On May 13, 2024, Eduardo, his wife María del Carmen, and their small daughter arrived in the United States from Havana thanks to the Humanitarian Parole Program (HPP) implemented by President Joe Biden.
After going through the required paperwork, within a few weeks they began working in the types of jobs set aside by the labor market for newcomers, regardless of their professional qualifications, if they had any. María del Carmen found work in a factory. Eduardo started working as a FedEx van driver.
In January of the following year, with the new administration in place, they began to see signs of potential trouble. On January 20, President Trump signed the executive order titled “Protecting the American People against Invasion,” which essentially laid the groundwork for the suspension of the previous administration’s Humanitarian Parole Program (HPP).
On February 28, a class action lawsuit filed by Justice Action Center (JAC) and Human Rights First (HRF) in the District Court of Massachusetts challenged several actions taken by the administration to affect immigrants. These included the termination of “special processes for aliens from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela” and deporting their beneficiaries who did not have “other immigration relief.” The case was codified as Svitlana Doe v. Kristi Noem.
The administration announced that the HPP would be eliminated as of April 24 and that work permits would no longer be valid. Suddenly, those involved began seeing this information in their inboxes or on the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) website. They would soon be in limbo.
Clearly, this was a strategy designed to, among other objectives, reinforce the self-deportation measures announced by the government in March with the so-called CBP Home program, a reversal of the mechanism established by Biden for granting interviews and border access. It was also a way to save costs once the goal of deporting one million people during Trump’s first year had been identified.
Eduardo and María del Carmen had some respite when, on April 14, ten days before the government was to implement what it had announced, a district court presided over by Boston federal judge Indira Talwani temporarily prevented the federal government from completely canceling the program.
Two key elements contributed to their decision. The first was that it was not in the public interest to declare that hundreds of thousands of HPP beneficiaries “are no longer considered legally present in the country, so they cannot legally work in their communities or support themselves and their families.”
The second was that the legal status of HPP beneficiaries (which includes residence and work permits) should be maintained until its natural expiration; that is, until the two years allowed from the start for these individuals were completed.
It was, indeed, a victory and a relief. The administration had to temporarily freeze its plans to get rid of these immigrants. There was no choice but to announce the following:
On April 14, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a Preliminary Injunction Order staying parts of the March 25, 2025 Federal Register notice titled, “Termination of Parole Process for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans (CHNV).” See Svitlana Doe, et al., v. Noem, et. al., No. 25-cv-10495 (D. Mass. Apr. 14, 2025). Pursuant to the order, the parole termination notices that were sent to aliens from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela pursuant to the Federal Register notice are stayed and therefore not currently in effect. No new requests for CHNV parole will be processed.
The government appealed. However, on May 5, the Boston-based First Circuit Court of Appeals, composed of two liberal judges and one conservative judge, sided with the judge and thus denied the official request.
“The district court determined that 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A) does not grant the Secretary of Homeland Security unreviewable discretion to terminate parole except on a case-by-case basis,” the three judges wrote.
Eduardo and María del Carmen were then able to continue their work while awaiting the new parole permits they had requested under the Cuban Adjustment Act. Thanks to that, and family support, a year and one day after entering through the airport, they were able to pay $1,400 each, plus the cost of a new green card: $260 per person.
On May 8, the government filed an emergency docket with the Supreme Court. And on Friday, May 30, the Court ruled, in a 7-2 decision, that the Trump administration could revoke the HPP pending a ruling from the lower courts.
Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor dissented, warning of the devastating consequences of the move for immigrants before the legal claims were resolved.
In other words, and contrary to popular belief, the Supreme Court’s decision did not close the case, but it did allow the government to continue deportations and revoke work permits. As a result, the PPH beneficiaries instantly lost their legal status.
It is considered the largest mass delegalization event in the history of the United States.
Officials then did the expected thing: again emailed those involved with the news that their permits were terminated. They also updated E-Verify, an online labor verification system operated by USCIS available to employers. All work permits under category C11 — the HPP — had become invalid.
Many employers also did the expected thing: firing these workers, in many cases under protest and vociferously complaining of an immigration policy that was, in fact, affecting their businesses.
Now it’s up to the First Circuit Court of Appeals to decide whether or not the lower court (Talwani) exceeded its authority by allowing the HPP to continue. That Circuit established an expedited pleading schedule at the request of the parties. The plaintiffs filed theirs on June 11.
The plaintiffs, on the 25th. Oral arguments were held on July 29 at 2:00 p.m. in Boston.
What’s new in this case is that an organization, the Public Rights Project, has filed an amicus curiae brief regarding the abrupt termination of several humanitarian parole programs. They did so on behalf of 14 local governments and 18 local government leaders.
There they argue: “Our brief details how ending this and other humanitarian parole programs will directly harm local governments and their communities. Deporting hundreds of thousands of community members damages social networks, has negative economic consequences and overburdens public services.”
Further on: “The economic losses will be felt in the healthcare, manufacturing, hospitality and construction sectors. Furthermore, the elimination of legal protections for immigrants will erode trust among community members.”
And they conclude: “Our brief urges the First Circuit to uphold the district court’s decision to keep the program in place.”
Eduardo and María del Carmen are waiting, without working. The USCIS website tells them that their new work permits will be granted in September of this year.
