BIA Finds Immigration Judge Improperly Terminating Pending Case

(UNITED STATES) The Board of Immigration Appeals has ruled that an Immigration Judge improperly terminated a pending case, saying the decision went beyond what the law allows and lacked the required support under federal regulations. The 2025 ruling reaffirms that an Immigration Judge may terminate removal proceedings only under narrow conditions set by statute and regulation, and not for purely humanitarian reasons without Department of Homeland Security (DHS) consent. The decision affects people in removal proceedings nationwide who seek case closure as a path to pursue status or protection outside the courtroom, and it sends a clear signal to trial courts that terminations must rest on firm legal footing.

Scope of an Immigration Judge’s Authority

At the center of the ruling is the limit of an Immigration Judge’s authority. While immigration courts can end a case when a party properly moves for termination, the Board said termination is improper if it does not meet specific rules.

• Under 8 CFR § 1003.18(d), a judge may close a case if:
  • a person has already become a lawful permanent resident, or
  • court closure is needed so the person can apply for relief with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
• The Board emphasized that termination for humanitarian reasons alone requires DHS consent or non-opposition.
  • When the government objects, the judge cannot simply end the case on compassionate grounds.

The Board also underlined that immigration judges do not have “inherent” power to dismiss cases outside the statutory and regulatory framework.

Recent Context and Regulatory Background

• The scope of a judge’s docket control has shifted in recent years.
  • In 2018, the Attorney General’s decision in Matter of Castro-Tum narrowed certain case-management tools, including administrative closure and some dismissals.
  • Some discretion later returned through updated guidance.
• The Board’s latest decision clarifies that any authority to terminate remains tightly constrained by regulation and must be tied to a valid legal basis, not general fairness concerns.

Key takeaway: Any termination must be grounded in the regulation’s explicit criteria; equitable or humanitarian considerations alone are insufficient when DHS objects.

Specific Prohibitions on Termination

The Board noted particular areas where termination is not permitted:

• Withholding-only proceedings — limited hearings for people subject to certain removal orders who seek protection from return — are barred from termination under the regulations. See 8 CFR § 1208.2(c)(3)(i).
• Judges cannot end a case to circumvent procedural problems, such as defects in a Notice to Appear (NTA).
  • Using termination to cure such flaws is not a lawful remedy, according to the Board.

The Case Reviewed and the Board’s Ruling

The reviewed case involved a termination that did not align with regulatory standards.

• The Immigration Judge relied on reasons not authorized by regulation and acted despite DHS opposition.
• The Board reversed the termination and directed courts to:
  1. apply the regulations as written, and
  2. weigh DHS’s position when the rules require consent.

The Board’s message is clear: Termination must meet regulatory criteria or it is improper.

Practical Effects for Respondents and Counsel

Consequences for people in removal proceedings are immediate and practical:

• To seek termination to pursue benefits before another agency, a respondent must show the request fits a recognized ground, for example:
  • proof of lawful permanent resident status already granted, or
  • credible documentation that a non-court application requires the case to close.
• Requests based solely on hardship, family ties, or long residence are less likely to succeed unless DHS agrees or does not object.

VisaVerge.com reports that this ruling tightens courtroom practice where some judges had been more open to humanitarian-based terminations when DHS opposed.

Impact on Negotiations and Court Strategy

The ruling also affects how government trial attorneys and defense counsel approach negotiations:

• If DHS consent is pivotal, both sides will focus on whether another forum is ready to act on relief (e.g., an immigrant visa application at an advanced stage with USCIS).
• Where the path is uncertain or speculative, DHS can more credibly oppose termination and the court has less latitude to end the matter.
• This dynamic may push more cases toward merits hearings rather than agreed terminations.

Court Docket and Family Implications

Legal advocates note the decision may bring uniformity but could lengthen some court dockets:

• When judges cannot terminate on equitable grounds without DHS consent, respondents with strong humanitarian stories may still need to litigate to a final order.
• Families could face longer timelines, especially in courts with high backlogs.
• The ruling does not close the door on termination; it limits termination to:
  • scenarios the regulations spell out, and
  • instances where DHS does not object when the rule requires agreement.

Remedy for Defective Charging Documents

The Board emphasized a practical boundary regarding charging documents:

• A judge cannot use termination to fix a defective Notice to Appear (NTA).
• If an NTA lacks required information, the proper remedy lies in established procedures (motions and legal standards), not in ending the case to force a reset.
• This prevents using termination as an end-run around the rules governing how cases begin and proceed.

Guidance for Practitioners

Attorneys following the ruling advise respondents to prepare fuller records when asking to terminate:

• Include documentation such as:
  • proof of lawful permanent resident status (if applicable), or
  • credible evidence that a non-court application requires case closure.
• Judges must check the regulation first:
  • if the regulation calls for DHS consent, government opposition will usually defeat the motion, regardless of equities.

VisaVerge.com’s analysis aligns this decision with earlier Board readings of 8 CFR § 1003.18(d) that treat termination as a structured tool, not a catch-all remedy.

Systemwide Consistency and Resources

The decision fits within a broader effort to maintain consistent immigration court practice across jurisdictions.

• With more than two million cases pending nationwide, clear rules defining when termination is proper are essential.
• The Board’s ruling ties discretion to explicit legal hooks and reminds judges that their authority arises from regulation, not from open-ended equitable powers.

For official policy materials and decisions, readers can consult the Executive Office for Immigration Review:

• Executive Office for Immigration Review: https://www.justice.gov/eoir

While the Board’s ruling does not change regulatory text, it clarifies how the rules must be applied — especially where humanitarian factors are compelling but the regulation requires DHS consent.

Final Takeaways

• Immigration Judges can terminate removal proceedings only in the limited circumstances the regulations describe.
• Termination for purely humanitarian reasons without DHS consent is improper.
• Termination in withholding-only cases is barred.
• Termination cannot be used to cure defects in an NTA or to bypass procedural rules.

By restating these guardrails, the Board set a clear standard for courts, government counsel, and defense lawyers as they weigh when a case can lawfully come to an early close.