Does an I-220A count as parole under the Cuban Adjustment Act?

What does Form I-220A actually say?

ICE Form I-220A is titled, in its own header, “Order of Release on Recognizance.” Its opening line tells the person that they have been arrested and placed in removal proceedings, and that they are being released “in accordance with section 236 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and the applicable provisions of Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations.” The conditions that follow are the familiar ones: report for any hearing or interview as directed by ICE or EOIR, surrender for removal if so ordered, do not change address without written permission, and in many cases enroll in an Alternatives to Detention program that may include GPS monitoring.

That reference to section 236 is not boilerplate. It is the legal authority the release was made under, and everything else on this page follows from it.

What did the Board of Immigration Appeals decide?

The Board decided that this kind of release is not parole. In Matter of Cabrera-Fernandez, 28 I&N Dec. 747, decided September 11, 2023, the Board held two things. First, that release on conditional parole under section 236(a)(2)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act is legally distinct from release on humanitarian parole under section 212(d)(5)(A). Second, that applicants for admission released on conditional parole rather than humanitarian parole “have not been ‘inspected and admitted or paroled,’ and accordingly are not eligible for adjustment of status under the Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act.”

The Board reaffirmed that analysis in Matter of Roque-Izada, 29 I&N Dec. 106, decided June 20, 2025. Both are precedent decisions and apply nationwide.

One point of precision that most coverage of this issue misses: neither decision refers to Form I-220A by number. Both address the statutory authority the person was released under, which is section 236. Form I-220A is the document ICE uses to record that release, and the form itself cites that section. The link between the form and the holding is a documentary fact, not an inference.

How is an I-220A different from CHNV or family reunification parole?

The difference is whether a parole decision was ever made. USCIS states that evidence of lawful admission or parole “may include a passport and Form I-94.” A person paroled into the United States (through the parole process for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans, or through a family reunification process) has an I-94 record showing parole. That record is the historical fact the Cuban Adjustment Act asks about.

The program ending later does not erase that fact. DHS terminated the parole processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans by notice published March 25, 2025, and the family reunification parole processes by notice published December 15, 2025. Whether a parole is still in effect today and whether it ever happened are separate questions, and the statute asks the second one. USCIS says so directly when explaining the one-year physical presence requirement: “Your one-year period of physical presence does not need to follow the parole.”

A person released on an I-220A has no such record, because no parole decision was ever made to record. Spanish-language coverage routinely collapses all three situations into one phrase, “el parole,” and that collapse is what produces most of the confusion a family arrives with.

Can an immigration judge decide a Cuban Adjustment Act application?

Yes, and this is the point most often stated backwards. In Matter of Roque-Izada the Board expressly corrected the reading that Cabrera-Fernandez had stripped immigration judges of that authority: an immigration judge has exclusive jurisdiction over an adjustment application filed by a respondent in removal proceedings, except for a respondent classified as an “arriving alien” (8 C.F.R. § 1245.2(a)(1)).

What fails, then, is not the forum. It is the admitted-or-paroled element. The same decision also held that termination of proceedings is not warranted to let someone seek parole from USCIS when the request rests on speculation that USCIS will grant it.

What about the Eleventh Circuit decision from February 2026?

That decision did not hold that an I-220A is parole. On February 23, 2026, in Labrada-Hechavarria v. U.S. Attorney General and Castillo-Casanova (Nos. 23-13664 and 24-10645), the Eleventh Circuit vacated two BIA orders and remanded the cases. The first line of the opinion reads “NOT FOR PUBLICATION”: it is not published precedent.

The reasons the court gave for remanding were prudential rather than merits based: the government had reversed its position on which statute governed the detentions, the Board had issued precedent decisions on the scope of section 1225(a) after ruling in these cases, the federal appellate courts are divided, and most district courts to reach the question had rejected the government’s new position. The court did not decide whether those releases were parole. It sent that question back to the Board.

This page does not state the outcome of that remand, because the outcome is not in any public source. It is on the docket. This office checks the docket before telling anyone what it means for their case.

What happens if someone leaves the United States?

Leaving closes doors, and some of them close automatically. If a motion to reopen is pending before the immigration court, any departure from the United States after the motion was filed “shall constitute a withdrawal of such motion” (8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1)). No one has to deny it. And for a person who does hold parole, the regulation provides that parole “shall be automatically terminated without written notice” upon departure from the United States (8 C.F.R. § 212.5(e)(1)).

These are two of the few rules in this area that operate without anyone exercising discretion, which is why they are worth checking before a ticket is bought rather than after.

What this page does not say

This page does not predict that the law will change, or that it will not. The Cuban Adjustment Act itself is intact and unamended. What is being litigated is narrower: whether a release under section 236 satisfies the paroled element. Under current Board precedent, it does not.

No one can tell you how that dispute will be resolved, or when. What can be done now is to read the actual record in a given case: which statutory authority the release was made under, which document was signed, whether an I-94 parole record exists, and what other avenues remain open on those facts.