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

Understanding Your Rights During ICE Operations and TPS Uncertainty

Martha Arias — Thu, 23 Jul 2026 20:47:19 +0000

ICE Operations, TPS for El Salvador, and Employment Authorization: What Our Community Should Know?

I want to begin by sincerely thanking Andreina Gándica and the entire team at Buenos Días América for welcoming me and for creating a thoughtful space to discuss questions that are affecting immigrant families, workers, employers, and business owners across the United States.

During our conversation, we addressed several difficult but important subjects: community reactions to ICE operations, the difference between administrative and judicial warrants, the possible consequences of physically interfering with federal officers, the specialized Alien Terrorist Removal Court, the future of Temporary Protected Status for El Salvador, and the employment challenges faced by TPS beneficiaries whose work permits appear to have expired.

These matters require careful explanations. Immigration enforcement policies and court decisions are changing rapidly, and people should not make decisions based on incomplete social media posts, rumors, or general assumptions.

The information below reflects official government sources available as of July 23, 2026.

Community Support Must Remain Peaceful and Lawful

Many people understandably feel compelled to protect their neighbors, employees, customers, friends, or relatives when they witness an immigration enforcement operation. Peaceful support, lawful observation, and expressing disagreement with government policy are different from forcibly interfering with federal officers.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 111, it is a federal offense to forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with certain federal officers while they are performing their official duties. The word “forcibly” is important. Verbal disagreement, peaceful protest, or observing an operation does not automatically establish a violation of this law. The actual conduct, the degree of force or physical interference, and the surrounding circumstances matter.

Pushing an officer, forcibly blocking an officer’s movement, forming a physical barrier that prevents officers from carrying out an arrest, or physically helping someone escape could result in arrest or prosecution depending on the facts. State or local obstruction and resisting-arrest laws may also apply, but those laws differ from one jurisdiction to another.

Separate federal laws may become relevant when a person intentionally conceals or assists someone sought by federal authorities.

18 U.S.C. § 1071 applies when a person harbors or conceals someone for whom a federal arrest warrant or other qualifying process has been issued, knows or has notice of that warrant, and acts with the intent to prevent the person’s discovery or arrest. Merely knowing someone, peacefully warning the public about visible enforcement activity, or expressing opposition to an arrest does not automatically satisfy those elements.

Similarly, 8 U.S.C. § 1324 contains criminal provisions involving knowingly bringing, transporting, concealing, harboring, or shielding certain noncitizens from detection. These offenses contain specific requirements involving conduct, knowledge, reckless disregard, intent, and, in some situations, financial gain. The law does not make every act of friendship, transportation, shelter, community support, or peaceful advocacy a federal crime.

The safest recommendation is simple: do not physically confront, surround, touch, threaten, or attempt to overpower federal officers.

Practical Tips During an Immigration Enforcement Operation

When immigration officers appear at a home, workplace, restaurant, or other location:

Remain calm and do not run, push, threaten, or physically resist.
Do not provide false information, false identification, or fraudulent documents.
Do not destroy, alter, or conceal records.
Do not hide a person or create an escape route.
Ask the officers to identify themselves and explain the purpose of their visit.
Ask to inspect the document or warrant they are relying upon.
Note the name of the person or premises listed, the address, the document title, the issuing official, and whether a judge signed it.
Clearly communicate whether consent to enter or search is or is not being given.
Contact an immigration attorney promptly.
When lawful and without interfering, witnesses may document observable events from a safe location and preserve relevant security-camera footage.

Recording and privacy laws vary by jurisdiction. Documentation should never be performed in a way that obstructs officers or places anyone in physical danger.

Administrative Warrants and Judicial Warrants Are Not the Same

One of the most important questions raised during the interview was whether ICE may enter a home, restaurant, or business without a warrant signed by a judge.

ICE uses civil immigration documents that are commonly called administrative warrants. For example, Form I-200, Warrant for Arrest of Alien, directs authorized immigration officers to arrest a named individual believed to be removable from the United States. Form I-205, Warrant of Removal/Deportation, is generally associated with taking into custody and removing a person who is subject to a final removal order. These documents are ordinarily signed by authorized immigration officers, not by federal judges or magistrate judges.

A judicial warrant is issued by a court and signed by a judge or magistrate judge. An administrative immigration warrant should not be treated as though it were automatically identical to a judicial search warrant.

In February 2026, the Department of Homeland Security publicly announced its position that ICE may use administrative warrants to enter a residence in certain cases involving a person with a final order of removal. DHS stated that ICE was using that authority for residential entry when the targeted person had received a final removal order. This is the federal agency’s stated enforcement position; it should not be described as a universal Supreme Court ruling that every administrative warrant authorizes entry into every residence.

The legality of any particular entry may depend on several issues, including:

The type of document presented;
The person and address named;
Whether the location is actually the named person’s residence;
Whether consent was given;
Whether officers claim an emergency or another exception;
Whether the officers remained within the scope of their asserted authority; and
How the Fourth Amendment applies to the specific facts.

Because the legal and policy landscape is evolving, a person should not attempt to resolve a warrant dispute through physical resistance. Ask to see the document, state clearly whether consent is being given, do not obstruct the officers, and contact counsel immediately.

What About Restaurants and Other Businesses?

A restaurant or business may contain several legally different areas. A dining room, store floor, reception area, or customer lobby that is ordinarily open to the public is not necessarily treated the same as a locked office, employee-only room, kitchen, file room, records area, warehouse, or private residence attached to the property.

Whether officers may enter or search a specific area can depend on whether the area is open to the public, whether consent was given, what warrant or legal authority the officers present, who or what they are seeking, and whether another recognized legal exception applies.

A business owner should establish a response plan before an enforcement visit occurs. Employees should know:

Who is authorized to speak for the business;
Who will contact legal counsel;
Where employment and personnel records are maintained;
Which areas are public and which are restricted;
That no employee should provide false information;
That no employee should destroy records; and
That no one should physically interfere with the officers.

A disagreement over authority should be documented and addressed through counsel and the courts—not through a physical confrontation.

A Necessary Clarification About the Alien Terrorist Removal Court

During the interview, we also discussed what is sometimes described as a “secret court.” The more accurate name is the Alien Terrorist Removal Court of the United States.

According to the court’s official website, Congress created the court in 1996 as a specialized federal court. The Chief Justice of the United States designates five federal district judges to consider government applications seeking the removal of certain noncitizens alleged to fall within federal terrorism-related immigration provisions.

The governing procedures are found in 8 U.S.C. §§ 1531–1537. Certain materials or proceedings may involve classified information or sealed records, which is one reason the court is sometimes characterized as secret.

However, it would be inaccurate and unnecessarily alarming to suggest that peaceful protest, criticism of immigration policy, attending a demonstration, or lawfully observing an ICE operation automatically makes someone a terrorist.

Lawful protest or peaceful disagreement, standing alone, does not establish that a person falls within federal terrorism-related immigration provisions. The government must rely on conduct and legal grounds that satisfy the applicable statutory definitions.

The court received unusual public attention in July 2026. On July 15, 2026, the United States filed an application identified as 2026-TRC-1. The court held a hearing on July 16, 2026. According to the court’s official order, no sworn testimony was taken. The court had questions about the connection the government alleged between the respondent’s actions and the specific statutory provisions being invoked. The government was ordered to supplement the application with additional factual or legal analysis.

This proceeding deserves careful monitoring. Nevertheless, one pending case should not be used to tell ordinary protesters or community members that peaceful civic participation automatically exposes them to terrorism allegations.

Protect Your Documents Before a Problem Occurs

Families and workers should keep organized copies of:

Passports and identification pages;
Employment Authorization Documents;
Form I-797 and Form I-797C notices;
TPS applications and renewal filings;
Proof of filing and delivery;
Immigration court orders and hearing notices;
Prior immigration applications;
Attorney correspondence; and
Documents showing another lawful basis for employment authorization.

Do not rely exclusively on documents saved on a mobile telephone. Keep secure electronic and paper copies that a trusted person can access during an emergency.

A receipt notice is important, but it does not automatically prove continuing employment authorization in every case. Its legal effect depends on the filing date, eligibility category, previous EAD, applicable Federal Register notice, pending application, and current USCIS guidance.

TPS for El Salvador: The Current Legal Situation

The January 17, 2025 Federal Register notice for El Salvador extended the country’s TPS designation for 18 months, from March 10, 2025, through September 9, 2026. The current USCIS El Salvador TPS page also continues to display September 9, 2026, as the announced end of that extension.

There is, however, another important statutory provision.

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(3), the Secretary must review a TPS designation and determine whether the qualifying conditions continue. When the required determination is not made at least 60 days before the designation period ends, the statute provides that the designation is automatically extended for six months. The Supreme Court also described this statutory mechanism in its June 25, 2026 TPS opinion, explaining that when the Secretary takes no action, a TPS designation automatically extends for another six months.

As of July 23, 2026, I have not located a later El Salvador termination or extension determination in the Federal Register. Based on the public official record presently available, the statutory six-month automatic-extension mechanism appears to have been triggered. However, USCIS has not yet updated its El Salvador country page with complete implementation instructions reflecting a later date.

This distinction is important. TPS status and TPS-related documentation are related, but they are not always extended through identical procedures or on identical dates. A statutory extension of a country designation does not necessarily mean that every expired physical EAD may automatically be presented to an employer without additional USCIS or Federal Register guidance.

Salvadoran beneficiaries should therefore:

Monitor the official USCIS country page;
Review new Federal Register notices;
Preserve all TPS and EAD receipt notices;
Avoid assuming that an expired card is automatically valid;
Obtain an individual document review before traveling; and
Speak with an attorney before making employment or immigration decisions.

What the Supreme Court Decided About TPS

On June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court decided Mullin v. Doe, together with Trump v. Miot. Those cases involved challenges to TPS terminations affecting Syria and Haiti—not El Salvador.

The Court held that the TPS statute bars judicial review of the nonconstitutional claims presented in those cases. It also concluded that the equal-protection claim concerning the termination of Haiti’s designation was unlikely to succeed at the interim-relief stage. The lower-court orders postponing the terminations were reversed and the cases were remanded.

That ruling significantly limits certain legal challenges to a Secretary’s TPS designation, termination, or extension determination. It does not necessarily eliminate every possible constitutional claim, and it did not itself terminate TPS for El Salvador.

El Salvador remains governed by its own official notices, the applicable statute, and any later agency action specifically addressing that country.

An Expired EAD Does Not Always Mean the Same Thing

The employment authorization discussion requires particular care because several different extension mechanisms have applied.

The January 2025 El Salvador Federal Register notice automatically extended certain TPS-related EADs with eligible category and expiration dates through March 9, 2026. That blanket Federal Register extension has passed.

A person may nevertheless have had a separate automatic extension based on a timely filed Form I-765 renewal. That is a different mechanism and must be evaluated using the filing date, EAD category, prior card, receipt notice, TPS designation period, and current USCIS rules.

USCIS announced an interim rule effective October 30, 2025, that generally ended automatic EAD extensions for renewal applications filed on or after that date, subject to any separately applicable law, Federal Register notice, or other authorized exception.

USCIS has also explained that TPS-based renewal applications that were pending on or filed after July 22, 2025, but before October 30, 2025, are subject to a separate limitation enacted through H.R. 1. For that group, the automatic extension is limited to one year or the duration of TPS, whichever is shorter. A person cannot simply rely on an older calculation promising a full 540-day extension.

Because the one-year period measured from July 22, 2025, reached its outside date on July 22, 2026, a worker whose authorization depended solely on that capped extension should not assume that the prior 540-day calculation remains valid after that date.

A person may still have continuing employment authorization through:

A newly issued, unexpired EAD;
Another qualifying immigration status;
Another acceptable Form I-9 document;
A separate statutory or Federal Register extension; or
Individual documentation that establishes current authorization.

The correct conclusion cannot be reached by looking only at the expiration date printed on one card or by looking only at a receipt notice.

What Documents Can an Employee Show an Employer?

The Department of Justice Immigrant and Employee Rights Section explains that workers generally choose which acceptable documents to present during the Form I-9 process. A worker may present either an acceptable List A document or a qualifying combination of one List B and one List C document. An employer generally may not demand a specific immigration document based on the worker’s citizenship, immigration status, or national origin.

When a qualifying automatic extension applies, the employee may need to present a combination that includes:

The expired EAD;
The Form I-797C receipt notice for the timely filed renewal;
Matching eligibility categories;
Evidence that the filing date qualifies; and
The properly calculated extension period.

However, the receipt notice by itself does not automatically establish employment authorization in every situation.

The employee may also choose to present other acceptable Form I-9 documentation when available. Employers should review the current USCIS Handbook for Employers and the Form I-9 Lists of Acceptable Documents rather than relying on assumptions about nationality or immigration status.

The Department of Justice states that employers may not, based on citizenship, immigration status, or national origin:

Request more or different documents than Form I-9 requires;
Specify which acceptable documents the worker must present;
Reject documents that reasonably appear genuine and relate to the worker; or
Treat workers differently during reverification.

At the same time, federal law generally prohibits an employer from knowingly continuing to employ a person who is not authorized to work. If an employee cannot establish continuing employment authorization through acceptable documentation or a valid extension, the employer may not simply ignore that issue.

Whether an employer uses suspension, unpaid leave, termination, or another lawful and consistently applied measure may also depend on workplace policies and applicable employment law. Any decision should be handled without unlawful citizenship-status or national-origin discrimination.

Can a Delayed Work Permit Be Expedited?

USCIS accepts expedite requests on a case-by-case basis and generally requires supporting evidence. One recognized criterion is severe financial loss to a person or company. Filing an expedite request does not guarantee faster processing or approval.

A person seeking expedited processing because of a delayed work permit may submit evidence such as:

A letter from the employer identifying a suspension or termination date;
A written job offer that may be withdrawn;
Recent pay statements;
Rent or mortgage obligations;
Essential household expenses;
Medical expenses;
Dependents’ financial needs;
Evidence that insurance or essential benefits will be lost; and
Other records demonstrating immediate and severe financial consequences.

USCIS may distinguish ordinary inconvenience from severe financial loss. The agency also considers whether the need for expedited treatment resulted from the applicant’s failure to file on time or respond to a request.

In my experience, expedite requests can produce different outcomes. Some are granted and lead to faster action; others remain pending or are denied. No attorney can ethically promise that USCIS will grant an expedite request.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can ICE enter my home with an administrative warrant?

DHS publicly announced in February 2026 that ICE was using administrative warrants to enter residences in certain cases involving people with final removal orders. This is the agency’s stated enforcement position, not a universal Supreme Court decision establishing that every administrative warrant permits entry into every residence.

The legal analysis may depend on the document, the named individual, the address, consent, any claimed emergency, and the specific circumstances. Do not physically resist. Ask to inspect the document, clearly state whether consent is being given, and contact an attorney promptly.

Can ICE enter a restaurant or business?

The answer depends in part on whether officers seek access to an area ordinarily open to customers or a private, locked, employee-only, or records area. It may also depend on consent, the document presented, the person or evidence being sought, and any other asserted authority.

A business owner should ask to inspect the warrant or document, contact counsel, and avoid physical interference.

Can someone be arrested for forming a human barrier against ICE?

Yes, depending on the conduct. Federal law prohibits forcibly resisting, impeding, intimidating, or interfering with covered federal officers performing official duties. A physical barrier that forcibly prevents officers from moving or completing an arrest could create criminal exposure. Peaceful protest, verbal disagreement, and lawful observation are not automatically the same as forcible interference.

Is it illegal to warn others that ICE officers are nearby?

Not automatically. Peacefully communicating publicly observable information is not, by itself, identical to physically obstructing an officer, intentionally concealing a person subject to a federal warrant, or knowingly harboring someone in violation of federal law.

Liability depends on the person’s actual actions, knowledge, intent, and the elements of the particular statute.

Does the Supreme Court’s TPS decision automatically end TPS for Salvadorans?

No. The June 25, 2026 Supreme Court decision concerned TPS terminations for Syria and Haiti. It limited judicial review of the nonconstitutional claims presented and rejected interim relief on the equal-protection claim before the Court. It did not independently terminate the El Salvador designation.

Is TPS for El Salvador definitely ending on September 9, 2026?

The current USCIS page still displays September 9, 2026, as the end of the previously announced extension. However, federal law provides for an automatic six-month extension when the Secretary does not make the required determination at least 60 days before the designation period ends.

As of July 23, 2026, I have not located a later El Salvador determination in the Federal Register. Based on the official public record, the statutory automatic-extension mechanism appears to apply, although USCIS has not yet issued complete updated implementation guidance.

Does an extension of TPS automatically extend every work permit?

Not necessarily. The extension of a country’s TPS designation and the extension of a particular physical EAD may arise under different provisions and may have different documentation requirements.

A worker should review the EAD category, printed expiration date, Form I-797C receipt, Form I-765 filing date, applicable Federal Register notice, and current USCIS guidance.

Is my expired EAD valid because I filed a renewal?

Not automatically. Some timely filed renewals may qualify for an automatic extension, but eligibility depends on the filing date, category, prior EAD, receipt notice, TPS period, and current rules.

TPS-related automatic extensions are also subject to the current one-year-or-duration-of-TPS limitation for certain pending or transitional applications.

May my employer demand that I present a new EAD?

An employer generally must allow a worker to choose among the acceptable Form I-9 documents and may not demand a particular document because of the worker’s citizenship, immigration status, or national origin.

The worker must still establish current employment authorization through acceptable documentation.

Can my employer suspend or terminate me if I cannot prove current work authorization?

An employer generally may not knowingly continue employing a person who lacks employment authorization. However, employers must follow Form I-9 rules, accept valid documentation, and avoid discriminatory treatment.

Whether the employer uses leave, suspension, termination, or another lawful measure may depend on workplace policy and other applicable laws.

Will USCIS approve an expedite request because I may lose my job?

Possible job loss or other severe financial consequences may support an expedite request, but approval is discretionary. USCIS evaluates each request individually and usually requires supporting evidence. A request does not guarantee faster processing.

Legal Disclaimer:

This article is provided for general educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, does not create an attorney-client relationship, and should not be relied upon as a substitute for advice based on an individual case.

Immigration enforcement policies, court decisions, employment-verification rules, TPS designations, work-permit extensions, and agency procedures may change rapidly. The correct legal analysis depends on the individual’s documents, filing dates, immigration history, location, employment circumstances, court orders, and procedural posture.

Official statutes, regulations, Federal Register notices, agency guidance, and court orders control over any general summary contained in this article. Individuals and employers should consult qualified legal counsel before taking action.

Martha L. Arias, Esq.
Immigration Law Attorney

Do You Have Questions About ICE, TPS, or a Delayed Work Permit?

When an immigration enforcement encounter, expiring TPS period, delayed employment authorization document, or employer reverification request threatens your family or employment, the actual documents must be reviewed carefully.

You may contact my office at (305) 671-0018 to request a consultation.

Every case is different. Filing dates, immigration history, pending applications, removal orders, work-authorization categories, and prior notices can completely change the legal analysis.

CALL NOW

BOOK AN APPOINTMENT

The post Understanding Your Rights During ICE Operations and TPS Uncertainty appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

Rhode Island Ruling: Hope for Delayed Immigration Cases

Martha Arias — Tue, 09 Jun 2026 19:40:32 +0000

What the Rhode Island Court Ruling May Mean for Delayed Immigration Cases

During my recent interview with Jessica Morales on TVV, we discussed an important federal court decision from Rhode Island that may affect thousands of people whose immigration cases have been delayed or paused.

On June 5, 2026, Chief Judge John J. McConnell Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island struck down several USCIS policies that had delayed or frozen decisions on immigration benefits for people from 39 countries. Reports describe the affected benefits as including asylum decisions, work permits, green cards, and naturalization applications. The court found that the policies exceeded agency authority and were unlawful under administrative law principles.

This does not mean that every case will be decided immediately. One important point I shared in the interview is that the court’s decision did not set a specific deadline for USCIS to act. The government may appeal, and it may also ask for a stay of the ruling while the appeal is pending. Until USCIS provides clearer instructions or higher courts take further action, many families will still need to watch their cases carefully.

WATCH IT ON SPOTIFY

FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA

For people whose work permits, asylum decisions, green card cases, or citizenship applications have been delayed, the next step depends on the facts of the case.

Some applicants may have strong reasons to request expedited action, especially if the delay is causing serious financial hardship, the loss of a driver’s license, employment problems, medical complications, or family hardship. Others may be in a better position to wait and monitor the situation.

We also discussed the recent USCIS policy memorandum regarding adjustment of status. USCIS announced in May 2026 that adjustment of status is considered an extraordinary discretionary benefit, and the agency’s memorandum discussed discretion in adjustment cases. However, many practical questions remain because attorneys, applicants, and even officers still need clear guidance on how these standards will be applied case by case.

Finally, with the World Cup taking place in the United States, I reminded viewers that visitors and noncitizens should carry proper identification and proof of lawful status when appropriate. CBP provides an official I-94 website where travelers can retrieve their most recent I-94 record, check travel history, and review travel compliance information.

My message is simple: stay informed, keep copies of your immigration documents, check your USCIS account regularly, and do not assume that a public announcement automatically solves an individual case. Immigration law is moving quickly, and each case deserves careful review.

Legal Disclaimer:
This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration cases depend on individual facts, documents, dates, immigration history, and government action. Speaking with an attorney does not create an attorney-client relationship unless a formal agreement is signed.

Martha L. Arias, Esq.
Immigration Law Attorney

Martha L. Arias, Esq.

Dedicated Immigration Law Attorney

If your work permit, asylum decision, green card, or citizenship case has been delayed, legal guidance may help you understand what can be done.

For professional and dedicated immigration legal services, reach out to our immigration attorney Martha Arias and her team at Arias Villa, PLLC. Schedule your consultation today and let us help you achieve your immigration goals.

CALL NOW

BOOK AN APPOINTMENT

SPANISH TRANSCRIPT:

Entrevista de Martha Arias con Jessica Morales en TVV

JESSICA MORALES:
En esta parte revisamos información de carácter migratorio en los Estados Unidos.

Es que un juez federal de Rhode Island ordenó, a finales de la semana pasada, a la administración Trump levantar la pausa administrativa que impedía procesar solicitudes de asilo y beneficios migratorios, como permisos de trabajo, residencia permanente y ciudadanía, para personas de 39 países considerados de alto riesgo.

Este fallo impacta a miles de personas en Estados Unidos y, para abordar el alcance de esta medida y también sus detalles, nos acompaña Martha Arias, abogada de inmigración. Abogada, gracias por estar con nosotros.

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Muchísimas gracias, Jessica, por invitarme, y un saludo para usted, todo su equipo de trabajo y todos sus seguidores.

JESSICA MORALES:
Gracias. Luego de esta decisión, de este dictamen de este juez federal, ¿qué podríamos esperar, en principio, de la administración de los Estados Unidos?

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
A ver, ¿qué podemos esperar? Podemos esperar dos cosas.

La primera es que apelen. Tienen 30 días para apelar y, dentro de esa apelación, pueden pedir también que se pause la aplicación de esta orden del juez. Es decir, que no se aplique; es decir, que continúe la pausa. Eso podemos esperar.

Los expertos analizan el punto y dicen que probablemente el gobierno federal va a apelar y va a pedir una pausa de este fallo del juez. Esa es una posibilidad.

La otra posibilidad es que el gobierno, USCIS, actúe y empiece a decirnos, o a emitir un comunicado, de cómo va a empezar a evaluar y a procesar todos esos casos que han estado paralizados ya por casi dos años.

JESSICA MORALES:
Esto, ya luego de este dictamen, ¿en cuánto tiempo USCIS debería empezar a reactivar estos trámites administrativos que estaban objeto de esta pausa?

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
El fallo del juez John McConnell no dice, no establece, un término bajo el cual tiene que regirse inmigración. Es decir, no le dice: “tiene que decidir en tanto tiempo” o “reactivar los casos en tanto tiempo”. No lo dice.

Por lo tanto, aquí lo único que podemos esperar es que el gobierno actúe de acuerdo con el fallo y reactive los casos cuando lo considere pertinente, o que apele.

Entonces, no hay un término fijo guiado por este fallo.

JESSICA MORALES:
En esta apelación, si resulta que la administración no tiene una respuesta favorable, ¿puede ir a otra instancia, como la Corte Suprema?

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Correcto. Si la Corte Suprema autoriza el certiorari, que es como la revisión que ellos autorizarían para tomar el caso, puede ser. Entonces, primero, este juez federal tiene que ir a una corte de apelaciones; después, posiblemente, puede ir a la Corte Suprema.

Vamos a esperar a ver cuál va a ser el camino que esto vaya a tomar. Y pues todos sabemos que la Corte Suprema ha estado muy, por decirlo así, condescendiente con las políticas administrativas de la administración actual. O sea que no sé qué posibilidad tenga este caso en la Corte Suprema.

Pero bueno, por lo menos el juez fundamentó muy bien su decisión. Fíjate que, en esta decisión, el juez claramente dice que él no se está metiendo en la parte analítica de la política del Ejecutivo. Es decir, él dice: el Ejecutivo tiene derecho a establecer políticas administrativas.

Lo que yo, como juez, estoy analizando es únicamente la legalidad de estas políticas, porque la ley establece unos parámetros y esta política no tiene fundamento en la ley, porque únicamente se están pausando casos debido a la nacionalidad de la persona, no porque esas personas hayan cometido algo malo o hayan violado la ley. Simplemente por haber nacido en X o Y país están siendo sancionadas.

Entonces, el juez me parece a mí que hace un buen razonamiento, yo creo que previendo que haya una apelación y previendo que esto llegue a la Corte Suprema.

JESSICA MORALES:
Ahora, mientras se espera esta respuesta de USCIS, de las autoridades migratorias, acerca de cómo se va a empezar a acatar esta medida de este juez federal, o mientras se conoce si va a haber o no va a haber apelación, ¿qué deben hacer las personas cuyos trámites migratorios están en este momento bajo esta pausa administrativa? ¿Qué medidas deberían tomar?

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Bueno, aquí es importante que los que vayan a recibir, o están bajo un problema financiero que les vaya a causar un problema financiero grande, por ejemplo, el que no tengan sus permisos de trabajo porque están pausados, yo pienso que esas personas deberían empezar a mandar cartas para pedirle al gobierno que agilice sus trámites en acato a la decisión de este juez de Rhode Island.

Muchas personas pueden tener ese “financial hardship”, o ese daño financiero. Entonces deberían hacerlo.

Otras, si no tienen esa forma de mostrar que hay un problema financiero grave, pues podrían esperar hasta que se determine si se va a apelar o no, y si hay una próxima decisión.

Pero muchas personas pueden pedir al gobierno, a USCIS, que empiece a ejecutar esta orden del juez. Esto va a ocasionar todavía aún más peticiones que se manden para hacerle agilización a los casos, pero es lo mismo que estamos viendo en este momento: mandamos a pedir agilización y ellos tienen papeles y papeles que siguen recibiendo, y los casos siguen en ese limbo.

Mira, una de las cosas que precisamente dice también el juez en su decisión es que no es justo que muchas de esas personas estén en el limbo y que les esté ocasionando un daño, un perjuicio no solamente económico, sino social y familiar, porque hay personas que no pueden conducir porque no tienen su licencia de conducir; no pueden llevar a sus hijos al trabajo o al estudio, a la universidad, qué sé yo.

Entonces, esto tiene unas implicaciones, y las personas deberían también estar empezando a mandar esas cartas a inmigración.

JESSICA MORALES:
Y además de eso, estimamos que deben estar muy atentos al punto en el que están sus casos; es decir, revisar sus cuentas de inmigración, estar atentos a ver si hay alguna comunicación, porque si es así, en cualquier momento podrían ser llamados o les podrían solicitar evidencia. Le consultamos esto a usted, abogada: ¿estos son escenarios que se pueden presentar?

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Sí, pero hay dos escenarios aquí.

Uno es que muchas de estas personas que tenían el asilo pendiente fueron llamadas a sus citas de asilo y presentaron las evidencias. Lo que pasa es que no les han dado una respuesta o una decisión a su caso de asilo. Este es un grupo de personas.

Pero también hay otro grupo de personas que tienen su asilo pendiente por muchos años y no los han llamado.

Realmente ese tipo de personas no están tan sujetas al memorándum, porque el memorándum pausó la decisión, pero no pausó el procesamiento. Muchos casos siguieron siendo procesados y tuvieron entrevistas. De hecho, hemos tenido entrevistas con clientes todo este año y el año pasado. Pero lo que se pausó fue la decisión: tienen la entrevista y no hay una decisión.

Ahora, los permisos de trabajo, eso también está pausado, muchos de ellos. Dicen: “Bueno, yo tuve la entrevista, no he tenido una decisión, pero pedí un permiso de trabajo que todavía tampoco me han aprobado y necesito que me lo aprueben para sacar mi licencia de conducir”, por ejemplo.

Entonces, estas personas son las que se ven afectadas por la pausa y estas personas son las que deberían estar pidiendo que se agilice ahora.

Si tienen su permiso de trabajo por cinco años y solamente están pidiendo una decisión, pues esas personas pueden estar más tranquilas y simplemente no actuar, y simplemente escuchar o esperar a ver qué va a pasar con esta decisión, si inmigración la va a acatar o van a apelar, o qué es lo que va a pasar.

JESSICA MORALES:
Ahora, ha habido seis meses de esta pausa, aproximadamente medio año de esta pausa ha transcurrido. ¿Esto podría implicar algún tipo de retraso en otros casos? Ustedes, como abogados, como profesionales que día a día tienen que estar atendiendo este tipo de situaciones de sus clientes, ¿qué se puede esperar? ¿Se atenderán los casos que están pausados primero? ¿Se atenderán los que van llegando? ¿Cómo podría manejarse?

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Bueno, no sabemos cómo la administración irá a manejarlos. Hay casos definitivamente pausados por seis meses, pero no solamente están esos casos pausados. Recuerde que recientemente la administración también emitió otro memorándum donde dice que las personas deberían ir a recibir las residencias fuera de los Estados Unidos.

Esas personas que han estado teniendo las citas de residencia después de este otro memorándum, sus casos también están pausados; es decir, no les han dado una decisión. Y no les han dado una decisión porque el gobierno no ha emitido tampoco unas guías claras para los oficiales de inmigración para tomar las decisiones de acuerdo con ese memorándum.

Entonces, si a esos casos que llevan seis meses pausados les sumamos los que ahora también tienen las decisiones pausadas por el nuevo memorándum, es bastante lo que tiene atrasado la administración.

No sé cómo lo irán a enfrentar: si van a continuar procesando los casos que van entrando primero o van a empezar a procesar esos casos pausados primero. Eso es algo que el gobierno nos tendrá que informar.

JESSICA MORALES:
Ahora, a propósito de esta nueva medida del Servicio de Ciudadanía e Inmigración, que dice que el ajuste de estatus en los Estados Unidos solo podrá hacerse en circunstancias extraordinarias; es decir, hay personas que están en ese trámite de ajuste de estatus y tendrían que ir a sus países y hacer el trámite ante el consulado de su país para poder obtener esa residencia o ese ajuste y luego venir a los Estados Unidos.

¿Cuáles son esas circunstancias extraordinarias, Martha? ¿Cómo se está manejando luego del anuncio, hace ya varios días, hace más de una semana?

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
Sí, no hay unas guías del gobierno todavía explícitas, ni para nosotros como abogados, ni para nuestros clientes, ni tampoco para los oficiales de inmigración, de cómo se van a analizar esas circunstancias extraordinarias.

Sin embargo, tenemos unas, vamos a decir, unas pistas de cómo se podrían evaluar. Esto se va a determinar con factores. Factores como, por ejemplo, el tiempo de estadía de la persona en los Estados Unidos. Esto es lo que se llama comunidad o lazos comunitarios. Eso quiere decir si la persona tiene propiedades, tiene bienes aquí, negocios; si tiene familia, hijos, nietos, esposa, padres; si la persona tiene retiro en los Estados Unidos, servicios médicos que la están cubriendo, etcétera.

El otro factor es como los antecedentes penales: si esa persona tiene delitos, convicciones criminales graves o no. Eso también se determina como un factor.

Otros factores, por ejemplo, son factores humanitarios o cuestiones médicas, sean de ellos o de un familiar inmediato que esté bajo su cuidado, su supervisión.

También se mira el tipo de violaciones migratorias que haya tenido esa persona, o si no las ha tenido. Si anteriormente esa persona había violado la ley, había entrado en forma irregular o qué violaciones migratorias tenía.

Entonces, como un conjunto de factores, eso es lo que se llama la totalidad de las circunstancias, lo que en otros casos hemos visto que usa inmigración como discreción.

Acuérdese que, en este caso, en este memorándum, lo que inmigración está diciendo es que van a ser unas cuestiones extraordinarias que se van a analizar caso por caso, para ellos tomar su discreción de si aprueban o no esas peticiones dentro de los Estados Unidos.

El mismo inmigración salió como dos o tres días después de haberse emitido este memorándum a aclarar y a decir que no se está quitando el derecho a pedir la residencia dentro de los Estados Unidos, como ordena la ley o como la ley lo permite; que lo que ellos están haciendo es ejercer su discreción, que siempre la han tenido bajo la ley, para decir si aprueban un caso o no porque cumpla con esas circunstancias extraordinarias.

Y volvemos a repetir: esas circunstancias extraordinarias son estos factores que en el pasado se han usado como factores discrecionarios.

JESSICA MORALES:
En otro tema, Martha, no quisiéramos despedirla, ya nos queda poco tiempo, pero no quisiéramos despedirla sin solicitarle sus consideraciones y su sugerencia como abogada en relación con un evento internacional que va a tener como sede los Estados Unidos, que es el Mundial.

Ya las autoridades migratorias han dicho que se van a enfocar, o las autoridades de seguridad, en garantizar la seguridad de personas y de instalaciones, pero que no se descarta también que se aplique algún tipo de medida migratoria si es necesario.

¿Qué sugieren ustedes como abogados a quienes están en trámites en este momento?

ABOGADA MARTHA ARIAS:
A ver, tienen que tener mucho cuidado, porque yo también escuché directamente en estos días al Departamento de Seguridad Nacional diciendo que obviamente no había redadas, pero que sí se iba a descartar la posibilidad de detener personas que el gobierno considerara que eran un peligro para la defensa nacional o la seguridad nacional.

Y esa parte de la defensa nacional me parece que es muy delicada, porque no sé cómo ellos puedan considerar, de entrada, que personas sean un peligro para la defensa nacional. Obviamente, terroristas y estos actos, eso sí es algo que hay que cuidarse y el gobierno debe hacer sus funciones.

Pero de ahí a un ciudadano común y corriente, que de pronto no tenga un estatus legal definido y que quiera ir a ver un partido con sus tickets, si esa persona va a ser fichada como un extranjero que puede hacer una violación a la defensa nacional, no sé. Es delicado.

Mi consejo es que las personas mantengan con ellas su identificación. Si son residentes o ciudadanos, que mantengan su identificación. Si están en un estatus como, por ejemplo, una visa de turista, que vinieron con esa visa para visitar, para el Mundial, tengan una copia o sáquenle una copia, o ténganla en sus celulares, en su bolsillo, en su billetera, de la I-94, que es ese permiso de estadía que le dan cuando entra a los Estados Unidos.

Mucha gente no sabe que eso lo tienen que bajar de internet y lo tienen que imprimir, porque anteriormente el gobierno le daba a la gente una tarjeta blanca, cuadradita, pequeña, que se llamaba, ahí dice, I-94. Pero hace muchos años no la dan. La persona tiene que ir a la página de CBP, Customs and Border Protection, y bajar ese documento.

Mi mejor consejo: vayan a Google y pongan “I-94 Retrieval”. En inglés se escribiría como “retrieval”. Pongan “I-94 Retrieval” y vayan allí. Van a tener que usar su pasaporte, van a entrar su número de pasaporte, su nombre como está en el pasaporte, fecha de nacimiento, país de nacionalidad, y ahí les va a salir esa I-94.

Háganle una captura de pantalla para que la guarden en sus celulares, o imprímanla y la escanean, o imprímanla y la guardan en su billetera.

Mantengan esa prueba de legalidad, sobre todo los extranjeros que vienen de visita. También los que están aquí tal vez con un asilo pendiente, o con un TPS, o un permiso de trabajo, también por el DACA. Esas personas también deben mantener en su billetera, consigo, esa identificación en caso de que un oficial se las pida, porque eso no es solamente la licencia; es ese ID que muestra su estatus migratorio.

JESSICA MORALES:
Martha, muchísimas gracias por habernos acompañado y haber compartido con nosotros sus comentarios, consideraciones y análisis en cuanto a estos aspectos de carácter migratorio en los Estados Unidos.

Martha Arias, abogada de inmigración, con nosotros.

ENGLISH TRANSLATION:

Immigration Attorney Martha Arias Interview with Jessica Morales on TVV

JESSICA MORALES:
In this part, we review information of an immigration nature in the United States.

A federal judge in Rhode Island ordered, at the end of last week, the Trump administration to lift the administrative pause that prevented the processing of asylum applications and immigration benefits, such as work permits, permanent residence, and citizenship, for people from 39 countries considered high risk.

This ruling impacts thousands of people in the United States, and to address the scope of this measure and also its details, we are joined by Martha Arias, immigration attorney. Attorney, thank you for being with us.

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Thank you very much, Jessica, for inviting me, and greetings to you, your whole work team, and all your followers.

JESSICA MORALES:
Thank you. After this decision, this ruling by this federal judge, what could we expect, in principle, from the administration of the United States?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Let’s see, what can we expect? We can expect two things.

The first is that they appeal. They have 30 days to appeal and, within that appeal, they can also ask that the application of this judge’s order be paused. That is, that it not be applied; that is, that the pause continue. That is what we can expect.

The experts analyze the point and say that probably the federal government is going to appeal and is going to ask for a pause of this judge’s ruling. That is one possibility.

The other possibility is that the government, USCIS, acts and begins to tell us, or to issue a communication, about how it is going to begin to evaluate and process all those cases that have already been paralyzed for almost two years.

JESSICA MORALES:
After this ruling, in how much time should USCIS begin to reactivate these administrative procedures that were subject to this pause?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
The ruling of Judge John McConnell does not say, does not establish, a term under which immigration has to govern itself. That is, it does not tell it: “you have to decide in such amount of time” or “reactivate the cases in such amount of time.” It does not say that.

Therefore, here the only thing we can expect is that the government acts according to the ruling and reactivates the cases when it considers it appropriate, or that it appeals.

So, there is no fixed term guided by this ruling.

JESSICA MORALES:
In this appeal, if it turns out that the administration does not have a favorable response, can it go to another level, such as the Supreme Court?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Correct. If the Supreme Court authorizes certiorari, which is like the review that they would authorize in order to take the case, it could be. So, first, this federal judge has to go to a court of appeals; after that, possibly, it can go to the Supreme Court.

We are going to wait and see what path this is going to take. And, well, we all know that the Supreme Court has been very, so to speak, accommodating with the administrative policies of the current administration. So, I do not know what possibility this case may have in the Supreme Court.

But well, at least the judge supported his decision very well. Notice that, in this decision, the judge clearly says that he is not getting into the analytical part of the Executive’s policy. That is, he says: the Executive has the right to establish administrative policies.

What I, as a judge, am analyzing is only the legality of these policies, because the law establishes certain parameters and this policy has no foundation in the law, because cases are being paused only because of the person’s nationality, not because those people have committed something bad or have violated the law. Simply because they were born in X or Y country, they are being sanctioned.

So, the judge seems to me to make good reasoning, I think foreseeing that there will be an appeal and foreseeing that this will reach the Supreme Court.

JESSICA MORALES:
Now, while waiting for this response from USCIS, from the immigration authorities, about how they will begin to comply with this measure from this federal judge, or while it becomes known whether there will or will not be an appeal, what should people whose immigration procedures are currently under this administrative pause do? What measures should they take?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Well, here it is important that those who are going to receive, or are under a financial problem that is going to cause them a major financial problem, for example, not having their work permits because they are paused, I think those people should begin sending letters to ask the government to expedite their procedures in compliance with the decision of this Rhode Island judge.

Many people may have that “financial hardship,” or that financial harm. So they should do it.

Others, if they do not have that way of showing that there is a serious financial problem, could wait until it is determined whether it is going to be appealed or not, and whether there is a next decision.

But many people can ask the government, USCIS, to begin executing this judge’s order. This is going to cause even more petitions to be sent to request case expedites, but it is the same thing we are seeing at this moment: we send requests for expedites and they have papers and papers that they continue receiving, and the cases remain in that limbo.

Look, one of the things that the judge also precisely says in his decision is that it is not fair that many of those people are in limbo and that it is causing them harm, prejudice not only economic, but social and family-related, because there are people who cannot drive because they do not have their driver’s license; they cannot take their children to work or to school, to the university, who knows.

So, this has implications, and people should also be starting to send those letters to immigration.

JESSICA MORALES:
And besides that, we estimate that they should be very attentive to where their cases are; that is, review their immigration accounts, be attentive to see if there is any communication, because if so, at any moment they could be called or they could be asked for evidence. We consult this with you, attorney: are these scenarios that can arise?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Yes, but there are two scenarios here.

One is that many of these people who had asylum pending were called to their asylum appointments and presented the evidence. What happens is that they have not been given a response or a decision on their asylum case. This is one group of people.

But there is also another group of people who have had their asylum pending for many years and have not been called.

Really, that type of person is not so subject to the memorandum, because the memorandum paused the decision, but did not pause the processing. Many cases continued being processed and had interviews. In fact, we have had interviews with clients all this year and last year. But what was paused was the decision: they have the interview and there is no decision.

Now, work permits, that is also paused, many of them. They say: “Well, I had the interview, I have not had a decision, but I requested a work permit that they have not approved for me either, and I need them to approve it for me so I can get my driver’s license,” for example.

So, these people are the ones who are affected by the pause and these people are the ones who should be asking for it to be expedited now.

If they have their work permit for five years and they are only asking for a decision, then those people can be more calm and simply not act, and simply listen or wait to see what is going to happen with this decision, whether immigration is going to comply with it or whether they are going to appeal, or what is going to happen.

JESSICA MORALES:
Now, there have been six months of this pause; approximately half a year of this pause has passed. Could this imply some type of delay in other cases? You, as attorneys, as professionals who day by day have to be attending to this type of situation of your clients, what can be expected? Will the cases that are paused be attended to first? Will those that are arriving be attended to? How could it be handled?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Well, we do not know how the administration will handle them. There are cases definitely paused for six months, but not only those cases are paused. Remember that recently the administration also issued another memorandum where it says that people should go receive their residences outside of the United States.

Those people who have been having residence appointments after this other memorandum, their cases are also paused; that is, they have not been given a decision. And they have not been given a decision because the government has not issued clear guidance either for immigration officers to make the decisions according to that memorandum.

So, if to those cases that have been paused for six months we add those that now also have decisions paused because of the new memorandum, it is quite a lot that the administration has delayed.

I do not know how they are going to face it: whether they are going to continue processing the cases that are entering first or they are going to begin processing those paused cases first. That is something that the government will have to inform us.

JESSICA MORALES:
Now, regarding this new measure from the Citizenship and Immigration Service, which says that adjustment of status in the United States will only be able to be done in extraordinary circumstances; that is, there are people who are in that adjustment of status process and would have to go to their countries and do the process before the consulate of their country in order to obtain that residence or that adjustment and then come to the United States.

What are those extraordinary circumstances, Martha? How is it being handled after the announcement, already several days ago, more than a week ago?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Yes, there is still no explicit government guidance, neither for us as attorneys, nor for our clients, nor for immigration officers either, as to how those extraordinary circumstances are going to be analyzed.

However, we have some, let’s say, clues about how they could be evaluated. This is going to be determined with factors. Factors such as, for example, the person’s length of stay in the United States. This is what is called community or community ties. That means whether the person has properties, has assets here, businesses; whether the person has family, children, grandchildren, spouse, parents; whether the person has retirement in the United States, medical services that are covering them, etcetera.

The other factor is like criminal history: whether that person has crimes, serious criminal convictions or not. That is also determined as a factor.

Other factors, for example, are humanitarian factors or medical issues, whether of themselves or of an immediate family member who is under their care, their supervision.

They also look at the type of immigration violations that person may have had, or whether they have not had them. Whether previously that person had violated the law, had entered irregularly, or what immigration violations they had.

So, as a set of factors, that is what is called the totality of the circumstances, which in other cases we have seen immigration use as discretion.

Remember that, in this case, in this memorandum, what immigration is saying is that these are going to be extraordinary issues that are going to be analyzed case by case, for them to exercise their discretion as to whether or not they approve those petitions inside the United States.

Immigration itself came out about two or three days after this memorandum was issued to clarify and to say that they are not taking away the right to request residence inside the United States, as the law orders or as the law permits; that what they are doing is exercising their discretion, which they have always had under the law, to say whether they approve a case or not because it meets those extraordinary circumstances.

And we repeat again: those extraordinary circumstances are these factors that in the past have been used as discretionary factors.

JESSICA MORALES:
On another topic, Martha, we would not want to say goodbye to you, we have little time left, but we would not want to say goodbye to you without requesting your considerations and your suggestion as an attorney in relation to an international event that will have the United States as host, which is the World Cup.

The immigration authorities have already said that they are going to focus, or the security authorities, on guaranteeing the security of people and facilities, but that they also do not rule out that some type of immigration measure may be applied if necessary.

What do you, as attorneys, suggest to those who are in procedures at this moment?

ATTORNEY MARTHA ARIAS:
Let’s see, they have to be very careful, because I also heard directly in these days the Department of Homeland Security saying that obviously there were no raids, but that they were not going to rule out the possibility of detaining people whom the government considered to be a danger to national defense or national security.

And that part of national defense seems very delicate to me, because I do not know how they can consider, from the outset, that people are a danger to national defense. Obviously, terrorists and these acts, that is indeed something that must be watched, and the government must perform its functions.

But from there to an ordinary citizen, who perhaps does not have a defined legal status and who wants to go see a match with their tickets, whether that person is going to be flagged as a foreigner who can commit a violation against national defense, I do not know. It is delicate.

My advice is that people keep their identification with them. If they are residents or citizens, they should keep their identification. If they are in a status such as, for example, a tourist visa, and they came with that visa to visit, for the World Cup, they should have a copy or make a copy, or have it on their phones, in their pocket, in their wallet, of the I-94, which is that stay permit that they give you when you enter the United States.

Many people do not know that they have to download that from the internet and print it, because previously the government gave people a white, small, square card, which was called, it says there, I-94. But for many years they have not given it. The person has to go to the CBP page, Customs and Border Protection, and download that document.

My best advice: go to Google and type “I-94 Retrieval.” In English, it would be written as “retrieval.” Type “I-94 Retrieval” and go there. You will have to use your passport, you will enter your passport number, your name as it appears in the passport, date of birth, country of nationality, and there that I-94 will appear.

Take a screenshot of it so you can keep it on your phones, or print it and scan it, or print it and keep it in your wallet.

Keep that proof of legality, especially foreigners who are coming to visit. Also those who are here perhaps with a pending asylum, or with TPS, or a work permit, also through DACA. Those people should also keep that identification in their wallet, with them, in case an officer asks them for it, because that is not only the license; it is that ID that shows their immigration status.

JESSICA MORALES:
Martha, thank you very much for having joined us and for having shared with us your comments, considerations, and analysis regarding these immigration-related aspects in the United States.

Martha Arias, immigration attorney, with us.

The post Rhode Island Ruling: Hope for Delayed Immigration Cases appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..

Updates on TPS and New Immigration Rulings

Martha Arias — Wed, 02 Jul 2025 18:22:48 +0000

This week on “Cada Tarde” with Carlos and Agustin Acosta, I joined to discuss some critical immigration developments that affect many in our community.

The Supreme Court issued a new ruling that, while it does not decide whether children born in the U.S. to undocumented parents are citizens, limits the ability of federal judges to apply their rulings nationwide. Now, federal court decisions, such as injunctions, will only apply within their specific state or to the parties involved in the lawsuit, not across the whole country. This shift benefits the current administration and may affect how quickly immigration policies can be challenged in federal courts.

We also discussed President Trump’s recent comments on possibly allowing undocumented immigrants in key industries like agriculture and hospitality to remain in the U.S. under special work permits coordinated by employers. While this is just an idea for now, it offers a glimpse of hope for those who have contributed to our economy for many years.

Another major topic was the upcoming expiration of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitians. Unless renewed, TPS for Haiti will end on September 2, 2025, potentially impacting around half a million people. The same uncertainty remains for Venezuelans, whose TPS is set to expire September 10, 2025, unless an extension is announced by July 12.

For all immigration matters, it’s essential to seek reliable legal advice. Don’t face these changes alone. If you or your loved ones have questions about your status, please contact me at 305-671-0018

FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA

ORIGINAL TRANSCRIPT:

Agustín Acosta:
Muy bien amigos, seguimos adelante. Son las seis de la tarde, diecisiete minutos de este día treinta de junio, es el último día, mañana comenzamos un nuevo mes y bueno, pues hay una serie de noticias muy importantes en el terreno migratorio, en el campo de la inmigración que siempre queremos abordar, como hacemos cada tarde de lunes con la doctora Martha Arias, que siempre nos explica, nos pone al tanto y a ustedes que tienen amigos o familiares con asuntos migratorios pendientes, pues es un segmento muy, muy escuchado. Doctora, muy buenas tardes.

Abogada Martha Arias:
Muy buenas tardes, Agustín. Un saludo para usted y toda la audiencia de Actualidad Radio. Feliz lunes.

Agustín Acosta:
Claro que sí, igualmente para usted. Doctora, cuando llegó Trump a la Casa Blanca en enero, se manejó el tema de que los niños nacidos en Estados Unidos de padres indocumentados o ilegales no podían ser considerados ciudadanos de la nación, a pesar del texto que aparece escrito en la Constitución Federal. Inmediatamente se produjeron una serie de demandas y la semana pasada el Tribunal Supremo de Justicia emitió una determinación sobre esto, pero yo la leí y me parece que se quedó corta la determinación, no aborda per se el tema de la ciudadanía de los niños, sino más bien de la capacidad de inmiscuirse de los tribunales federales en el asunto. ¿Cómo lo ve usted?

Abogada Martha Arias:
Efectivamente, sí, Agustín, así mismo es. La Corte Suprema en esta decisión que emitió el viernes pasado no decidió concretamente el punto o el tema legal de si los niños que nacen en Estados Unidos de padres indocumentados van a tener derecho a la ciudadanía. Ese tema quedó todavía para ser resuelto por la Sala de Apelaciones que está viendo o tocando ese caso. Lo que la Corte Suprema decidió es que las cortes federales o los jueces federales no pueden emitir decisiones que tengan vigencia o aplicación en todos los Estados Unidos, es decir, en todo el país. En este caso, específicamente estamos hablando de una pausa que ordenó un juez federal a esa orden ejecutiva que no se le podía dar la ciudadanía a las personas nacidas en los Estados Unidos de padres indocumentados. Un juez ordenó la pausa. La pausa tenía efecto a nivel nacional, a nivel de todos los Estados Unidos. Entonces, el juez, pues, con esta medida cautelar, lo que hizo fue pausar esto. El gobierno apela, la Sala de Apelaciones, a la Corte Suprema. La Corte Suprema lo que dice es no. Los jueces federales no pueden seguir dando pausas que tengan vigencia en todo el país. Solamente van a tener vigencia esas pausas en el estado y hacia las personas demandantes. Entonces, bueno, esta es una decisión que favorece al gobierno del presidente Trump. Por eso quiere decir que de ahora en adelante, cuando haya una pausa de un juez federal, pues según esta decisión de la Corte Suprema, no va a tener vigencia en todos los Estados Unidos. ¿Es alguna ganancia que tiene la administración actual? Pues que estaba precisamente en contra de que los jueces federales emitieran decisiones de un alcance nacional.

Agustín Acosta:
Amigos, conversamos con la doctora Martha Arias, su teléfono es el 305-671-0018. 305-671-0018. Doctora, un tema que hoy tenemos en nuestros titulares, me parece que es interesante porque esto está puramente en el terreno especulativo y a futuro, no hay nada, nada, nada más que un comentario que hizo ayer el presidente Trump durante una entrevista matutina en la cadena Fox. Dijo ayer que considera, que él considera una medida que podría permitir a los migrantes indocumentados que trabajan en ciertos gremios como la agricultura, la construcción, quedarse en los Estados Unidos con un permiso especial que podría ser coordinado por sus empleadores. Y textualmente dijo Trump, aquí hay gente muy buena que no ha cometido ningún delito, que llevan 15 o 20 años trabajando en industrias que me dicen, o sea, dice Trump, que me dicen que no los pueden reemplazar con personas que son ciudadanos y por lo tanto tienen un papel importante en nuestra economía y podríamos, siempre y cuando los empleadores garanticen que no han cometido delito alguno, buscarle una forma para que se queden aquí. Más o menos, ese fue el comentario que hizo ayer el presidente. Pero creo que pues abre una puerta, tal vez a acomodar a muchas personas que en este momento están en peligro.

Abogada Martha Arias:
Efectivamente, eso abre una puerta para todas esas personas porque usted ha visto que el miedo se ha apoderado de la gente, la gente tiene miedo que la detengan, más que la manden a un tercer país al cual no conocen ni siquiera la lengua, no tengan arraigo. Y ahora que se está hablando de esta construcción de esta nueva cárcel aquí en el condado de Miami-Dade County, pues la gente todavía tiene más miedo. Entonces esto está ocasionando que sobre todo los negocios que se dedican a la agricultura o los negocios que llaman “hospitality business”, estos negocios están sufriendo una escasez de personal y esto podría traducirse pues en aumento también de los precios, porque pues estas personas normalmente son personas que están dispuestas a trabajar por un salario más bajo. Entonces este anuncio del gobierno daría un alivio a ese sector hospitalario y al sector de la agricultura. Esperamos que el presidente pues emita una protección para estos, para este sector. Vamos a ver. Esto lo anunció él y bueno, como todos sabemos, él cuando anuncia una cosa es porque ya la tiene en mente cumplir, entonces ojalá pues que podamos tener este beneficio.

Agustín Acosta:
Claro que sí. Y por último, hay otra decisión que también afecta a las personas de Haití. La noticia decía que era medio millón. Yo no creo que haya medio millón de haitianos en los Estados Unidos. A lo mejor yo estoy equivocado. Me parece que son menos personas de Haití pero perderían entonces el tratado de protección temporal?

Abogada Martha Arias:
Sí, perderían el tratado de protección temporal a partir de septiembre 2 de este año. Todos los haitianos, el gobierno anunció que no va a renovar el TPS de Haití y pues es una gran pena porque también sabemos que es un país que tiene muchos problemas, que no se ha podido recuperar de la situación del terremoto. Y bueno, también sabemos que hay problemas de corrupción, que es lo que ayuda a que no se puedan recuperar. Pero, pues, definitivamente el gobierno anunció, sí, se dice que son aproximadamente 500.000 haitianos que se quedarían sin ese estatus de protección temporal. Acuérdense que ya venimos con varios años renovándose y extendiéndose este TPS de personas de Haití. Entonces, en septiembre 2 de este año 2025 se les terminaría el TPS a los haitianos.

Agustín Acosta:
En cuanto al TPS de los venezolanos y al TPS de los cubanos que le permitiría a ciertos cubanos después de un año y un día poder entrar por la Ley de Ajuste Cubano, ¿ha habido algún cambio desde la última vez que hablamos?

Abogada Martha Arias:
No, no ha habido ningún cambio. El TPS de Venezuela del 2021 también está supuesto a vencer el 10 de septiembre de este año 2025. No ha habido ningún cambio o ningún anuncio acerca de esto. Para el 12 de julio se espera, según la ley, es lo normal que se anuncie si se va a extender o no. Vamos a ver cuál es la respuesta.

Agustín Acosta:
Si no interviene el gobierno de manera contraria y no dicen nada, ¿se volvería a extender por un año más automáticamente?

Abogada Martha Arias:
Es correcto. Si no se anuncia la extensión del TPS, no se dice nada, ni se termina, ni se dice nada, es una extensión automática de seis meses según la ley. Si el gobierno lo termina, definitivamente como lo hizo ahora con Haití, pues se termina. Pero pues vamos a esperar a ver cuál es la decisión: si lo termina, si no dice nada o si lo extiende. Esas serían como las tres opciones.

Agustín Acosta:
Muy bien. Muy bien. Pues muchas gracias, doctora. Déjeme dar su teléfono nuevamente y le reitero a los oyentes que cualquier trámite con inmigración hay que tener la mejor asesoría. No vayan solos, no se dejen aconsejar por personas que no conozcan del tema. Le doy el teléfono de la doctora Arias, abogada de inmigración por muchísimos años y una experta en este asunto. Es el 305-671-0018.

También la pueden encontrar en Facebook con su nombre y apellido, Martha Arias, Immigration Attorney, pero su nombre con la versión de M-A-R-T-H-A, Martha Arias por Facebook, o al bufete 305-671-0018, 305-671-0018. Muchas gracias, buenas tardes.

Abogada Martha Arias:
Gracias, buen día.

ENGLISH TRANSLATION:

Agustín Acosta:
Very well friends, we continue on. It is six seventeen in the afternoon on this thirtieth day of June, it’s the last day, tomorrow we start a new month and well, there is a series of very important news in the immigration field, in the area of immigration that we always want to address, as we do every Monday afternoon with attorney Martha Arias, who always explains things, keeps us up to date, and for those of you who have friends or family with pending immigration matters, this is a very, very listened to segment. Attorney, good afternoon.

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

Agustín Acosta:
Of course, likewise for you. Attorney, when Trump arrived at the White House in January, the topic came up that children born in the United States to undocumented or illegal parents could not be considered citizens of the nation, despite the text written in the Federal Constitution. Immediately, a series of lawsuits were filed and last week the Supreme Court issued a ruling on this, but I read it and it seems to me the ruling fell short, it does not address the issue of citizenship for the children per se, but rather the ability of federal courts to get involved in the matter. How do you see it?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Indeed, yes, Agustin, that is exactly right. The Supreme Court in this decision issued last Friday did not decide specifically the point or the legal matter of whether children born in the United States to undocumented parents will have the right to citizenship. That issue is still to be resolved by the Court of Appeals that is seeing or handling that case. What the Supreme Court decided is that federal courts or federal judges cannot issue decisions that have effect or application throughout the entire United States, that is, nationwide. In this specific case, we are talking about an injunction that a federal judge ordered against that executive order that said citizenship could not be given to people born in the United States to undocumented parents. A judge ordered the pause. The pause had national effect, across all the United States. Then, the judge, with this preliminary injunction, what he did was pause this. The government appeals, the Appeals Court, to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court says no. Federal judges can no longer issue pauses that have effect nationwide. Such pauses will only have effect in the state and for the plaintiffs. So, well, this is a decision that favors the Trump administration. So that means from now on, when there is an injunction from a federal judge, according to this Supreme Court decision, it will not have effect nationwide. Is this a win for the current administration? Well, yes, because they were precisely against federal judges issuing decisions with nationwide reach.

Agustín Acosta:
Friends, we are speaking with attorney Martha Arias, her phone number is 305-671-0018. 305-671-0018. Attorney, a topic that we have today in our headlines, I think is interesting because this is purely speculative and about the future, there is nothing, nothing, nothing more than a comment that President Trump made yesterday during a morning interview on Fox. He said yesterday that he is considering, that he is considering a measure that could allow undocumented immigrants who work in certain industries like agriculture, construction, to stay in the United States with a special permit that could be coordinated by their employers. And Trump said literally, there are very good people here who have not committed any crime, who have spent 15 or 20 years working in industries that, as Trump says, they tell me that they cannot replace them with citizens, and therefore they play an important role in our economy, and we could, as long as employers guarantee that they have not committed any crime, find a way for them to stay here. More or less, that was the comment the president made yesterday. But I think that, well, it opens a door, maybe to accommodate many people who are currently at risk.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Indeed, this opens a door for all those people because you have seen that fear has taken over people, people are afraid of being detained, more so of being sent to a third country where they don’t even know the language, have no ties. And now that there is talk of building this new jail here in Miami-Dade County, people are even more afraid. So this is causing especially businesses dedicated to agriculture or those in the so-called hospitality business, these businesses are suffering from a shortage of staff and this could also mean higher prices, because these people are usually willing to work for a lower salary. So, this government announcement would give relief to that hospitality sector and to agriculture. We hope the president will issue a protection for these, for this sector. We’ll see. He announced this, and well, as we all know, when he announces something it’s because he already has it in mind to carry out, so hopefully we can have this benefit.

Agustín Acosta:
Of course. And finally, there’s another decision that also affects people from Haiti. The news said it was half a million. I don’t think there are half a million Haitians in the United States. Maybe I’m wrong. It seems to me there are fewer people from Haiti but would they lose the temporary protected status?

Attorney Martha Arias:
Yes, they would lose temporary protected status starting September 2 of this year. All Haitians, the government announced that it will not renew TPS for Haiti and, well, it is a great shame because we also know that it is a country with many problems, which has not been able to recover from the earthquake situation. And well, we also know there are problems of corruption, which is what keeps them from recovering. But, yes, definitely the government announced, yes, it is said that there are approximately 500,000 Haitians who would be left without that temporary protected status. Remember, this TPS for Haitians has been renewed and extended for several years. So, on September 2 of this year 2025, TPS for Haitians would end.

Agustín Acosta:
Regarding the TPS for Venezuelans and the TPS for Cubans, which allows certain Cubans, after a year and a day, to enter through the Cuban Adjustment Act, has there been any change since the last time we spoke?

Attorney Martha Arias:
No, there has been no change. The TPS for Venezuela from 2021 is also supposed to expire on September 10 of this year 2025. There has been no change or announcement about this. By July 12, according to the law, it is normal for them to announce whether it will be extended or not. We’ll see what the answer is.

Agustín Acosta:
If the government does not intervene in any way and says nothing, would it be automatically extended for another year?

Attorney Martha Arias:
That’s correct. If the extension of TPS is not announced, nothing is said, nor is it terminated, nor is anything said, it is an automatic six-month extension according to the law. If the government ends it, definitely, as they just did with Haiti, then it ends. But we will wait to see what the decision is: if they end it, if nothing is said, or if it is extended. Those would be the three options.

Agustín Acosta:
Very well. Very well. Well, thank you very much, attorney. Let me give your phone number again and I remind listeners that for any immigration procedure you need the best advice. Don’t go alone, don’t take advice from people who don’t know about the subject. I give you the phone number of attorney Arias, immigration attorney for many years and an expert in this matter. It’s 305-671-0018.

You can also find her on Facebook with her name and surname, Martha Arias, Immigration Attorney, but her name with the version M-A-R-T-H-A, Martha Arias on Facebook, or at the firm 305-671-0018, 305-671-0018. Thank you very much, good afternoon.

Attorney Martha Arias:
Thank you, have a good day.

The post Updates on TPS and New Immigration Rulings appeared first on Miami Immigration Lawyer - Attorney Martha L. Arias, Esq..