What is an I‑220A or I‑220B immigration release and how does it affect eligibility under the Cuban Adjustment Act?
Executive summary
An I-220A is an "Order of Release on Recognizance" and an I-220B is an "Order of Supervision" issued by DHS/ICE to document conditional release from custody; neither by itself creates lawful admitted status, and historically neither was uniformly treated as "parole" for immigration benefits [1] [2]. That technical distinction has become decisive for Cuban Adjustment Act (CAA) claims: recent administrative rulings have held that entry on an I-220A does not satisfy the CAA’s requirement of being "inspected and admitted or paroled," although USCIS issued limited guidance in 2022 opening narrow relief for certain previously denied applicants [3] [4] [5].
1. What the I-220A and I-220B are in practice
Form I-220A is commonly called an Order of Release on Recognizance and documents that a person who was detained by immigration authorities has been released while removal proceedings are pending; Form I-220B (Order of Supervision) is used when a final removal order exists but removal is stayed and the person is supervised by ICE — both are administrative release mechanisms rather than grants of immigrant status [1] [2] [6].
2. The legal difference between release-on-recognizance and parole
Under immigration law the concept of "parole" is a statutory term — INA § 212(d) — that allows an otherwise inadmissible person to be lawfully paroled into the United States for humanitarian or other reasons; courts and agencies have long treated mere conditional release documented by I-220 forms as distinct from formal parole, meaning receipt of an I-220A traditionally did not equate to being "paroled" for statutory benefits [7] [5] [2].
3. How that distinction collides with the Cuban Adjustment Act
The Cuban Adjustment Act permits Cuban natives to apply for lawful permanent residence if they have been inspected and admitted or paroled into the U.S. and meet other requirements, but adjudicators have disputed whether conditional release on an I-220A meets that "inspected and admitted or paroled" threshold — a dispute that turned decisive in a 2023 administrative appeal holding that entry documented only by I-220A does not qualify under the CAA [8] [3] [9].
4. USCIS policy and limited relief for some applicants
USCIS issued a 2022 notice acknowledging past denials where applicants were designated "arriving aliens" and released under INA §236 (including releases reflected on I-220A) and provided a path to reopen or refile for applicants whose denials were based solely on inability to show admission/parole, but that guidance did not override subsequent appellate rulings rejecting I-220A-as-parole for CAA eligibility in contested cases [4] [5] [10].
5. Practical impact on Cubans with I-220A/I-220B and the litigation landscape
The net result is legal uncertainty and real-world consequences: many Cubans released with I-220A used the CAA to seek green cards and some succeeded, but the Board of Immigration Appeals and other tribunals have ruled that I-220A holders generally are ineligible under the CAA, prompting detentions, denials, and ongoing appeals; some individuals have reported receiving subsequent USCIS parole letters that change their status, but such administrative fixes are uneven and contested [1] [9] [11].
6. Options and limits for affected individuals
Affected Cubans may pursue motions to reopen denied CAA applications, refile under USCIS 2022 guidance if denial was solely for lack of parole/admission, seek asylum or other relief in immigration court, or litigate the I-220A parity question on appeal — but outcomes depend on whether a decision was made by USCIS, the Board of Immigration Appeals, or a federal court and on individual facts like timing, whether a separate parole determination was later issued, and any final removal orders [5] [12] [13].
7. What remains unsettled and why it matters
The core legal dispute — whether an administrative release documented by I-220A equals statutory parole for purposes of the CAA — is unresolved nationally because administrative guidance, BIA decisions, and federal litigation have moved at different paces; that fragmentation leaves thousands of Cubans in a fragile legal position with differing routes to permanent residency depending on which agency or court reviews their case [3] [4] [13].