A federal court has dismissed a case brought by three Cuban nationals against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), ruling it lacks jurisdiction to hear their claims for humanitarian parole and adjustment of status. The decision affects the plaintiffs, who sought relief from the court after being classified under a provision that limits their immigration options.
The case, Hernandez v. Noem, was filed in the District Court for the District of Columbia under Civil Action No. 2025-2344. The plaintiffs, Tony Hoyos-Hernández, Danis Ely Romero-Hernández, and Greicel Ávila Leyva, argued that they were wrongfully classified as being subject to conditional parole instead of humanitarian parole. This classification, they claimed, prevented them from applying for adjustment of status under the Cuban Adjustment Act.
The dispute arose after the plaintiffs entered the United States in 2022 and were detained near the southern border. They were released under a conditional parole status, which they argued was incorrect. They filed their complaint on July 21, 2025, seeking both a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to compel the DHS to grant them humanitarian parole and allow them to adjust their status. The case was presided over by Judge Reggie B. Walton.
In its ruling, the court found that it did not have the authority to compel the DHS to grant humanitarian parole or adjust the plaintiffs' status. Judge Walton stated, "The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to provide the plaintiffs their requested relief." The ruling emphasized that the decisions regarding humanitarian parole and adjustment of status are discretionary actions of the Secretary of Homeland Security, which are not subject to judicial review under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
The court's decision was based on the interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), which precludes judicial review of actions that are specified to be at the discretion of the Attorney General or Secretary of Homeland Security. The court noted that the plaintiffs' claims fell under this jurisdictional barrier, as the INA clearly outlines that such decisions are not subject to judicial intervention.
The ruling has significant implications for individuals seeking similar relief through the courts. It underscores the limited scope of judicial review in immigration matters, particularly regarding discretionary decisions made by the DHS. The court's decision also highlights the challenges faced by immigrants navigating the complexities of U.S. immigration law.
Going forward, the dismissal of this case may deter other similar claims from being filed, as the court's ruling sets a precedent that reinforces the discretion granted to immigration authorities under the INA. The plaintiffs' options for appeal remain uncertain, as the court's ruling effectively closes the door on their immediate claims.
Details were not available in the court filing regarding any potential for an appeal or related cases. However, it is clear that the plaintiffs will need to explore other legal avenues if they wish to challenge their immigration status or seek humanitarian relief.