A federal judge in Texas on Monday ruled against a Biden-era rule codifying immigration judges’ authority to close migrants’ removal proceedings—hours after the state filed a lawsuit challenging the regulation. The decision reverses course on a procedural tool that EOIR has relied on for years and affects how you advise clients facing deportation proceedings.
What changed
Chief Judge Reed O’Connor of the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled that the contested regulation “is in excess of statutory authority and contrary to law.” According to O’Connor, “No statute authorizes immigration judges to indefinitely administratively close or suspend adjudication of a case before them.”
The blocked regulation outlined that immigration court and immigration appeals board judges are required to close removal proceedings under specific situations, including when a noncitizen obtained US citizenship after removal proceedings started or if a noncitizen isn’t mentally competent to go through proceedings. The rule also gave judges discretionary authority to terminate cases if, for example, a noncitizen filed an asylum application as an unaccompanied child or has Temporary Protected Status.
The order came the same day Texas filed suit and entered a consent decree with the Justice Department mutually opposing the regulation and asking the court to bar its implementation.
Why it matters
The regulation previously allowed immigration judges to use “administrative closure” to transform it from a docket management tool into indefinite permission to remain in the United States for aliens who would otherwise be subject to removal proceedings. With this ruling, judges no longer have that discretionary tool—at least not on the legal theory the Biden administration advanced.
If you are representing a client in removal proceedings and were considering administrative closure as a case-management option, you cannot rely on the authority this rule provided. You should review any pending closure requests with clients immediately and explore alternative strategies, such as stays of removal, continuances, or prosecutorial discretion requests to EOIR or DHS.
The decision also creates uncertainty about the status of closures already granted under the rule. While the order does not explicitly vacate prior closures, the underlying legal theory is now rejected, which may expose those cases to recalendaring or challenge.
Way forward
-
Review your open cases immediately. Identify any in which you contemplated or requested administrative closure under the Biden rule. Update your client about the change and discuss alternative paths forward (stay of removal, asylum/withholding/CAT adjudication, or EOIR prosecutorial discretion).
-
Monitor EOIR guidance. The Board of Immigration Appeals and Executive Office for Immigration Review will likely issue clarifying instructions about how judges should handle pending closure requests and how to handle cases already closed under the blocked rule. Check EOIR’s official website and practice advisories.
-
Preserve the record. If you have a client whose case was administratively closed under the old rule and may be recalendared, document the factual and legal basis for closure in the current record now, so you can argue equitable estoppel or laches if the government tries to reopen the case.
-
Consider statutory alternatives. If your client qualifies for TPS, VAWA, asylum, or other forms of relief, pursue those independently. Administrative closure was never a substitute for substantive protection; it was a tool to manage the court docket.
Disclaimer
Fola is a software company, not a law firm, and this article is not legal advice. Immigration law is complex and evolves rapidly; policy rulings and court decisions can change or be appealed. Verify all information against the primary source linked above and consult a licensed immigration attorney licensed in your jurisdiction before taking action on behalf of a client or yourself. The content here is for informational purposes only.