## Facts

- Reynaldo Castro-Tum, a Guatemalan national, entered the United States at age 17 and was treated by DHS as an unaccompanied alien child.
- DHS initiated removal proceedings, released him to a sponsor, and mailed multiple hearing notices to the address provided.
- Castro-Tum failed to appear at five scheduled hearings; none of the mailed notices were returned as undeliverable.
- The Immigration Judge (IJ), citing concerns about proceeding in absentia and the accuracy of the address, declined to enter an in absentia order and instead administratively closed Castro-Tum’s case (and other nonappearance cases).
- DHS appealed; the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, relying on prior BIA precedent recognizing broad administrative-closure authority.
- The Attorney General certified the case to himself to address whether IJs and the BIA possess general administrative-closure authority under existing regulations.

## Issues

1. Whether immigration judges and the BIA have general authority under existing regulations to administratively close removal proceedings indefinitely.
2. Whether regulations granting general case-management and hearing-control powers implicitly authorize administrative closure.
3. What should occur in cases administratively closed without express regulatory or settlement-based authorization.

## Decision

- The Attorney General held that IJs and the BIA do not have general authority to administratively close cases.
- Prior BIA decisions recognizing broad administrative-closure authority were overruled to the extent inconsistent with this holding.
- Administrative closure is permitted only where an existing regulation or a judicially approved settlement expressly authorizes it.
- In cases administratively closed without such authority, the IJ or BIA must recalendar the case upon motion of either party.
- Castro-Tum’s proceedings were ordered recalendared for further action consistent with the INA and regulations, including possible in absentia adjudication if statutory requirements are met.

## Legal Principles

- Agency adjudicators in immigration proceedings may exercise only those procedural tools authorized by statute, regulation, or binding settlement; indefinite suspension of proceedings cannot be inferred from general docket-management language.
- General regulatory provisions allowing IJs and the BIA to take actions “appropriate and necessary” to dispose of cases, or to regulate the course of hearings, do not include a power to administratively close cases indefinitely.
- The statutory in absentia framework requires adjudication when DHS proves legally sufficient notice and removability by the required evidentiary standard; administrative closure cannot be used to avoid or postpone that adjudicatory duty.
- Where a case was administratively closed without express authorization, recalendaring is required upon motion by either party; other expressly authorized mechanisms (e.g., continuances, termination/dismissal where legally available) remain the proper tools.

## Conclusion

The Attorney General concluded that immigration judges and the BIA lack a general, regulation-implied power to administratively close removal cases, limited closure to situations expressly authorized by regulation or settlement, and directed recalendaring of improperly closed matters, including Castro-Tum’s.


Matter of Castro-Tum, 27 I. & N. Dec. 271 (A.G. 2018)