Continued Uncertainty for Those Who Entered With CBP One App
By James Larsen, Managing Attorney
In recent months, we've seen a few key victories in the courts for immigrants from crisis-ridden countries. Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Venezuelans—previously targeted for termination under the Trump administration—has been extended, preserving protections for thousands. In another important decision, a federal court temporarily blocked efforts to dismantle humanitarian parole programs that have provided relief to individuals from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela.
These legal victories reaffirm the importance of humanitarian protections and the need for consistency in how we treat people fleeing danger. But while some immigrant communities have won time and security, a quieter and more troubling situation is unfolding under the radar—one affecting nearly a million individuals who entered the U.S. under the Biden administration’s CBP One humanitarian parole program.
These individuals followed the rules, checked in through legal ports of entry, and were granted parole with work authorization—some valid through 2026. They were told this was a safe, legal pathway into the United States. But now, many are receiving sudden notices that their parole has been revoked and that they must leave the country immediately or face law enforcement action.
This is not simply a policy shift—it’s a major crisis of trust for those who played by the rules and sought to come into the country following the law in existence at the time.
Those who managed to file asylum applications shortly after arrival are in a better position. Even if their parole ends, they can continue to pursue their cases before an immigration judge. But what about those who didn’t—or couldn’t—file in time? Many faced language barriers, trauma, lack of access to legal aid, or confusion about their rights. Now they find themselves stripped of their status, vulnerable to deportation, and in legal limbo.
This isn’t simply a change in policy—it’s a dangerous precedent. We’re talking about people who entered through a government-approved process, received government-issued work permits, and integrated into American communities. To now threaten them with removal, without warning or a clear legal pathway, is unjust and destabilizing.
The courts have stepped in to protect TPS and humanitarian parole for specific populations before. But so far, they’ve been largely silent on this broader issue—on the revocations affecting those who used the CBP One app and who were given a pathway into the United States.
Under the U.S. constitution, individuals have right to procedural due process, that is the when the government acts in a way that deprives individuals of life, liberty, or a property interest, the person must be given notice, the opportunity to be heard, and a decision by a neutral decision maker. The notices that have been sent out over the past week are a significant attack on due process.
If we care about due process, we need judicial intervention here too. If we care about the rule of law, we must not allow immigration policy to swing so wildly that families are invited in one day and expelled the next.
There is still time to act—but not much. Legal advocates, immigrant communities, and elected officials must demand clarity, consistency, and compassion. Whether you agreed with the prior polity or not, the humanitarian parole program was a promise that many relied upon.. Revoking it without cause or warning breaks that promise, and puts lives at risk.
Immigration law changes rapidly. This article is for informational purposes only, reflects the law as of its publication date, and may be superseded by later changes in the law, regulations or agency policy. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.La ley de inmigración cambia rápidamente. Este artículo es solo para fines informativos, refleja la ley a la fecha de su publicación y puede quedar superado por cambios posteriores en la ley, las regulaciones o las políticas de las agencias. No es asesoría legal, y leerlo no crea una relación abogado-cliente.