The Board of Immigration Appeals recently issued an opinion in Matter of Angel Damian Orozco Becerra and Matter of Neythan Orozco Becerra, holding that an immigration judge had erred in failing to order two minor brothers from Mexico deported after they and their mother repeatedly failed to appear for their removal proceedings. If you represent respondents in removal cases or work in an immigration court, this BIA decision narrows your options for dismissing or administratively closing cases when your client misses hearings.
What changed
The BIA found that the immigration judge erred by not entering in absentia removal orders, reinstated the removal proceedings in the brothers’ cases, and remanded the case back to the immigration judge. The BIA is now enforcing a tighter standard: when a respondent fails to appear (or their representative fails to appear) for removal proceedings, judges cannot simply dismiss or administratively close the case as an alternative to entering a removal order in absentia.
The decision reflects a broader BIA effort to restrict how immigration judges apply the procedural toolbox for handling non-responsive cases. Under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.12, immigration regulations are meant to “assist in the expeditious, fair, and proper resolution of matters coming before Immigration Judges”.
Why it matters
This ruling tightens the noose for respondents whose cases are pending in immigration court. If you have a client who has missed one or more hearings—or if communication has broken down—the immigration judge now faces clearer pressure to enter an in absentia removal order rather than parking the case in administrative closure or dismissal status.
The practical effect: A removal order in absentia becomes a final agency decision much sooner. Your client loses the chance to later reopen the case based on changed circumstances or new evidence without clearing a high bar (exceptional circumstances). Administrative closure or dismissal, by contrast, leaves the case dormant but technically alive—keeping open a potential path to reconsideration or relief.
If your client is out of communication or genuinely cannot attend hearings, this decision means you need a compelling record of efforts to locate them, medical emergencies, or other extraordinary circumstances before the court will agree to keep the case from moving to removal.
Way forward
-
Communicate proactively with clients. Ensure they understand the date, time, and location of every hearing. If travel or logistics are a barrier, document those obstacles and seek continuances well in advance with supporting evidence.
-
File motions to continue promptly. If your client cannot appear, file a written motion to continue with an affidavit or declaration explaining the reason before the hearing date. Waiting until after a miss hurts your position.
-
Do not rely on dismissal or closure as a stalling tactic. The BIA has signaled it will review cases where judges have granted closure or dismissal when an in absentia order would normally issue. If your strategy depends on keeping a case in limbo, rethink it in light of this opinion.
-
Verify the source decision and current BIA practice. Because this is a recent precedent, review the full opinion at the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) website or through your immigration law research platform to understand any nuances this summary may not capture.
Disclaimer
This article is provided for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. It is a summary of a public agency decision, not a substitute for consultation with a licensed immigration attorney who can review your specific facts and advise you on strategy. Immigration law and BIA precedent can change without notice. Before relying on any guidance in this article, verify the source decision and current practice by reviewing the opinion itself and consulting with a qualified legal representative. The views expressed are those of the publisher, not a law firm.