Fourth Circuit 2019 Zuniga Romero v. Barr

ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSURE

- • these regulations confer authority on IJs and the Board to administratively close • these regulations confer authority on IJs and the Board to administratively close cases?
- o says no. o says no.
- o Romero points to the expansive language in those regulations as conferring o Romero points to the expansive language in those regulations as conferring such authority.”
- o C.F.R. § 1003.10(b): “In deciding the individual cases before them, and subject o C.F.R. § 1003.10(b): “In deciding the individual cases before them, and subject to the applicable governing standards, immigration judges shall exercise their independent judgment and discretion and may take any action consistent with their authorities under the Act and regulations that is appropriate and necessary for the disposition of such cases.”
- o C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(1)(ii): “Board members shall exercise their independent o C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(1)(ii): “Board members shall exercise their independent judgment and discretion in considering and determining the cases coming before the Board, and a panel or Board member to whom a case is assigned may take any action consistent with their authorities under the Act and the regulations as is appropriate and necessary for the disposition of the case.”
- • clearly discern from the text that the authority of IJs and the BIA to • clearly discern from the text that the authority of IJs and the BIA to administratively close cases is conferred by the plain language” of these statutes. Zuniga Romero v. Barr at 14.
- o action” includes administrative closure: “this would plainly include docket o action” includes administrative closure: “this would plainly include docket management actions such as administrative closure, which often facilitate, as discussed above and below, case resolution.” Zuniga Romero v. Barr at 14-15.
- • administrative closure ever “appropriate and necessary”? • administrative closure ever “appropriate and necessary”?
- o continuances are not always the most appropriate mechanism, because some o continuances are not always the most appropriate mechanism, because some delays cannot be resolved by the action of one of the parties (as would be expected with a short continuance). Where an indefinite delay can only be resolved by actions outside the parties’ control, administrative closure is the most appropriate path.
- o IJs and the BIA to employ continuances in the stead of o IJs and the BIA to employ continuances in the stead of administrative closure would further remove the discretion of these adjudicators to fashion the most flexible and appropriate resolution of a case.” Zuniga Romero v. Barr at 15 n.12.
- o demonstrates how suspension of the case may in fact expedite and o demonstrates how suspension of the case may in fact expedite and result in a final disposition.” Zuniga Romero v. Barr at 15 n.13.
- • sum, these regulations unambiguously confer upon IJs and the BIA the general • sum, these regulations unambiguously confer upon IJs and the BIA the general authority to administratively close cases. Accordingly, there is no Auer deference analysis to be conducted. Castro-Tum’s interpretation of these regulations is therefore in error.” Zuniga Romero v. Barr at 18.