Administrative closure controversies in removal cases
What is Administrative Closure?
It is an agency practice, not explicitly authorized by statute, whereby immigration judges halt proceedings temporarily.
It does not dismiss the case but removes it from the active docket.
It allows parties to pursue alternative remedies (e.g., visa petitions) or await changes in law or policy.
Controversies arise around whether this practice is lawful, whether it is reviewable, and whether it conflicts with statutory mandates for timely removal.
Why is it controversial?
Proponents argue it provides flexibility and fairness, especially for people with legitimate claims or procedural needs.
Opponents say it undermines the statutory mandate for timely removal, creates backlogs, and is outside the immigration judge’s authority.
The issue often appears in litigation challenging immigration court practices or government attempts to curtail administrative closure.
Key Cases on Administrative Closure in Removal Cases
1. Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I&N Dec. 688 (BIA 2012)
Background: The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) addressed whether immigration judges have authority to administratively close proceedings.
Holding: The BIA held that IJs lack inherent authority to administratively close cases because the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) does not explicitly authorize this.
Impact: This decision was a major blow to administrative closure, asserting it conflicted with the INA’s structure.
This case sparked controversy, as administrative closure was widely used before.
2. Matter of Castro-Tum, 27 I&N Dec. 271 (BIA 2018)
Background: The BIA reaffirmed its position in Avetisyan, holding that administrative closure is not permitted because it contradicts statutory requirements for hearings.
Holding: The BIA ruled that immigration judges may not use administrative closure to avoid conducting hearings or issuing decisions.
Impact: This created significant confusion, with many cases reopened and removed from administrative closure.
This case shows the BIA's strict approach limiting administrative closure.
3. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009)
Not directly about administrative closure, but relevant for its articulation of the standards for stays of removal and judicial review of immigration decisions.
Holding: The Supreme Court balanced interests in delaying removal and government enforcement authority.
Relevance: The principles of balancing fairness and enforcement underlie the debate about administrative closure's appropriateness.
4. Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. ___ (2018)
Context: Addressed prolonged detention of immigrants but also touched on procedural protections.
Holding: The Court held that detained immigrants do not have a right to periodic bond hearings under the statute.
Relevance: Shows the Court's narrow reading of procedural protections, which influences administrative closure debates about whether procedural discretion exists.
5. Niemiec v. INS, 172 F.3d 875 (D.C. Cir. 1999)
Lower court case affirming administrative closure as a legitimate tool used by immigration judges.
Holding: Recognized administrative closure as a procedural tool to manage dockets and ensure fairness.
Relevance: Contrasts with the BIA's later strict positions and demonstrates the split on the legality and utility of administrative closure.
Additional Considerations and Developments:
Recent Changes: In recent years, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) has implemented policies curtailing administrative closure due to backlog concerns.
Judicial Review: Courts have been divided on whether immigration judges’ use of administrative closure is judicially reviewable.
Statutory Authority: The main controversy is whether the INA’s mandate for "hearings" and "decisions" excludes or permits administrative closure.
Policy vs. Law: Some argue administrative closure is a policy-driven tool rather than a lawful procedural mechanism.
Summary Table
| Case | Holding & Impact | Relation to Administrative Closure |
|---|---|---|
| Matter of Avetisyan (2012) | IJ’s lack authority for administrative closure | Restricts use of administrative closure |
| Matter of Castro-Tum (2018) | Administrative closure conflicts with statutory mandates | Further restricts closure, mandates hearings |
| Nken v. Holder (2009) | Balances fairness and removal interests | Framework for considering delay tools like closure |
| Jennings v. Rodriguez (2018) | Limited procedural protections for detainees | Narrow view on procedural discretion affects closure |
| Niemiec v. INS (1999) | Endorsed administrative closure as a valid procedural device | Supports closure as legitimate and fair |
Conclusion
Administrative closure remains controversial because it occupies a gray area between agency discretion and statutory requirements.
The BIA has largely restricted its use, emphasizing strict adherence to the INA.
Courts remain split on the extent to which administrative closure can be judicially reviewed.
For now, administrative closure is used sparingly and under
RELATED Blog
0 comments