~~~ ~~~ !! NYVISALAWYER.COM - NY VISA LAWYER .COM - NYVISALAWYER.COM !! !! NYVISALAWYER.COM - NY VISA LAWYER .COM - NYVISALAWYER.COM !! !! NYVISALAWYER.COM - NY VISA LAWYER .COM - NYVISALAWYER.COM !! !! NYVISALAWYER.COM - NY VISA LAWYER .COM - NYVISALAWYER.COM !! !! NYVISALAWYER.COM - NY VISA LAWYER .COM - NYVISALAWYER.COM !! !! NYVISALAWYER.COM - NY VISA LAWYER .COM - NYVISALAWYER.COM !! !! NYVISALAWYER.COM - NY VISA LAWYER .COM - NYVISALAWYER.COM !! ~~~ ~~~

Category - Statute/Regulation

Articles

EOIR Final Rule on Administrative Closure and Termination
On July 29, 2024, a new Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) Final Rule, Efficient Case and Docket Management in Immigration Proceedings, went into effect. The rule codifies the authority of immigration judges (IJ) and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) to administratively close and terminate removal proceedings. The new rule can be found in its entirety in the Federal Register available online at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-05-29/pdf/2024-11121.pdf. The rule includes three major changes: (1) Immigration Judges’ Authority to Administratively Close Proceedings; (2)the authority for an Immigration Judge to terminate proceedings in their discretion and sets forth the factors that should be considered in those circumstances; (3) Rules for Retroactive Application of Law for Post Conviction Relief; (4) The Rule Restores Important Procedural Safeguards That the Trump Rule Had Eliminated; (5) The Rule Gives the BIA Expanded Authority to Grant Voluntary Departure Rather than Remand; and (6) Changes some language to be more appropriate. 1. Immigration Judges’ Authority to Administratively Close Proceedings The Final Rule codifies IJs’ and the BIA’s administrative closure authority and provides a list of factors for deciding whether to administratively close a case or recalendar a previously administratively closed case. 8 CFR §§ 1003.18(c); 1003.1(l). The rule generally mandates administrative closure if based on a joint motion or a motion led by one party where the other party “has affirmatively indicated its non-opposition.” 8 CFR §§ 1003.18(c)(3); 1003.1(l)(3). In all other situations, the IJs and the BIA may grant administrative closure orrecalendar a case if they deem it warranted, even if a party opposes. However, IJs and the BIA must consider the “totality of the circumstances” including the following non-exclusive factor (A) The reason administrative closure is sought;(B) The basis for any opposition to administrative closure;(C) Any requirement that a case be administratively closed in order for a petition,application, or other action to be led with, or granted by, DHS;(D) The likelihood the noncitizen will succeed on any petition, application, or otheraction that the noncitizen is pursuing, or that the noncitizen states in writing or onthe record at a hearing that they plan to pursue, outside of proceedings before;(E) The anticipated duration of the administrative closure;(F) The responsibility of either party, if any, in contributing to any current or anticipated delay;(G) The ultimate anticipated outcome of the case pending before; and(H) The ICE detention status of the noncitizen.” Codified at 8 CFR §§ 1003.18(c)(3)(i); 1003.1(l)(3)(i). The regulation also species that a noncitizen does not need to have an action pending outside of EOIR proceedings to present an appropriate case for administrative closure. 8 CFR §§ 1003.18(c)(3); 1003.1(l)(3). The Final Rule is nearly identical to identical to the proposed rule, with the addition of the noncitizen’sICE detention status as an administrative closure factor. Many of the factors listed in the rule are similar to those previously outlined in leading BIA administrative closure cases, see Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I&N Dec. 688 (BIA 2012); Matter of W-Y-U-, 27 I&N Dec. 17 (BIA 2017), but motions for administrative closure filed now should be sure to cite to the new regulation. The Board’s holding in Matter of W–Y–U– that ‘‘the primary consideration . . . in determining whether to administratively close or recalendar proceedings is whether the party opposing administrative closure has provided a persuasive reason for the case to proceed and be resolved on the merits,’’ id., is inconsistent with the unweighted, ‘‘totality-of-the-circumstances’’ standard implemented by this rule, Matter of W–Y–U–, 27 I&N Dec. 17, is superseded.”). See 89 Fed. Reg. at 46753. 2. Codifying Immigration Judges’ Authority to Terminate Proceedings in Their Discretion 8 CFR § 1239.2(b) ORDERING TERMINATION OR DISMISSAL (b) Ordering termination or dismissal. After commencement of proceedings, an immigration judge or Board member shall have authority to resolve or dispose of a case through an order of dismissal or an order of termination. An immigration judge or Board member may enter an order of dismissal in cases where DHS moves for dismissal pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section. A motion to dismiss removal proceedings for a reason other than those authorized by paragraph (c) of this section shall be deemed a motion to terminate and adjudicated pursuant to 8 CFR 1003.1(m), pertaining to cases before the Board, or 8 CFR 1003.18(d), pertaining to cases before the immigration court, as applicable. 8 CFR 1003.1(m) TERMINATION Mandatory Termination Under the mandatory termination category, IJs and the BIA are required to terminate proceedings if any of the below circumstances are present: ▹ The removal charge(s) cannot be sustained;▹ Termination is otherwise required by law;▹ Fundamentally fair proceedings are not possible because the noncitizen is mentallyincompetent and adequate safeguards are unavailable;▹ The noncitizen obtained U.S. citizenship after removal proceedings started;▹ The noncitizen has obtained one of the following statuses and would not have beenremovable as charged if they had obtained such status before the initiation ofproceedings: LPR status, refugee status, asylee status, U nonimmigrant status, Tnonimmigrant status, or S nonimmigrant status;▹ The noncitizen meets the regulatory standard for termination after NACARAadjustment, see 8 CFR § 1245.13(l); or▹ The parties led a joint motion to terminate, or “one party led a motion to terminate and the other party affirmatively indicated its non-opposition, unless the [IJ] articulates unusual, clearly identified, and supported reasons for denying the motion.” Codified at 8 CFR §§ 1003.18(d)(1)(i); 1003.1(m)(1)(i). Discretionary termination In removal, deportation, or exclusion proceedings, the Board may, in the exercise of discretion, terminate the case upon the motion of a party where at least one of the requirements listed in paragraphs (m)(1)(ii)(A) through (F) of this section is met. The Board shall consider the reason termination is sought and the basis for any opposition to termination when adjudicating the motion to terminate. (A) The noncitizen has filed an asylum application with USCIS pursuant to section 208(b)(3)(C) of the Act pertaining to unaccompanied children, as defined in 8 CFR 1001.1(hh). (B) The noncitizen is prima facie eligible for naturalization, relief from removal, or a lawful status; USCIS has jurisdiction to adjudicate the associated petition, application,
SIJS LEGAL AUTHORITY
ALL LEGAL AUTHORITIES INA 101(a)(27)(J)  SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE DEFINITION (J) an immigrant who is present in the United States- (i) who has been declared dependent on a juvenile court located in the United States or whom such a court has legally committed to, or placed under the custody of, an agency or department of a State, or an individual or entity appointed by a State or juvenile court located in the United States, and whose reunification with 1 or both of the immigrant’s parents is not viable due to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis found under State law; (ii) for whom it has been determined in administrative or judicial proceedings that it would not be in the alien’s best interest to be returned to the alien’s or parent’s previous country of nationality or country of last habitual residence; and (iii) in whose case the Secretary of Homeland Security consents to the grant of special immigrant juvenile status, except that- (I) no juvenile court has jurisdiction to determine the custody status or placement of an alien in the custody of the Secretary of Health and Human Services unless the Secretary of Health and Human Services specifically consents to such jurisdiction; and (II) no natural parent or prior adoptive parent of any alien provided special immigrant status under this subparagraph shall thereafter, by virtue of such parentage, be accorded any right, privilege, or status under this chapter; 8 CFR 204.11  Special immigrant juvenile classification § 204.11 Special immigrant juvenile classification. (a) Definitions. As used in this section, the following definitions apply to a request for classification as a special immigrant juvenile. Judicial determination means a conclusion of law made by a juvenile court. Juvenile court means a court located in the United States that has jurisdiction under State law to make judicial determinations about the dependency and/or custody and care of juveniles. Petition means the form designated by USCIS to request classification as a special immigrant juvenile and the act of filing the request. Petitioner means the alien seeking special immigrant juvenile classification. State means the definition set out in section 101(a)(36) of the Act, including an Indian tribe, tribal organization, or tribal consortium, operating a program under a plan approved under 42 U.S.C. 671. United States means the definition set out in section 101(a)(38) of the Act. (b) Eligibility. A petitioner is eligible for classification as a special immigrant juvenile under section 203(b)(4) of the Act as described at section 101(a)(27)(J) of the Act, if they meet all of the following requirements: (1) Is under 21 years of age at the time of filing the petition; (2) Is unmarried at the time of filing and adjudication; (3) Is physically present in the United States; (4) Is the subject of a juvenile court order(s) that meets the requirements under paragraph (c) of this section; and (5) Obtains consent from the Secretary of Homeland Security to classification as a special immigrant juvenile. For USCIS to consent, the request for SIJ classification must be bona fide, which requires the petitioner to establish that a primary reason the required juvenile court determinations were sought was to obtain relief from parental abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis under State law. USCIS may withhold consent if evidence materially conflicts with the eligibility requirements in paragraph (b) of this section such that the record reflects that the request for SIJ classification was not bona fide. USCIS approval of the petition constitutes the granting of consent. (c) Juvenile court order(s) — (1) Court-ordered dependency or custody and parental reunification determination. The juvenile court must have made certain judicial determinations related to the petitioner’s custody or dependency and determined that the petitioner cannot reunify with their parent(s) due to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a similar basis under State law. (i) The juvenile court must have made at least one of the following judicial determinations related to the petitioner’s custodial placement or dependency in accordance with State law governing such determinations: (A) Declared the petitioner dependent upon the juvenile court; or (B) Legally committed to or placed the petitioner under the custody of an agency or department of a State, or an individual or entity appointed by a State or juvenile court. (ii) The juvenile court must have made a judicial determination that parental reunification with one or both parents is not viable due to abuse, abandonment, neglect, or a similar basis under State law. The court is not required to terminate parental rights to determine that parental reunification is not viable. (2) Best interest determination. (i) A determination must be made in judicial or administrative proceedings by a court or agency recognized by the juvenile court and authorized by law to make such decisions that it would not be in the petitioner’s best interest to be returned to the petitioner’s or their parent’s country of nationality or last habitual residence. (ii) Nothing in this part should be construed as altering the standards for best interest determinations that juvenile court judges routinely apply under relevant State law. (3) Qualifying juvenile court order(s). (i) The juvenile court must have exercised its authority over the petitioner as a juvenile and made the requisite judicial determinations in this paragraph under applicable State law to establish eligibility. (ii) The juvenile court order(s) must be in effect on the date the petitioner files the petition and continue through the time of adjudication of the petition, except when the juvenile court’s jurisdiction over the petitioner terminated solely because: (A) The petitioner was adopted, placed in a permanent guardianship, or another child welfare permanency goal was reached, other than reunification with a parent or parents with whom the court previously found that reunification was not viable; or (B) The petitioner was the subject of a qualifying juvenile court order that was terminated based on age, provided the petitioner was under 21 years of age at the time of filing the petition. (d) Petition requirements. A petitioner must submit all of the following evidence, as applicable to their petition: (1) Petition. A petition by or on behalf of a juvenile, filed on the form prescribed by USCIS in accordance with