated immediate harm​ aila.org, but lawyers must still quickly transition all their form templates to the new editions. In the short term, this has slightly increased legal costs or turnaround times, as extra care is needed to ensure compliance.

In conclusion, every category of immigrant or nonimmigrant is affected in the sense that USCIS forms now have a new baseline format and language. The most affected on a personal level are nonbinary and transgender applicants who lost a recognition option, and the most affected on a logistical level were those who had pending form filings during the change (they had to react swiftly). For most, the impact is manageable with proper attention: their eligibility for benefits is unchanged, but the administrative hurdle of using the correct and current form is now firmly in place for all.

Recommendations for Applicants

Given these changes, applicants and petitioners should take proactive steps to adapt. Below are actionable recommendations to ensure compliance and avoid delays or rejections:

1. Always Use the Latest Form Version:

As a rule, download fresh forms directly from the official USCIS website immediately before filing. Do not rely on old form packets or saved PDFs from previous filings. USCIS maintains a Forms Updates page​ uscis.gov and each form’s page lists the current “Edition Date.” Before submitting, verify that date against your form. If it’s not the current edition, obtain and fill out the new version. This practice is critical, as USCIS has made clear it will reject outdated forms after the grace period​ aila.org. For example, if you are applying for adjustment of status, ensure your Form I-485 is labeled “01/20/25” at the bottom. If using paper, make sure all pages show that same edition date​ uscis.gov. Keeping up with form updates can be challenging, so consider subscribing to USCIS email updates or regularly checking the USCIS Forms Updates page for announcements.

2. Double-Check Filing Instructions and Fees:

Review the form instructions for any changes in filing procedure. While the recent updates didn’t overhaul filing locations or add new evidence requirements, it’s wise to see if instructions have been revised. Sometimes even subtle wording changes can affect how you prepare your packet. For instance, if instructions now use certain terms, make sure any cover letter or explanation you provide aligns with those terms (e.g., use “alien” in referring to yourself if responding to a question in that language). Also, confirm the filing fee on the current USCIS Fee Schedule (Form G-1055), which was updated alongside these forms​ uscis.gov. New forms might reference different fee amounts if a fee rule change occurred. (In this case, fees largely remained as set by the April 2024 Fee Rule, but it’s good practice to check the Fee Schedule for any updates or the edition date of the fee list itself.) Using the wrong fee or an outdated fee schedule can lead to rejection just as surely as using an outdated form.

3. Fill Out Forms Completely and Accurately (No Blanks for Gender):

With the removal of the “Other” gender option, some applicants might be tempted to leave the gender question blank if they feel neither “M” nor “F” fits. Do not leave it blank. USCIS may view an unanswered required field as incomplete and could reject the application. The best practice is to choose the gender that matches your other official documents (passport, birth certificate, driver’s license) to maintain consistency​. If you have an “X” gender marker on some documents, you may want to use the gender that appears on the majority of your IDs or on the ID you plan to use for immigration (like your passport). This helps avoid confusion in identity verification. If necessary, you can include a brief cover note explaining that you identify differently but selected the closest option for purposes of the form – though USCIS hasn’t said this is required, it could be helpful for your own peace of mind and to have it on record. Overall, ensure every required field on the form is answered; for any that truly don’t apply, follow the form instructions (some say write “N/A” or “None” where appropriate). Meticulous completeness will guard against rejections for “insufficient information.”

4. Anticipate and Prevent Rejection Issues:

Even with the grace period now in effect, treat the transition as immediate. USCIS has indicated it will use discretion to not reject older versions for a “reasonable period”​ aila.org, but that is not a guarantee. To avoid any risk:

    • Purge old forms: Remove any old edition forms you have printed or saved, to prevent accidentally using them.
    • Check A-Number format: The new forms emphasize the “Alien Registration Number.” Make sure you list your A-Number accurately and in the correct field. If the form now explicitly asks for an A-Number where an older form might have had a different label, be sure to provide it.
    • Keep pagination intact: When printing, ensure that all pages are present and in order for the new form edition. USCIS scanning systems will reject packets with missing pages or mixed editions uscis.gov. For example, the I-485 is 20 pages in the new edition – include all 20, even if some sections don’t apply (mark them “N/A” rather than removing them).
    • Sign and date: A new form edition still requires a signature. It sounds basic, but with changes afoot, applicants might forget a signature on a revised page. USCIS will reject any unsigned form immediately​ uscis.gov. So double-check that you (and your petitioner or sponsor, if applicable) have signed the correct lines on the new forms.

5. Plan for the End of Grace Periods:

The one-month grace periods for old forms are quickly closing (most end late March or early April 2025​ uscis.gov, with a couple extending to early May for certain forms). If you have a filing deadline or expiring status that falls around those dates, aim to file well before the deadline with the new forms. Do not wait until the last day of the grace period; if USPS or courier delays your package, you could slip past the acceptance date and face rejection. It’s safest to immediately switch to the new forms. If, for instance, you have a response to an RFE due and you originally filled out an old form as part of that response, update it to the new version before sending. After the grace period, USCIS will reject prior editions outright aila.org, and you may not get a second chance if a deadline passes.

6. Leverage USCIS and Legal Resources:

Take advantage of available guidance:

    • USCIS Resources: The USCIS website often provides alerts or news releases about form changes (e.g., the March 1, 2024 alert about new forms for the fee rule​ uscis.gov and subsequent updates). Review the “Newsroom” and “Alerts” section for any announcements related to forms. Also, each form’s page has a wealth of information – for example, the Form I-131 page details where to file and the last updated date​ uscis.gov, which can clue you in to changes. If confused about a form question (say the wording changed slightly and you’re not sure what they want), read the form’s instructions PDF thoroughly; USCIS updated them too and they often have examples or definitions.
    • Legal Advice: If you are unsure how to complete the new forms, especially in light of these changes (e.g., you’re a transgender applicant worried about how this might affect your case), consult an immigration attorney or accredited representative. Many legal professionals have closely tracked these changes – AILA, for instance, issued practice alerts and even took legal action to ensure a smoother transition​ aila.org. Attorneys can provide personalized guidance, such as advising which gender marker to use in tricky situations or ensuring that using the term “alien” on forms has no adverse effect on any parallel processes (for example, some fear using “alien” could affect public charge perception, but attorneys can clarify that it will not – it’s just terminology). If cost is a concern, look for non-profit organizations or legal clinics; USCIS’s website has a “Find Legal Services” section with low-cost or free providers​
      uscis.gov.
    • Community and Official Q&A: USCIS sometimes hosts public engagements or publishes FAQs. For instance, with a major fee rule, they published FAQs which noted no grace period for certain new forms​ uscis.gov. Keep an eye out for any FAQ documents or USCIS social media posts clarifying these updates. They might address common concerns (such as “What if I already sent the old form? Do I need to refile?”). Early reports indicate USCIS was accepting some old forms in March 2025 as a courtesy​ aila.org, but this shouldn’t be relied upon. If you’re in that boat (having filed an old form recently), you might call the USCIS Contact Center to confirm if you need to take any action or if your filing will be accepted under the discretionary grace period.

7. Prepare for Potential Processing Delays:

Whenever forms change, USCIS intake operations may slow briefly as staff get used to new forms or as initial rejections get sorted out. Be mentally prepared for possible slight delays in receipt notices or even occasional mistaken rejections. If you receive a rejection that you believe is in error (for example, you used the correct form but it was rejected for wrong edition), act quickly: consult an attorney and re-submit with an explanatory note or contact USCIS. Keep copies of everything you send, including a copy of the form showing the edition date. Generally, by adhering strictly to the new requirements, you will minimize the chance of delay. Also, file as early as possible for time-sensitive benefits. For instance, if your work permit is expiring and you need to file a renewal, do it at the earliest eligibility date with the new form, so if something goes wrong, you have time to fix it.

8. Stay Informed on Future Changes:

These form updates came swiftly due to new executive directives. It’s possible there will be additional changes in the near future – for example, proposals to collect social media handles on immigration forms have been announced​. That could lead to new form editions or supplements. Also, other forms not in this batch (like I-765 for employment authorization, or I-130) might be updated to align with the terminology policy. Regularly check USCIS announcements or follow reliable immigration news sources. For instance, the USCIS Policy Manual updates page shows the policy shift to “alien”​ uscis.gov, which foreshadowed the form changes – keeping an eye on such updates can give you a heads-up. Subscribing to organizations like AILA (if you’re a practitioner) or community newsletters, or even USCIS’s own email lists, can ensure you won’t be caught off guard by future updates.

9. Consider Impact on Personal Situation:

If you are an applicant who is directly affected by the language change (e.g., a nonbinary asylum seeker or a transgender immigrant in the middle of a process), consider reaching out to support networks. While it’s not a “form instruction,” taking care of the personal aspect is important. Advocacy groups have decried the removal of gender-inclusive options​. They may offer resources or letters that can accompany your application to explain discrepancies in gender markers, etc. Though USCIS hasn’t provided a mechanism for that, being proactive in explaining and documenting your situation (where appropriate) might help down the line. For example, if your documentation is inconsistent (passport says “X” but you had to check “Female” on the form), keep evidence of why you chose what you did (maybe a copy of older USCIS guidance or this analysis) in case it’s ever questioned.

10. Monitor Your Case Status and Correspondence:

After filing with the new forms, watch for any USCIS notices. If USCIS accepts your application, you’ll get a receipt. If there’s an issue, they will send a rejection notice explaining why. Given the transitions, ensure your mailing address is up to date and check your mail (and email, if you filed online or provided it) frequently. Some applicants who filed just as the new forms rolled out might receive Requests for Evidence (RFEs) if anything was missing or unclear. For example, if you left the gender question blank, expect an RFE or rejection. Respond promptly to any RFE, and if it’s about something related to these changes (say an RFE asking to confirm a detail that changed on the form), respond with the requested info and reference the new form/instruction as needed. The key is to keep your case moving and address any hiccups caused by the transition.

By following these best practices, applicants can smoothly navigate the new form requirements. The overarching themes are: stay informed, be proactive, and pay attention to detail. While the form changes introduced some inconvenience and symbolism (like the return of “alien”), they need not derail your immigration journey. With careful preparation and perhaps guidance from legal professionals, you can ensure your application meets the new USCIS requirements and avoid the pitfalls of this transition period​ aila.org. Remember, USCIS ultimately wants the correct form with the correct fee – give them that, and you set the stage for your petition or application to be processed without unnecessary delay.

Finally, keep an eye on official USCIS channels for any further clarifications. If USCIS issues new guidance (for example, an official grace period announcement or FAQ), incorporate that into your plans. As of now, the best approach is to assume the new forms are mandatory and act accordingly. By doing so, you will position yourself for success despite the evolving administrative landscape.

Good luck with your application process, and don’t hesitate to seek expert advice for your specific situation if needed.​ With over two decades of experience in immigration law, me and my team is ready to assist you on your immigration journey. Call us for any questions at (305) 233-3110.

The post USCIS Issues New Form Editions Without Grace Period appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

]]> https://ariasvilla.com/uscis-issues-new-form-editions-without-grace-period/feed/ 0