Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I&N Dec. 688 (BIA 2012), is the Board of Immigration Appeals decision that gave immigration judges authority to administratively close a removal case, pausing it on the docket while something outside the courtroom, such as a pending visa petition, works its way through the system. The Board laid out a multi-factor test for making that call and confirmed that a judge can grant closure even when one party, usually the government, objects. The decision has been overruled, reinstated, codified into federal regulation, and most recently placed under public criticism by the agency that oversees the immigration courts. It is still binding law in 2025, but its future is genuinely uncertain.
What the Board Actually Decided
Before Avetisyan, immigration judges disagreed about whether a government objection killed a request for administrative closure. Some treated it as an automatic veto. The Board rejected that view. It held that immigration judges and the Board itself have independent authority to administratively close a case whenever the circumstances warrant it, regardless of whether a party opposes.1U.S. Department of Justice. Matter of Bavakan Avetisyan The Board described administrative closure as “a procedural tool created for the convenience of the Immigration Courts and the Board,” not something that depends on the litigants’ consent.
The practical effect is that a government attorney’s objection becomes one factor in the analysis rather than the end of the conversation.
The Six Factors Judges Weigh
The Board offered a non-exhaustive list of considerations. No single factor controls; a judge balances them against the record.
- The reason the moving party wants the case closed. A concrete outside application, like an approved I-130 petition, carries more weight than a vague plan.
- The basis for any opposition. A specific objection matters more than a generic one.
- The likelihood that the outside application or petition will succeed.1U.S. Department of Justice. Matter of Bavakan Avetisyan
- The anticipated duration of the closure. A short, foreseeable pause is easier to justify than an open-ended one.
- Responsibility for delays. If the respondent caused the delay that created the need for closure, the judge may be less sympathetic.
- The ultimate outcome once the case comes back — whether it points toward termination, relief, or a removal order.1U.S. Department of Justice. Matter of Bavakan Avetisyan
The Board framed the list as guidance, not a closed set. A judge can consider anything relevant to the fairness and efficiency of pausing the case.
How Matter of W-Y-U- Refined the Test
Five years later, in Matter of W-Y-U-, 27 I&N Dec. 17 (BIA 2017), the Board sharpened the Avetisyan analysis. It held that the “primary consideration” is whether the party opposing closure has offered a persuasive reason for the case to proceed to a merits decision.2U.S. Department of Justice. Matter of W-Y-U- That framing puts real pressure on the objecting party to articulate something specific.
W-Y-U- also drew a boundary on what a judge may consider. An immigration judge cannot evaluate whether a respondent falls within DHS enforcement priorities or predict whether the person will actually be removed.2U.S. Department of Justice. Matter of W-Y-U- Those are prosecutorial calls that belong to DHS.
A Doctrine That Has Been Overruled and Restored
Few immigration doctrines have moved this much. In 2018, Attorney General Sessions issued Matter of Castro-Tum, 27 I&N Dec. 271 (A.G. 2018), which concluded that administrative closure “was not authorized by statute, regulation, or delegation from the Attorney General.” Castro-Tum overruled Avetisyan and stripped immigration judges of the power to close cases in most jurisdictions, though several federal circuits rejected that reasoning within their borders.3U.S. Department of Justice. Matter of Cruz-Valdez
In 2021, Attorney General Garland overruled Castro-Tum “in its entirety” in Matter of Cruz-Valdez, 28 I&N Dec. 326 (A.G. 2021), restoring Avetisyan and W-Y-U- as the governing standards and directing judges to apply them while formal rulemaking proceeded.3U.S. Department of Justice. Matter of Cruz-Valdez
That rulemaking produced a final rule on May 29, 2024, titled “Efficient Case and Docket Management in Immigration Proceedings” (89 FR 46742). The rule wrote administrative closure authority directly into the federal regulations.4Federal Register. Efficient Case and Docket Management in Immigration Proceedings Regulations are harder to unwind than precedential decisions. An Attorney General can overrule a BIA case by issuing a new one; rescinding a regulation requires a full notice-and-comment process.
Where Avetisyan Stands in 2025
The picture changed again after the presidential transition. In April 2025, the EOIR Acting Director issued Policy Memorandum 25-29, which called administrative closure “an unmitigated disaster from a policy standpoint” and rescinded earlier guidance that had encouraged its use. The memo acknowledged, however, that the 2024 regulations “remain binding on EOIR adjudicators” and instructed judges to “continue to adhere to” them.5U.S. Department of Justice. EOIR Policy Memorandum 25-29
The memo took an unusual position on the case itself. It stated that while Avetisyan “remains precedential and binding,” EOIR “cannot — and will not — defend it in good faith if challenged in litigation.”5U.S. Department of Justice. EOIR Policy Memorandum 25-29 The decision is still the law, and judges are still required to apply it, but the agency has publicly signaled it will not defend the ruling in court.
Starting in May 2025, DHS began filing motions to recalendar thousands of previously closed cases nationwide. People who believed their cases were paused indefinitely have been finding them back on active dockets. If your case was administratively closed in earlier years, there is a real chance DHS has already moved, or will soon move, to reactivate it. Checking case status through the EOIR automated case information line is worth doing regularly.
What Administrative Closure Does — and Doesn’t — Do
This is where people get hurt by wrong assumptions. Administrative closure does not end a removal case. It does not dismiss the charges, does not grant status, and does not provide any formal protection from deportation. The respondent remains in removal proceedings the entire time. Hearings are simply off the calendar and filing deadlines are inactive.
Because the case is not terminated, the original removal charges resume exactly where they left off if DHS successfully moves to recalendar. Closure is a docket management tool, not a form of relief.
Recalendaring: When a Closed Case Comes Back
An administratively closed case can sit indefinitely until a party moves to reopen it. Neither the immigration judge nor the Board can recalendar on its own initiative; only a party can make that request.1U.S. Department of Justice. Matter of Bavakan Avetisyan
Under the 2024 final rule, recalendaring is mandatory when the parties jointly request it or when the nonmoving party affirmatively indicates no opposition. When only one side moves, the judge exercises discretion using essentially the same factors that governed the original closure decision: the reason for the request, any opposition, the anticipated outcome. No factor automatically outweighs the others.
Given the volume of DHS recalendaring motions filed since mid-2025, many respondents now face the question of how to oppose reactivation. The same Avetisyan factors that supported the initial closure can support keeping the case closed. If the reason for the pause has not been resolved, such as a still-pending visa petition, that cuts against putting the case back on an already crowded court docket. Response deadlines on these motions are short, and a removal order is permanent, so anyone facing recalendaring should get counsel as quickly as possible.