Matter of Reynaldo CASTRO-TUM, Respondent (agency decision, January 4, 2018)

Plain-English summary

The Attorney General referred the Board’s decision in Reynaldo Castro-Tum’s case for review of whether Immigration Judges and the Board have authority to administratively close removal proceedings. The referral ordered the Board’s decision to be stayed while the Attorney General considered the issue. The order invited briefing on the source of any administrative-closure authority, possible delegations or withdrawals of that authority, alternative docket-management tools, and the treatment of already-closed cases. It set filing limits and deadlines but did not decide the legal questions or the respondent’s underlying immigration claims.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authorities: 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1(h)(1)(i), 1003.12, 1003.29, and 1239.2(c), (f)
• Outcome: The Board’s decision was referred to the Attorney General for review and stayed pending that review.
• Key point: The order opened Attorney General review of the authority and standards for administrative closure without deciding those questions.

Full text (BIA official public release)

Cite as 27 I&N Dec. 187 (A.G. 2018) Interim Decision #3911

       Matter of Reynaldo CASTRO-TUM, Respondent
              Decided by Attorney General January 4, 2018

                        U.S. Department of Justice
                       Office of the Attorney General

The Attorney General referred the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals to himself for review of issues relating to the authority to administratively close immigration proceedings, ordering that the case be stayed during the pendency of his review.

               BEFORE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(h)(1)(i) (2017), I direct the Board of

Immigration Appeals (“Board”) to refer this case to me for review of its decision. The Board’s decision in this matter is automatically stayed pending my review. See Matter of Haddam, A.G. Order No. 2380-2001 (Jan. 19, 2001). To assist me in my review, I invite the parties to these proceedings and interested amici to submit briefs on points relevant to the disposition of this case, including:

    1. Do Immigration Judges and the Board have the authority, under any statute,
  regulation, or delegation of authority from the Attorney General, to order
  administrative closure in a case? If so, do the Board’s decisions in Matter of
  Avetisyan, 25 I&N Dec. 688 (BIA 2012), and Matter of W-Y-U-, 27 I&N Dec. 17
  (BIA 2017), articulate the appropriate standard for administrative closure?
    2. If I determine that Immigration Judges and the Board currently lack the
  authority to order administrative closure, should I delegate such authority?
  Alternatively, if I determine that Immigration Judges and the Board currently possess
  the authority to order administrative closure, should I withdraw that authority?
    3. The regulations governing removal proceedings were promulgated for “the
  expeditious, fair, and proper resolution of matters coming before Immigration
  Judges.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.12 (2017). Are there any circumstances where a docket
  management device other than administrative closure—including a continuance for
  good cause shown (8 C.F.R. § 1003.29 (2017)), dismissal without prejudice (8 C.F.R.
  § 1239.2(c) (2017)), or termination without prejudice (8 C.F.R. § 1239.2(f))—would
  be inadequate to promote that objective? Should there be different legal
  consequences, such as eligibility to apply for a provisional waiver of certain grounds
  of inadmissibility under the immigration laws or for benefits under federal or state
  programs, where a case has been administratively closed rather than continued?
    4. If I determine that Immigration Judges and the Board do not have the authority
  to order administrative closure, and that such a power is unwarranted or unavailable,
  what actions should be taken regarding cases that are already administratively closed?


                                       187

Cite as 27 I&N Dec. 187 (A.G. 2018) Interim Decision #3911

The parties’ briefs shall not exceed 15,000 words and shall be filed on or

before February 2, 2018. Interested amici may submit briefs not exceeding 9,000 words on or before February 9, 2018. The parties may submit reply briefs not exceeding 6,000 words on or before February 20, 2018. All filings shall be accompanied by proof of service and shall be submitted electronically to [email protected], and in triplicate to:

                 United States Department of Justice
             Office of the Attorney General, Room 5114
                   950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
                        Washington, DC 20530

All briefs must be both submitted electronically and postmarked on or before the pertinent deadlines. Requests for extensions are disfavored.

                                   188