Motion to Administratively Close
The common reasons for administrative closure are 1) humanitarian purposes and 2) judicial economy.
Precedent on point Matter of Cruz-Valdez, 28 I&N Dec. 326 (A.G. 2021)Respondent, by and through the undersigned counsel, submits this motion to administratively close removal proceedings for judicial economy and humanitarian reasons. In support thereof, Respondent states as follows:
1. On July 15, 2021 the precedent Matter of Cruz-Valdez, 28 I&N Dec. 326 (A.G. 2021) overruled Matter of Castro-Tum, 27 I&N Dec. 271 (A.G. 2018) in its entirety and restored the standard for administrative closure as set forth in Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I&N Dec. 688 (BIA 2012) and Matter of W-Y-U-, 27 I&N Dec. 17 (BIA 2017).
Reinstated case law Avetisyan and W-Y-U-2. “Immigration Judges and the Board may, in the exercise of independent judgment and discretion, administratively close proceedings under the appropriate circumstances, even if a party opposes.” Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I&N Dec. 688, 697 (BIA 2012). “The primary consideration for an Immigration Judge in evaluating whether to administratively close <…> proceedings is whether the party opposing administrative closure has provided a persuasive reason for the case to proceed and be resolved on the merits. “ Matter of W-Y-U-, 27 I&N Dec. 17 (BIA 2017).
Other general rules relating to administrative closure3. Neither an Immigration Judge nor the BIA may review a decision by the DHS to institute proceedings. Matter of Bahta, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1381, 1391 (BIA 2000).
4. Nevertheless, once jurisdiction over removal proceedings vests with the Immigration Judge, he has the authority to regulate the course of those proceedings. 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.14(a), 1240.1(a)(1)(iv), (c).
5. “Although administrative closure impacts the course removal proceedings may take, it does not preclude the DHS from instituting or pursuing those proceedings and so does not infringe on the DHS’s prosecutorial discretion.” Avetisyan, 25 I&N Dec. at 694.
6. In the immigration context, the courts recognize that question of whether issuing relief to a particular alien is consistent with the statues underlying purpose is a case-by-case policy determination. Federiso v. Holder, 605 F.3d 695, 699 (9th Cir. 2010). Inquiry into the factual details of the case is necessary to preserve consistency between administrative and judicial decisions and matters of the current public policy.
Facts to mention7. Respondent is ## years old, (DOB 07/29/1973) and a national of Mexico.
8. Respondent has been currently residing in the US since 1996.
9. Respondent has 2 USC children, C* (## years old), and P* (## years old).
10. The Respondent’s children are affected with significant psychological conditions. P* is diagnosed with Separation Anxiety Disorder; C* is diagnosed with adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety, depression in severe form, obsessive-compulsive disorder, separation anxiety disorder and Post-Traumatic Stress disorder.
11. Respondent is employed and files taxes.
12. Respondent is a voluntary blood donor.
13. Respondent makes money contributions to hospitals.
14. Respondent was brought into removal proceedings as a result of an traffic stop in 20##.
15. Respondent is not a removal priority.
16. Respondent is a foreign national unlawfully present in the United States for ## years. He has no criminal exposure, has paid taxes, registered for Selective Service, contributes to his community as a voluntary blood donor and a charity sponsor. His USC children are afflicted with serious health conditions. Therefore, the balance of equities presented by the facts of his case call for the grant of requested relief based on judicial economy and humanitarian considerations.