Case Explained: BRUNA ARENALES-SALGADO-DE-OLIVEIRA ALESSANDRA ARENALES-SALGADO-DE-OLIVEIRA LUIZ WALDEMAR SALGADO-DE-OLIVEIRA M.A.S.O. (a minor child) KAIQUI CARDOSO-MOREIRA v. DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE USCA11 Case: 24-12360 Document: 42-1 Date Filed: 07/15/2026 Page: 1 of 23 2

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-15

Docket: 0:23-cv-61167-CMA

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of claims brought by domestic petitioners seeking advance parole under the U-visa waiting list regulation, while vacating and remanding the dismissal of claims brought by overseas petitioners as moot. Regarding the domestic petitioners, the court held that 8 C.F.R. § 214.14(d)(2) does not mandate the grant of both deferred action and advance parole. The court applied a textualist standard of review, interpreting the disjunctive “or” in the regulation as granting the Service discretion to choose between deferred action or parole for individuals already within the United States. The court reasoned that requiring both forms of relief would conflict with the statutory requirement under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A) that parole be granted on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit, rather than automatically to an entire class. The court further rejected the argument that the advance parole regulation (8 C.F.R. § 212.5(f)) compelled issuance of travel documents, noting that the waiting list regulation only made parole available as an option, not authorized for specific individuals until selected by the Service. The court also found the domestic petitioners had Article III standing based on the concrete injury of family separation caused by their inability to travel abroad without a guarantee of re-entry. Regarding the overseas petitioners, the court determined their claims were moot because the Service had already provided the relief sought: conditional parole authorization allowing them to schedule consular appointments and obtain travel documents for entry into the United States. Since the petitioners received the specific process they requested but failed to complete the necessary steps (identity verification and biometric checks) to finalize their parole, no further effective relief could be granted by the court. The practical consequence is that the domestic petitioners’ lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice, ending their challenge to the Service’s handling of their U-visa petitions. The overseas petitioners’ claims were remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss without prejudice due to mootness, meaning they cannot pursue this specific legal theory in federal court as their situation has been resolved administratively.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.