(insert name here) Name of private attorney Assistant Chief Counsel address, etc. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Department of Homeland Security 125 E. John Carpenter Fwy., Suite 500 Dallas, TX 75062 (972) 373-2300

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW DALLAS IMMIGRATION COURT

) NON-DETAINED In the Matter of: ) ) Name ) A ) In Removal Proceedings ) )

Immigration Judge: ______Next Hearing: ______

JOINT MOTION TO ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE PROCEEDINGS TO PERMIT RESPONDENT TO SEEK PROVISIONAL WAIVER UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW DALLAS IMMIGRATION COURT

) NON-DETAINED In the Matter of: ) ) Name ) A ) In Removal Proceedings ) )

J JOINT MOTION TO ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE PROCEEDINGS TO PERMIT RESPONDENT TO SEEK PROVISIONAL WAIVER

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs

Enforcement (Department or DHS), and the respondent, by and through their respective undersigned counsel, jointly move the Immigration Judge to administratively close these proceedings.

As the Board of Immigration Appeals has explained, administrative closure is merely an administrative convenience “used to temporarily remove a case from an Immigration Judge’s active calendar or from the Board’s docket,” and “does not result in a final order.” Matter of

Avetisyan, 25 I&N Dec. 688, 692, 695 (BIA 2012). At any time when either party wishes to place a matter back on the docket for active consideration, that party may file a motion to recalendar. See, e.g., Avetisyan, 25 I&N at 695. It is clear from Avetisyan and the cases cited therein that parties for decades have moved immigration courts to administratively close proceedings for a variety of reasons. Board case law has not attempted to define the universe of cases that can be administratively closed. See Avetisyan, 25 I&N Dec. at 696 (“other than in the

2 previously discussed cases in the in absentia context, we have not specifically addressed the question of when administrative closure is appropriate.”). What is clear is that parties can ask for administrative closure and an Immigration Judge can close proceedings. In fact, the Board has recently encouraged DHS to agree to such motions when appropriate. See, e.g., Matter of

Hashmi, 24 I&N Dec. 785, 791 n.4 (BIA 2009); Matter of Rajah, 25 I&N Dec. 127, 135 n.10

(BIA 2009).

Here, the parties seek administrative closure because it is in their best interests to do so.

DHS moves for administrative closure as a matter of its prosecutorial discretion because it does not seek a removal order against the respondent at this time, as this case is not an enforcement priority. DHS seeks administrative closure, rather than termination of proceedings, since if the respondent were to engage in future misconduct or otherwise become an enforcement priority, re-calendaring of proceedings is the most efficient and simplest way to continue with the case. If the respondent were to engage in future misconduct or otherwise become an enforcement priority, DHS would seek to re-calendar proceedings.

The respondent seeks administrative closure at it is in the best interest of respondent to do so. In particular, respondent seeks administrative closure in order to pursue a “provisional waiver” of unlawful presence with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, so Respondent can then depart the United States and seek to immigrate from abroad. An alien in removal proceedings is ineligible for the provisional waiver, unless such proceedings are administratively closed. See 8 CFR § 212.7(e)(4)(v). At this time, the respondent does not seek any relief from removal for which respondent may be currently eligible, assuming proceedings are closed. The respondent does not seek a removal order due to the legal detriments an order brings with it, such

3 as the need for a motion to reopen proceedings, the discretionary nature of reopening, and post- order monitoring by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Finally, administrative closure is an efficient and convenient result for the Executive

Office for Immigration Review. The court need not take any further action on the case once the matter is administratively closed until a motion to re-calendar is filed.

Since DHS, the prosecuting entity, does not seek to obtain the respondent’s removal and does not wish to proceed with this case at this time, the respondent agrees with this course of action, and administrative closure is an efficient result for the court, the parties respectfully ask that the Immigration Judge close these proceedings. See Matter of Yewondwosen, 21 I&N Dec.

1025, 1026 (BIA 1997) (“We believe the parties have an important role to play in these administrative proceedings, and that their agreement on an issue or proper course of action should, in most instances be determinative.”)

Notwithstanding any administrative closure of these proceedings, the respondent acknowledges the obligation to timely notify DHS and this court of each change of address and new address, consistent with section 265 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and 8 C.F.R. §

1003.15(d)(2). Attached, for the Immigration Judge’s convenience, is a proposed order relating to this motion.

4 Respectfully submitted,

On behalf of On behalf of the respondent U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security

insert name here Name Assistant Chief Counsel 125 E. John Carpenter Fwy., Suite 500 Dallas, TX 75062

Date: Date:

5 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW DALLAS IMMIGRATION COURT

) NON-DETAINED In the Matter of: ) ) ) A ) In Removal Proceedings ) Next Hearing: ______) Immigration Judge______

ORDER OF THE IMMIGRATION JUDGE

Upon consideration of the Joint Motion to Administratively Close Proceedings, the Court states the following:

1. The parties have agreed to administrative closure of the instant proceedings.

2. Other:______.

THEREFORE, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the motion be:

[ ] GRANTED. These proceedings are hereby administratively closed upon the joint consent and motion of the parties. Proceedings may be recalendared at any time upon either party’s motion, and this order does not constitute a final judgment rendered on the merits of these proceedings.

[ ] DENIED.

Date: Immigration Judge

Certificate of Service

This document was served by: [ ] Mail [ ] Personal Service To: [ ] Alien [ ] Alien c/o Custodial Officer [ ] Alien’s Atty/Rep [ ] DHS

Date: ______By: Court Staff ______