What changed
EOIR has long had authority under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.21 to hold pre-hearing conferences — in person or telephonically — to narrow issues, obtain stipulations, identify witnesses, set time estimates, and resolve preliminary motions. The regulation has been on the books since the 1990s and is reinforced by the EOIR Policy Manual Part II, Chapter 4 (Hearings before Immigration Judges).
What has shifted is the surrounding doctrine on continuances, prosecutorial discretion, and administrative closure — the three levers that pre-hearing conferences are most useful for pulling.
On continuances, Matter of L-A-B-R-, 27 I&N Dec. 405 (A.G. 2018), tightened the IJ’s discretion to grant continuances for collateral matters (such as a pending U-visa or I-130 petition). The Attorney General held that good cause for a continuance requires the IJ to consider (1) the likelihood that the collateral relief will be granted, (2) whether the relief will materially affect the removal proceedings, and (3) the respondent’s diligence in pursuing the relief. L-A-B-R- raised the bar but did not eliminate the continuance; a well-supported request that addresses each factor still wins.
On prosecutorial discretion, DHS practice has cycled across administrations. The 2022 Doyle Memorandum (and its predecessors and successors) authorized DHS counsel to exercise PD in non-priority cases through joint motions to dismiss, joint motions to terminate, or joint motions to administratively close. PD is operationally most useful when negotiated in advance of a master calendar or pre-hearing conference and presented as a joint motion.
On administrative closure, the Attorney General’s intervention in Matter of Castro-Tum, 27 I&N Dec. 271 (A.G. 2018), eliminated general administrative closure authority for IJs and the BIA. Matter of Cruz-Valdez, 28 I&N Dec. 326 (A.G. 2021), and Matter of Coronado Acevedo, 28 I&N Dec. 648 (A.G. 2022), restored administrative closure as an available tool, particularly where DHS joins. The regulatory framework at 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.10(b) and 1003.1(d)(1)(ii) is currently being revised.
Why it matters
Pre-hearing conferences are the moment when most of the case’s procedural shape gets set. Three operational uses recur.
First, stipulations. A stipulation to identity, alienage, removability, or specific factual allegations narrows the IJ’s evidentiary task and frees the merits hearing for the contested issues. Stipulations should be reduced to writing and filed under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31, with a clear statement of what is and is not conceded. Counsel who stipulates to removability in exchange for DHS concessions on relief eligibility often gets a better result than counsel who litigates removability and loses on the merits anyway.
Second, prosecutorial discretion. The pre-hearing conference is the natural venue to surface PD discussions with DHS counsel. A respondent who is not an enforcement priority under current DHS guidelines — long residence, USC family ties, no significant criminal history, military service, age, medical conditions — is a candidate for a joint motion to dismiss under 8 C.F.R. § 1239.2(c), a joint motion to terminate, or a joint motion to administratively close.
Third, continuances. Continuances under L-A-B-R- require the IJ to weigh likelihood, materiality, and diligence. Pre-hearing conferences let counsel surface the collateral matter (pending I-130, U-visa, T-visa, asylum application before USCIS, family-based petition) with documentation of likelihood and diligence, and negotiate the continuance length with DHS rather than litigate it cold at a master calendar.
The pre-hearing conference is also the venue to address preliminary motions: motions to suppress, motions to terminate on NTA defects, motions for change of venue under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.20, motions to consolidate or sever, motions for telephonic or video appearance, and motions for continuance. Resolving these motions in conference (or at least scheduling them) eliminates the master-calendar crush.
Way forward
A pre-hearing conference practice that gets value out of the tool:
-
Request the pre-hearing conference proactively. Many IJs do not schedule them sua sponte; a written motion or oral request at the first master calendar identifying the issues to be conferenced is usually granted.
-
Identify in advance what you want from the conference. Stipulations on specific facts? PD negotiation? Continuance for a pending I-130? A telephonic hearing? Coming with a short, written agenda is more productive than open-ended conferencing.
-
Coordinate with DHS counsel before the conference. PD discussions and joint motions are far more productive when pre-negotiated. DHS counsel does not love surprises in court.
-
For PD requests, prepare a written submission addressing current DHS priorities, the respondent’s equities, and the requested disposition (dismiss, terminate, administratively close). Cite the relevant DHS memorandum and any controlling BIA or AG precedent.
-
For continuance requests, address each L-A-B-R- factor in writing: the likelihood of the collateral relief, the materiality to removal proceedings, and the respondent’s diligence (with documentary support).
-
Reduce stipulations to a written filing under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31, signed by counsel for both sides. Oral stipulations on the record are valid but harder to enforce on appeal.
-
Treat the pre-hearing conference order as a roadmap for the merits hearing. If the IJ has narrowed the contested issues, file evidence and witnesses targeted to those issues; if PD has eliminated the case, document the disposition and confirm any conditions in writing.
Disclaimer
This article is general information about U.S. immigration practice, not legal advice. Pre-hearing conferences, prosecutorial discretion, and administrative closure practice vary across jurisdictions and DHS leadership. Anyone in removal proceedings should consult a licensed immigration attorney or a DOJ-recognized representative. Verify against the EOIR Policy Manual and the underlying regulations and AG precedent before relying on any specific procedural rule.