## Facts

- Bavakan Avetisyan, a native and citizen of Armenia, was admitted to the United States in March 2003 as a J-1 exchange visitor and later failed to maintain status.
- DHS served a Notice to Appear in April 2004 and charged her as removable under INA § 237(a)(1)(C)(i).
- Avetisyan conceded removability in June 2004.
- In 2006, she reported she had married, had a U.S.-citizen child, and that her spouse would naturalize and file a Form I-130 visa petition for her.
- The Immigration Judge granted multiple continuances while the spouse naturalized, the I-130 was filed, and USCIS considered the petition.
- By 2007, the spouse was a U.S. citizen and Avetisyan reported providing requested documentation; adjudication delays persisted for years.
- In June 2009, DHS objected to further delay and sought another continuance; the IJ instead administratively closed proceedings over DHS’s objection.
- DHS filed an interlocutory appeal challenging the IJ’s authority to administratively close without DHS consent.

## Issues

1. Whether Immigration Judges and the Board have authority to administratively close removal proceedings when a party objects.
2. What standard governs the decision to administratively close proceedings.
3. Whether administrative closure was proper on these facts while an I-130 petition was pending.

## Decision

- The BIA reached the interlocutory appeal because it presented an important administrative question.
- The BIA held that Immigration Judges and the Board may administratively close proceedings even over a party’s objection when closure is appropriate under the circumstances.
- The BIA overruled Matter of Gutierrez to the extent it was understood to give DHS an absolute veto over administrative closure.
- The BIA adopted a non-exhaustive, multi-factor balancing test to guide administrative-closure decisions.
- Applying the factors, the BIA dismissed DHS’s appeal and upheld the IJ’s administrative closure.

## Legal Principles

- Administrative closure is a procedural, temporary removal of a case from the active docket; it is not a merits ruling and the case may be recalendared on motion.
- Under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.10(b) and 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(1), IJs and the Board must exercise independent judgment and have discretion to take actions appropriate and necessary to manage and dispose of cases, including administrative closure.
- In deciding whether to administratively close, adjudicators should weigh all relevant considerations, including:
  - the reason closure is sought;
  - the basis for any opposition;
  - the likelihood of success on collateral relief pursued outside removal proceedings;
  - the anticipated duration of closure;
  - which party is responsible for delay; and
  - the expected outcome when the matter is recalendared.
- A party’s opposition is a factor, but it is not controlling.
- Administrative closure may be appropriate where collateral relief is realistically available and delay is substantially attributable to agency processing time rather than respondent conduct.

## Conclusion

The BIA held that administrative closure is a permissible docket-management tool that may be ordered over a party’s objection and must be decided through a case-specific balancing of relevant factors; on these facts, closure was justified while an I-130 petition awaited adjudication amid significant agency delay.


Matter of Avetisyan, 25 I. & N. Dec. 688 (B.I.A. 2012)