Having a pending permanent residency application in the United States is not sufficient grounds to have a concluded deportation proceeding reopened.
This was reaffirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) in a new decision that establishes limits on the use of an extraordinary power to review immigration cases.
The criterion appears in Matter of Pierre-Louis, 30 I&N Dec. 212 (BIA 2026), a ruling published this Friday by the United States Department of Justice, which confirms that the Board generally will not reopen on its own initiative the proceedings of certain immigrants solely to allow them to await a decision from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
The resolution specifically affects requests for extraordinary reopening from individuals classified as arriving aliens, a immigration category that includes certain situations of foreigners seeking admission to the United States.
This does not mean that applying for residency is illegal, that USCIS will reject a pending petition, or that all immigrants with deportation orders have lost the opportunity to reopen their cases.
The decision distinguishes between the right to submit a migration application, the ordinary rules for reopening a case, and the exceptional authority of the BIA to intervene on its own initiative when a petition does not meet the established deadlines or limits.
The case that led to the ruling involves Jonas Pierre-Louis, a Haitian citizen who was trying to reopen his deportation proceedings to apply for permanent residency through a family petition submitted by his wife.
According to the file, Pierre-Louis received a notice to appear before an immigration judge on February 9, 2017. The authorities classified him as an arriving alien and, on September 19, 2018, a judge denied his immigration petitions and ordered his deportation.
The affected party appealed the decision and requested that their case be returned to the judge to process a status adjustment based on an approved petition submitted by their spouse, who was then a legal permanent resident of the United States.
However, on February 3, 2021, the BIA dismissed his appeal and declined to return the case to the court. The Board noted that, due to his immigration classification, it was up to USCIS to decide on his application for adjustment of status.
The immigrant continued to attempt to reopen his case. His first motion was rejected on March 27, 2023, and the second on October 10, 2024.
In this last case, she argued that she obtained Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and was seeking to advance towards residency through other immigration procedures. The BIA found that these circumstances did not warrant extraordinary intervention.
On March 24, 2025, he submitted a third motion for reopening, this time with a significant change in his family circumstances: his wife had become a naturalized U.S. citizen.
Naturalization meant that Pierre-Louis now had an immigrant visa available to him as an immediate family member of a citizen, so he requested once again that his deportation proceedings be reopened and concluded in order to proceed with the adjustment before USCIS.
He also highlighted the mental health issues his wife was facing and the emotional and financial difficulties she and their two children would endure if he were ultimately deported.
The BIA acknowledged those arguments, but concluded that they did not constitute sufficient exceptional circumstances to justify the reopening of the case on its own initiative.
The Board reminded that, as a general rule, immigrants may file a motion to reopen within 90 days after the final administrative decision, and that usually only one request is allowed, although there are legal exceptions.
In this case, the third petition was submitted more than four years after the final resolution in February 2021 and exceeded the ordinary number of motions allowed.
For that reason, the applicant requested that the BIA exercise its extraordinary authority, known as sua sponte, which allows for the reopening of certain proceedings without the need to meet the ordinary requirements for reopening.
The agency explained that this authority is reserved for truly exceptional situations and should not become a regular mechanism to circumvent the time limits or the number of applications established by law.
To support its decision, the BIA reaffirmed the precedent Matter of Yauri, from 2009, according to which it will generally not exercise that extraordinary authority when the purpose of the reopening is to wait for another agency to resolve a request over which the immigration judges and the Board itself do not have jurisdiction.
The existence of a pending residence application with USCIS, by itself, does not make the case an exceptional situation, the Board noted while explaining its reasoning.
The resolution also addresses an important legal difference: one thing is that the BIA has the authority to consider reopening a case, and another is that it is required to grant it.
The Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals had acknowledged, in the case Singh v. Holder of 2014, that the Board retains the authority to reopen certain cases even when the residency application falls under USCIS's jurisdiction.
Since Pierre-Louis's case fell within that jurisdiction, the BIA explicitly recognized that it could consider reopening. However, it decided not to exercise its discretionary authority because it did not find sufficiently exceptional circumstances.
The ruling also notes that an immigrant who is subject to a final deportation order can request from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) a temporary suspension of their removal while another immigration matter is being resolved.
This alternative is different from the reopening of a case and does not guarantee that the deportation will be halted, as its approval depends on a separate assessment by the relevant authorities.
For individuals with pending immigration procedures and residency applications, the decision highlights the importance of understanding which authority is responsible for each process and what the consequences of a final deportation order are.
For example, a family petition approved does not automatically equate to granted permanent residency. It also does not necessarily mean that a deportation order loses its effects while USCIS reviews an adjustment application.
Legal options may vary depending on immigration classification, history of entries into the United States, previous court decisions, elapsed time, and exceptions provided by legislation.
What does this ruling mean for Cuban immigrants?
The resolution may be of interest to Cubans who have deportation orders and have pending immigration applications, but its scope should not automatically extend to all situations.
In particular, Matter of Pierre-Louis does not determine the legal situation of Cubans with form I-220A nor does it directly modify the requirements of the Cuban Adjustment Act.
To determine if an immigrant can request a standard reopening, apply for an exception, or manage an adjustment with USCIS, it is necessary to review their individual file and the applicable regulations.
The ruling should not be confused with a decision regarding the postponement of immigration hearings. When the procedure is still active, requests to defer a hearing are governed by different criteria than those used to reopen a concluded case.
On October 17, the BIA established new criteria to delay deportation proceedings while waiting for certain family or visa petitions, through the precedent Matter of L. Ramirez.
That resolution eliminated a favorable presumption that existed for certain delays related to U visa applications and reaffirmed that judges must assess specific factors before granting additional time to await the outcome of an immigration process.
Another recent decision, Matter of J-E-D-C-, was discussed in a report published on October 20 regarding the reopening of deportation orders issued in absentia.
Este fallo de la BIA puede afectar a miles de inmigrantes en procedimientos de remoción. Sigue de cerca las novedades legales y migratorias en nuestra sección de
Related videos:
Filed under: