Matter of Coronado Acevedo: Termination and Dismissal Standards

Matter of Coronado Acevedo, 28 I&N Dec. 648 (A.G. 2022), is the Attorney General decision that restored immigration judges’ authority to terminate or dismiss removal proceedings in limited circumstances. Attorney General Merrick Garland issued it to overrule Matter of S-O-G- & F-D-B-, a 2018 Sessions-era precedent that had held immigration judges have no inherent authority to end a removal case. The decision reopened a procedural exit for people in removal proceedings who qualify for an immigration benefit that has to be pursued outside of court, most commonly adjustment of status before USCIS.¹

The Facts of the Case

The respondent was a Mexican citizen placed in removal proceedings under INA § 237(a)(1)(B) for being present in the United States in violation of immigration law. While her case was pending, her U.S. citizen husband filed an immediate relative immigrant visa petition on her behalf.¹

She asked the immigration judge for a continuance so USCIS could adjudicate the petition. The judge denied the continuance and denied her application for cancellation of removal. She appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and while the appeal was pending, USCIS approved her husband’s petition.¹

DHS then filed its own motion asking the Board to dismiss the proceedings without prejudice. DHS noted the respondent had an approved visa petition, an immigrant visa immediately available, no disqualifying criminal convictions, and appeared eligible for adjustment of status before USCIS. The respondent concurred. The Board denied the motion anyway, concluding that S-O-G- & F-D-B- stripped it of authority to terminate or dismiss the case.¹

Both parties agreed the case should end. Neither the immigration judge nor the Board believed it had the power to end it.

What the Attorney General Held

Garland overruled S-O-G- & F-D-B- in its entirety, vacated the Board’s decision, and remanded for further proceedings. The reasoning had two strands. First, S-O-G- had leaned heavily on Matter of Castro-Tum, and Garland had already overruled Castro-Tum the previous year in Matter of Cruz-Valdez.² With that foundation gone, the Attorney General found S-O-G-‘s “precedential basis has been significantly eroded.” Second, S-O-G- had imposed “rigid procedural requirements that would undermine fair and efficient adjudication” in cases like Coronado Acevedo’s own.¹

The decision did not hand immigration judges open-ended discretion to end any case they see fit. It restored authority in “limited circumstances” as an interim measure while DOJ pursued formal rulemaking.¹

When an Immigration Judge Can Terminate or Dismiss Under Coronado Acevedo

The decision identified three categories in which immigration judges and the Board may grant termination or dismissal:

The noncitizen has already obtained lawful permanent resident status after being placed in removal proceedings.
The pending removal case itself is causing immigration problems for someone who needs to travel abroad to obtain a visa.
Termination is necessary for the respondent to seek an immigration benefit from USCIS that cannot be pursued while removal proceedings are ongoing.

The third category is the one that applied in Coronado Acevedo. An approved immediate relative petition, an available visa, and apparent eligibility for adjustment of status before USCIS all combined to make ending proceedings the sensible outcome.¹

Coronado Acevedo does not extend to every request to end a case. It does not create discretion to end proceedings for humanitarian reasons untethered to the categories above, and it does not displace the specific regulatory grounds for dismissal that already existed, such as those in 8 C.F.R. § 1239.2(c).

Termination, Dismissal, and Administrative Closure Are Not the Same

Termination and dismissal both end removal proceedings. The Attorney General treated the two terms as interchangeable except where a regulation specifically authorizes one and not the other, calling the distinction “not material” when the request is brought under a provision that uses neither label.¹

Administrative closure is different. It does not end proceedings; it pauses them and removes the case from the active calendar, and either party can move to put it back. Garland restored that tool separately in Matter of Cruz-Valdez.²

The practical difference matters. If your case is administratively closed, you are still in proceedings and DHS can re-calendar. If your case is terminated or dismissed, proceedings have ended. For someone applying for adjustment of status before USCIS, termination is usually the stronger outcome because it clears the open removal case entirely.

The 2024 Regulation That Codified the Framework

Coronado Acevedo was framed as a bridge to rulemaking, and the rulemaking arrived. In May 2024, the Department of Justice published a final rule, “Efficient Case and Docket Management in Immigration Proceedings,” which amended 8 C.F.R. § 1239.2 and related provisions.³

The updated regulation gives immigration judges explicit authority to resolve cases through either dismissal or termination. A DHS motion under the listed dismissal grounds is decided as a motion to dismiss. A motion to end proceedings on any other ground is treated as a motion to terminate and adjudicated under separate regulatory standards for the immigration court and the Board.³

Codification matters. An Attorney General decision can be overruled by the next Attorney General, as the Sessions-to-Garland reversal showed. A regulation adopted through notice-and-comment rulemaking requires its own rulemaking to undo.

What This Means If You Are in Removal Proceedings

The Coronado Acevedo fact pattern is common. Someone in removal proceedings marries a U.S. citizen. USCIS approves the visa petition. The person appears eligible for adjustment of status. Under S-O-G-, neither the judge nor the Board could end the removal case to let USCIS take over, even when DHS wanted the case dropped. That barrier is gone.

If you have an approved visa petition, an available immigrant visa, no disqualifying grounds, and a clear path to adjustment before USCIS, a motion to terminate under the Coronado Acevedo framework and the 2024 regulation is the mechanism to move your case out of court. The same is true if you have already obtained lawful permanent resident status while in proceedings, or if the pending case is blocking necessary travel to obtain a visa abroad.

The standards involve discretionary factors and require documented eligibility for the USCIS benefit you intend to pursue. An immigration attorney can assess whether your situation fits one of the recognized categories and prepare the motion with the supporting evidence a judge will expect.

1
U.S. Department of Justice. Matter of Coronado Acevedo, 28 I&N Dec. 648 (A.G. 2022)
2
U.S. Department of Justice. Matter of Cruz-Valdez, 28 I&N Dec. 326 (A.G. 2021)
3
eCFR. 8 CFR 1239.2 – Dismissal of Proceedings and Termination of Proceedings