On October 7, the Board of Immigration Appeals issued a decision rejecting a humanitarian protection claim in Matter of J-H-M-H-. While the specific case involved a Honduran national seeking deferral of removal, the broader significance lies in what the BIA reaffirmed about immigration judges’ authority—and your role as a practitioner in removal proceedings.
What changed
The BIA blessed the immigration court’s stance of rejecting parties’ stipulations, relying on the regulatory principle that immigration judges must exercise their independent judgment and discretion and are allowed to take any action consistent with their authorities under the INA and regulations that is necessary or appropriate for the disposition or alternative resolution of their cases.
The decision comes against a backdrop of Biden-era policies that restricted enforcement. The Biden administration from Day 1 restricted ICE enforcement efforts in a series of policy memos, the last issued by DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas on September 30, 2021 (the “Mayorkas Memo”). Under the Biden administration, the Executive Office for Immigration Review “strongly encouraged” immigration judges to accept stipulations to dismiss or administratively close cases.
The BIA’s ruling in J-H-M-H- signals that immigration judges are not bound by such informal pressure and retain independent discretion to deny stipulations, accept reconsideration motions, and conduct full hearings on the merits—even when both DHS and the respondent seek case dismissal.
Why it matters
For practitioners, this decision marks a material shift in how removal proceedings will be adjudicated. If you represent respondents, you can no longer rely on the expectation that joint stipulations to dismiss or administratively close will be routinely granted. Immigration judges now have explicit appellate backing to reject them.
If you represent DHS, the ruling confirms that immigration judges retain the power to order full hearings even when your office seeks closure or dismissal under prosecutorial discretion theories. This cuts both ways: judges may deny both government and respondent requests for case closure.
The BIA’s decision attempts to unwind Biden administration “priorities” that restricted enforcement and skewed decisions in cases involving hundreds of thousands of facially removable aliens, and gives immigration judges the right to render independent judgments. The practical effect is longer, more contested removal hearings and fewer unopposed case dismissals.
Way forward
-
Do not assume stipulations will be granted. When both parties propose dismissal, administrative closure, or termination, prepare your client for the possibility that the immigration judge will reject the agreement and set the matter for a full hearing on the merits.
-
Preserve a full record on merits issues. If you represent the respondent and the judge rejects a stipulation, be prepared to present evidence, testimony, and argument on all statutory defenses and relief claims. The judge’s independent judgment may force full adjudication of asylum, withholding, Convention Against Torture relief, or other claims.
-
Review your client’s conviction history immediately. The BIA opinion suggests the respondent had a serious criminal conviction, which typically bars most statutory relief. Confirm whether your client is ineligible before relying on joint dismissal as a closing strategy.
-
Track BIA precedent changes. Matter of J-H-M-H- is binding authority on all immigration judges. Cite it when opposing government or respondent requests for closure without full adjudication of relief claims.
Disclaimer
This article is not legal advice and does not constitute a legal opinion. Articles.Fola.com is a software and publishing company, not a law firm. Immigration law is complex, and the outcome of any case depends on facts and legal principles specific to that matter. You must consult with a licensed immigration attorney admitted in your jurisdiction before filing any immigration petition, responding to government action, or relying on any information in this article. Policy and case law can change without notice; verify all citations and current law against primary sources, the Federal Register, USCIS, EOIR, and BIA decisions before advising a client or taking action in any case.