What steps can a Cuban denied under the CAA for having an I-220A take to reopen or refile their application?
Executive summary
A denial of adjustment under the Cuban Adjustment Act (CAA) because the government says a Form I‑220A does not constitute “parole” places a Cuban respondent in procedural limbo: the record shows the immediate remedies are to preserve the case for appeal through the immigration‑court and Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) process, and then push to federal court, while also pursuing other relief such as asylum where available [1] [2] [3]. Recent BIA and circuit litigation means many attorneys are advising clients to treat denials as appealable and to conserve arguments now so they can be litigated up the chain of courts, a fight that could take months or years and reach the Supreme Court [4] [5] [6].
1. What the denial means and why it is contested
The core legal dispute is narrow but high‑stakes: the BIA and some immigration judges have held that release on an I‑220A is not the same as being “paroled” or “inspected and admitted,” which the CAA requires to adjust status; that ruling effectively blocks thousands of Cubans released at the southern border from using the CAA to seek permanent residence [2] [7] [1]. Advocates and some recent BIA and circuit decisions push back, arguing that releases documented by I‑220A were functionally parole and that preserving appeals will let courts correct the law — a position now being litigated in federal appeals courts [4] [8].
2. Immediate procedural steps: preserve and appeal
The most concrete, documentable step after a CAA denial tied to an I‑220A is to preserve the record and appeal: decisions can and have been taken to the BIA and then to federal courts, and lawyers emphasize keeping appellate avenues open because a favorable appellate ruling could restore eligibility for adjustment [4] [5]. Multiple reports note that parties in these cases routinely appeal BIA decisions to the federal circuit and that any party could ultimately seek Supreme Court review, so prompt preservation of issues and filing of appeals is the documented path forward [6] [9].
3. Reopen, refile or seek alternate relief: the documented options
Sources document two practical alternatives documented in recent coverage: first, litigate appeals up through the BIA to the federal courts in hopes of a judicial reinterpretation of whether I‑220A releases qualify as parole [4] [5]; second, pursue other forms of relief such as asylum or conventional immigration relief if available, because a federal decision upholding the BIA would leave asylum and ordinary legalization routes as the remaining options for many [2] [3]. USCIS previously issued a notice related to reprocessing some CAA denials for certain Cubans released by DHS, indicating administrative avenues may exist in limited circumstances, though that notice does not guarantee relief and applies to specific case patterns [10].
4. Timeline, risks and strategic realities
The litigation path is slow and uncertain: appeals can take weeks to months for decisions, and any favorable ruling can be stayed or appealed further by the government — meaning a single appellate win may be tethered to protracted litigation and potential Supreme Court review [5] [6] [9]. Conversely, an adverse appellate ruling would cement a restrictive precedent and leave many with only asylum or deportation as realistic outcomes [2] [11]. The coverage repeatedly flags the stakes — thousands affected and high incentive for DHS to litigate vigorously — creating both legal risk and delay for respondents [1].
5. Practical next moves and caveats from the record
The reporting repeatedly underscores two non‑legal but pragmatic steps supported by the record: engage competent counsel to assure appeals are timely and arguments preserved, and collect documentary evidence about the original I‑220A release and any interactions with DHS because appellate judges focus on the administrative record [12] [4]. Sources also caution that administrative notices (USCIS) and shifting BIA/circuit law mean outcomes depend heavily on evolving precedent, so there is no guaranteed formula in the public record for “reopening” that will succeed in every case [10] [4].