Expanded Parole: Reason for Hope?

A few months ago, the State of Texas, along with 20 other States, filed a lawsuit in the southern district court of Texas in an attempt to stop the Biden Administration’s use of parole. You may recall that in January, the Biden Administration announced an expanded parole program, from Ukrainians and Venezuelan nationals to Nicaraguans, Cubans, and Haitian nationals. The Biden Administration’s reasons for this expansion were to reduce the number of migrants at the U.S. border – the majority of which were from those countries.

This newly expanded parole policy allows any U.S. citizen/permanent resident (among others) with the financial means and willingness to support a national from one of the aforementioned countries to file a form I-134A to serve as a sponsor. If the sponsor is approved, then U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will reach out to the national, collect their information, and conduct a background check. If the national is approved, the national will have 90 days to fly to the U.S. where CBP will either grant parole for up to two years or deny parole. Once in the United States, those individuals would be eligible to apply for an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) for the length of the parole.

In the lawsuit at issue, the State of Texas and 20 other states wanted the court to issue a preliminary injunction (the legal term for stopping the program while the lawsuit is resolved). Part of their argument against the parole program is that the government is exceeding its parole power.

The court was supposed to hear arguments this month. However, at the end of March, a group of U.S. citizens filed a motion to intervene. A motion to intervene is a procedure whereby people who would be affected by the outcome of the litigation ask the court to join the case in support of their interest because their interest in not being represented.

In this case, the group of citizens wishes to intervene against the States and in favor of the parole program. The judge granted the motion to intervene stating that the group of citizens have an interest in the lawsuit that is not represented by the Government because they are participants in the parole program.

So what?

At least for now, the parole program is still up and functioning. Though the judge has not decided on the merits – i.e., the legality of the parole program – granting the motion to intervene means there may still be hope for the parole program and the case is not over yet.

Here at ILBSG, we will continue monitoring this lawsuit and its effect on parole, along with other U.S. immigration policies and proposals. If you have questions about the parole program or any other immigration-related issues, contact us at ILBSG. We work with our clients in their particular situations to ensure they get the right advice.