The Board of Immigration Appeals has issued a binding precedent decision clarifying sharp limits on immigration judges’ authority to terminate removal proceedings. On October 23, the Board issued an opinion in Matter of J-A-N-M-, finding that an immigration judge improperly terminated a “withholding only” case involving a Honduran national who reentered illegally after removal. The ruling affects how judges can handle case-closure requests and underscores the regulatory boundaries that govern termination authority.
What changed
Immigration judges have had regulatory authority to terminate cases involving facially removable aliens only since May 2024, when the Biden administration published a final rule titled “Efficient Case and Docket Management in Immigration Proceedings”. That rule amended 8 C.F.R. § 1003.18 to permit certain case terminations.
However, the BIA clarified that this authority is subject to explicit exceptions. The Board held the immigration judge erred by not reading the next subparagraph in that Biden-era regulation, § 1003.18(d)(2)(iii), which specifically bars terminations of, inter alia, withholding-only proceedings.
In the J-A-N-M- case itself, the respondent requested administrative closure while a U visa application was pending with USCIS, but because he was detained, the judge denied that request. Nevertheless, even though the judge denied the request for administrative closure, he granted the alien’s request for “discretionary termination” of his withholding-only case. Notably, the judge terminated that case over DHS’s objection, which the BIA found improper.
The BIA’s precedent reinforces a critical rule: humanitarian-only terminations require DHS consent; termination cannot fix defective NTAs or apply in withholding-only cases.
Why it matters
This decision restricts a practice that had expanded significantly under recent policy changes. Immigration judges may terminate removal proceedings only under narrow conditions set by statute and regulation and not for purely humanitarian reasons without Department of Homeland Security consent. The decision affects people in removal proceedings nationwide who seek case closure as a path to pursue status or protection outside the courtroom.
For defense practitioners, the ruling clarifies that a client’s humanitarian circumstances—even when substantial—cannot persuade a judge to terminate a withholding case unilaterally. Termination for purely humanitarian reasons requires DHS consent or non-opposition; a judge cannot overrule government objection.
If your client is detained and seeks administrative closure or termination while awaiting adjudication of other relief (such as a U visa or VAWA petition), you now face a narrower path: you must either secure DHS agreement to closure or identify a regulatory ground (such as lawful permanent resident status) that permits termination without government consent.
Way forward
-
Review pending termination requests. If you have a case where a judge terminated or is considering terminating a withholding-only proceeding, check whether DHS consented. If termination occurred over DHS objection, consider whether the case is appealable or reopenable under Matter of J-A-N-M-.
-
Secure DHS position before filing. When advising a client to request case closure or termination, contact ICE counsel beforehand to understand the government’s position. If DHS objects, termination in a withholding-only case will likely be improper.
-
Identify regulatory bases. Termination motions must rest on a recognized ground in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.18(d)—such as the respondent’s attainment of lawful permanent resident status or the need to pursue USCIS relief. Humanitarian hardship alone does not suffice without written DHS non-opposition.
-
Appeal improper terminations. If an immigration judge has terminated your client’s withholding case over DHS objection, consider filing a timely appeal to the BIA and cite Matter of J-A-N-M- as binding precedent.
Disclaimer
This article summarizes a legal development for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Fola is a software and publishing company, not a law firm. Every case is fact-specific, and immigration law changes frequently. You should verify this guidance against the primary source linked above and consult with a licensed immigration attorney about your specific situation before taking action. Policy decisions can shift without notice, and adjudicators apply precedent with varying deference depending on the circuit and individual judge.