Fourth Circuit 2019 Zuniga Romero v. Barr

ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSURE

## Appeals to Statute & Precedent:

- • of Avetisyan, 25 I&N Dec. 688 (BIA 2012): Administrative closure is necessary • of Avetisyan, 25 I&N Dec. 688 (BIA 2012): Administrative closure is necessary for the efficient processing of this case. Six-factor test for applying admin closure.
- • of Hashmi, 24 I&N Dec. 785 (BIA 2009): Administrative closure is necessary • of Hashmi, 24 I&N Dec. 785 (BIA 2009): Administrative closure is necessary for the processing of a visa application.
- • of W-Y-U-, 27 I&N Dec. 17, 18 (BIA 2017): Purpose of & reasons for • of W-Y-U-, 27 I&N Dec. 17, 18 (BIA 2017): Purpose of & reasons for administrative closure
- • re. Gutierrez-Lopez, 21 I&N Dec. 479, 480 (BIA 1996): affirmed administrative • re. Gutierrez-Lopez, 21 I&N Dec. 479, 480 (BIA 1996): affirmed administrative closure
- • Gonzalez-Caraveo v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 885 Cir. 2018): cites statutes at 8 C.F.R. § • Gonzalez-Caraveo v. Sessions, 882 F.3d 885 Cir. 2018): cites statutes at 8 C.F.R. § 1003 as authority for admin closure.
- • v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400 (2019): Auer deference does not apply when a new • v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400 (2019): Auer deference does not apply when a new interpretation creates an unfair surprise to regulated parties.
- • v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140 (1944): in absence of Auer criteria, • v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140 (1944): in absence of Auer criteria, deference is merited if agency’s interpretation is well-thought-through and persuasive.
- • v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 567 U.S. 142 (2012): DOL interpretation of • v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 567 U.S. 142 (2012): DOL interpretation of a regulation that departed abruptly from longstanding previous practice was not afforded deference by the Court.

## Legal Background:

- • administratively closing a case, an IJ or the BIA ‘temporarily pause[s] removal • administratively closing a case, an IJ or the BIA ‘temporarily pause[s] removal proceedings’ and places the case on hold, generally because there is an alternate form of case resolution pending, or because the case may be affected by events outside of the control of either party or that may not occur for some time. Matter of W-Y-U-, 27 I&N Dec. 17, 18 (BIA 2017).” Zuniga Romero v. Barr at 5.
- • administrative closure is not specifically authorized by the INA or the • administrative closure is not specifically authorized by the INA or the regulations governing IJs or the BIA.” Zuniga Romero v. Barr at 6.
- • closure is specifically authorized by statute in these cases: • closure is specifically authorized by statute in these cases:
- o C.F.R. § 1214.2(a): T-immigrant status o C.F.R. § 1214.2(a): T-immigrant status
- o C.F.R. § 1214.3: V-immigrant status o C.F.R. § 1214.3: V-immigrant status
- o C.F.R. § 1234.13(d)(3)(i): in certain cases re. nationals of Cuba & Nicaragua o C.F.R. § 1234.13(d)(3)(i): in certain cases re. nationals of Cuba & Nicaragua who are eligible for LPR status
- o C.F.R. § 1245.15(p)(4)(i): Haitian nationals “ “ o C.F.R. § 1245.15(p)(4)(i): Haitian nationals “ “
- o C.F.R. § 1245.21(c): similar for nationals of Vietnam, Cambodia, & Laos o C.F.R. § 1245.21(c): similar for nationals of Vietnam, Cambodia, & Laos
- • BIA has referenced two regulations that confer broad powers to IJs and the BIA to • BIA has referenced two regulations that confer broad powers to IJs and the BIA to manage their dockets as the authority for administrative closure.” (Zuniga Romero v. Barr at 6-7.)
- o C.F.R. § 1003.10(b): powers & duties of IJs (see attached for full text) o C.F.R. § 1003.10(b): powers & duties of IJs (see attached for full text)
- o C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(1)(ii): powers of BIA members (“ “ “) o C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(1)(ii): powers of BIA members (“ “ “)