Allegations of Deception Surround Biden’s CBP One App as Migrants Face Legal Limbo
A growing chorus of critics and former immigration officials are characterizing the Biden administration’s expanded use of the CBP One app as a “lie,” arguing that it misled millions of migrants into believing they were entering the United States with permanent legal status when they were merely being paroled into removal proceedings.
The controversy centers on the disconnect between the app’s promise of a “lawful pathway” and the legal reality facing those who used it. Reports have surfaced of migrants, such as individuals from El Salvador, appearing in immigration court in 2024 and 2025, stunned to learn that despite scheduling appointments and entering through official ports of entry, they remain in the country illegally.
The “Shell Game” Accusation
Critics argue that the administration used the app to obscure the scale of illegal immigration by processing individuals through ports of entry rather than between them. Victor Avila, a retired federal immigration special agent, described the policy as a “shell game” and “100% illegal.”
“The administration fooled millions of people to come here,” Avila said in a recent interview. “The migrants are under the impression they did everything legally, but it isn’t true.”
According to these allegations, the “lie” functioned by granting humanitarian parole—a temporary permission to enter the U.S.—to those who secured appointments via the app. While parole protects migrants from immediate deportation and often allows for work authorization, it does not confer permanent legal immigration status. Consequently, many who used the app are now finding themselves in deportation proceedings, with judges clarifying that their entry did not equate to a lawful admission for residency.
Deep Search: Parole vs. Legal Status
The core of the confusion lies in the legal distinction between “parole” and “status.” Under immigration law, parole is a discretionary tool used to allow individuals into the U.S. for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit. It is temporary and does not act as a visa or a grant of asylum.
Data indicates that while the app streamlined processing, it essentially placed users into a backlog. Migrants received a Notice to Appear (NTA) in immigration court, effectively starting their removal process the moment they entered. For many, the realization that they are still subject to deportation—despite following the government’s directed “lawful” procedure—has led to feelings of betrayal and confusion.
Background on CBP One
The CBP One mobile application was originally launched in October 2020 under the Trump administration to facilitate commercial trade and travel. In January 2023, the Biden administration expanded its functionality to allow migrants lacking proper documentation to schedule appointments at land ports of entry. The goal was to discourage dangerous irregular crossings between ports by incentivizing a scheduled, orderly arrival.
Objections and Official Defense
Defenders of the program argue that the characterization of the app as a “lie” is politically motivated and ignores the operational necessities of border management. The Biden administration has maintained that the app was never advertised as a “gold ticket” to citizenship, but rather as a tool to process asylum claims in a safe and orderly manner, reducing chaos at the border.
Supporters further contend that parole authority is a long-standing executive power used by presidents of both parties to manage crises. They argue that providing work authorization and a vetted entry process was a pragmatic response to unprecedented migration flows, allowing authorities to screen individuals more effectively than if they had crossed illegally in remote areas.
Current Implications
As political winds shift, the precarious nature of this “parole” status is becoming evident. With calls for stricter enforcement and mass deportations rising, the millions who entered via CBP One find themselves on the front lines of the immigration debate. For critics, the app remains a symbol of deceptive policy making; for the administration, a necessary stopgap; but for the migrants themselves, it has become a source of legal jeopardy they did not anticipate.
borderhawk.news
house.gov
house.gov
borderhawk.news
foxnews.com
borderhawk.news
amnesty.org
shepelskylaw.com
cis.org
