By David A. Isaacson
Earlier this
month, President Obama announced that the United States would soon be re-establishing
diplomatic relations with Cuba. The
White House website indicates that the President will
be “working to re-establish an embassy in Havana in the next coming months.” U.S. immigration law currently treats natives
and citizens of Cuba differently from people from other countries in a variety
of respects. This new development raises
the question whether resumption of diplomatic relations with Cuba will have any
impact on that different treatment of Cuban nationals.
Perhaps the
best-known aspect of U.S. immigration law that provides distinctive treatment to
natives and citizens of Cuba is Public
Law 89-732 of 1966, generally known as the Cuban
Adjustment Act (CAA). (Its official
title was “An
Act to adjust the status of Cuban refugees to that of lawful permanent
residents of the United States, and for other purposes.”) Under the CAA, natives
or citizens of Cuba who have been admitted or paroled into the United States,
and have been physically present for a total of one year (until the Refugee Act
of 1980 the requirement was two years) are eligible for adjustment of
status to that of a lawful permanent resident.
Eligibility for adjustment under the CAA also extends to the spouse and
child of a Cuban applicant, even if not themselves Cuban, so
long as they reside with the Cuban native or citizen in the United States or
qualify
as abused spouses and children of a qualkifying Cuban principal under amendments
to the Violence Against Women Act.
Applicants for adjustment of status under the
CAA must in general be admissible, although they are not subject to the bars to
adjustment of status at INA
§245(c). Also, according to the 1967
decision of the former INS in Matter
of Mesa, the public-charge ground of inadmissibility which is currently
at INA 212(a)(4)
does not apply to adjustment under the CAA.
Adjustment under the CAA is a discretionary benefit, but USCIS has said
in its Adjudicator’s Field Manual that its officers should, “in
weighing the discretionary factors, keep in mind the nature of the CAA and the
political situation in [Cuba].”
Unlike applicants
for asylum under INA
§208 or refugee status under INA
§207, applicants under the CAA, which predates both of those provisions, do
not need to show a well-founded fear of persecution on a protected ground or
otherwise establish that they meet the definition of a refugee under INA
§101(a)(42). One
recent proposed amendment to the CAA would have required applicants under the
CAA to attest to their status as political refugees and face potential loss of
their status if they were to return to Cuba, but current law has no such
requirement.
The CAA itself
does not depend on the presence or absence of U.S. diplomatic
relations with Cuba. Thus, with respect
to potential applicants whom DHS chooses to admit or parole into the United
States, adjustment under the CAA will remain available.
However, there is a related benefit granted to natives and citizens of
Cuba under U.S. immigration law, which may determine whether they can seek
adjustment under the CAA at all, and which will be affected by the resumption
of diplomatic relations.
Under section 235(b)(1) of the
INA, most applicants for admission to the United States are subject to an
expedited removal process whereby they can face quick removal from the United
States unless they establish either a credible fear of persecution or that they
were previously admitted as lawful permanent residents or granted refugee status
or asylum. (This author has previously discussed how judicial review of an expedited removal order may be available for certain returning nonimmigrants.) However, INA 235(b)(1)(F)
states that these provisions “shall not apply to an alien who is a native or
citizen of a country in the Western Hemisphere with whose government the United
States does not have full diplomatic relations and who arrives by aircraft at a
port of entry.” This provision appears
to have been enacted for the benefit of natives and citizens of Cuba, the only “country
in the Western Hemisphere with whose government the United States [did] not
have full diplomatic relations” when the modern expedited-removal process was enacted
in 1996 by IIRIRA. Under section 235(b)(1)(F),
natives and citizens of Cuba who arrive at a U.S. airport cannot be subjected
to expedited removal.
At least if one
reads section 235(b)(1)(F) literally, however, resumption of diplomatic
relations with Cuba will remove Cuban natives and citizens from its coverage,
leaving them subject to expedited removal at airports. Perhaps one could argue that the provision
refers to a fixed set of countries with which the United States had no
diplomatic relations as of the enactment of IIRIRA, but a contrary literal
reading is at least possible. Since one
who is expeditedly removed after failing to establish a credible fear of
persecution generally will not then be paroled or admitted into the United States,
greater availability of expedited removal for natives and citizens of Cuba
following resumption of diplomatic relations with Cuba would indirectly reduce
the availability of adjustment under the CAA.
DHS is not
required to place Cuban natives or citizens into expedited removal proceedings simply
because they are eligible for such treatment, however. As the BIA clarified in Matter
of E-R-M- & L-R-M-, a case involving natives and citizens of Cuba
who had applied for admission at a land port of entry rather than an airport
and thus were not covered by 235(b)(1)(F), DHS has prosecutorial discretion to
place arriving aliens in removal proceedings under INA §240 even if they would
otherwise be amenable to expedited removal.
DHS also has discretion to parole such arriving aliens under INA §212(d)(5) rather
than placing them into any sort of removal proceedings.
For this reason,
the resumption of diplomatic relations will not have an effect on the
availability of CAA relief unless DHS wishes it to. However, natives and citizens of Cuba who are
considering arriving at a U.S. airport in order to seek parole and ultimately
adjustment of status under the CAA should keep in mind that, following the
resumption of diplomatic relations with Cuba, they will be at greater risk of
expedited removal.
You raise an excellent point.
ReplyDeleteCould it be that the US might grandfather in all who are already here, so that no one is sent back who came here under the presumption of this law?
You mentioned that under section 235(b)(1)(F), natives and citizens of Cuba who land at an airport in the US cannot be subjected to expedited removal. What if they engage in illegal activities?
ReplyDelete