TPS Application Alone Not Grounds for Administrative Closure, Says BIA
BIA Reaffirms Limits on Administrative Closure in Matter of B—N—K—
Last week, in Matter of B—N—K—, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) reaffirmed its position regarding the use of administrative closure in removal proceedings. The decision highlights that the primary factor in determining whether administrative closure is appropriate is whether there are persuasive reasons for the case to proceed to a merits decision. This clarification reinforces the BIA’s preference for moving cases forward unless compelling circumstances justify otherwise.
In its decision, the BIA explained that a pending Temporary Protected Status (TPS) application alone is generally insufficient to justify administrative closure. While TPS may provide protection from removal and work authorization for nationals of designated countries, the existence of a pending application does not necessarily require halting removal proceedings.
In Matter of B—N—K—, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had filed an interlocutory appeal challenging the immigration judge’s decision to grant administrative closure. The BIA sided with DHS, finding that the judge had not provided adequate justification for suspending the case. As a result, the Board granted DHS’s appeal, reversed the immigration judge’s ruling, reinstated removal proceedings, and remanded the matter for further consideration.
This decision is significant for noncitizens and practitioners alike.
The ruling also serves as a reminder of the BIA’s consistent stance that administrative closure is an exceptional remedy, not a routine tool to delay removal proceedings. For many immigrants, this means they must simultaneously pursue available benefits—such as TPS, asylum, or adjustment of status—while defending themselves in active removal cases.
For attorneys, Matter of B—N—K— reinforces the importance of carefully documenting and presenting persuasive reasons when seeking administrative closure. Without such reasons, DHS will likely prevail in appeals, and proceedings will continue toward a merits decision.
