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

187

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

188

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 AGCertification@usdoj.gov, 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.