← United States · 2018

witharrow.ai/volatility-index/united-states/fcp5-51e38824ec0a23e9136f

Limitation on Immigration Judges' Inherent Authority to Terminate or Dismiss Removal Proceedings (Matter of S-O-G- & F-D-B-)

Validated finding · five-country-2010-20260922-v118-evidence-presentation-fix

CountryUnited States
Operative dateSeptember 18, 2018
CategoryRemoval proceedings / enforcement
Policy toolLegal interpretation / binding administrative case law
Affected groupNoncitizens in removal proceedings

Policy effect

The Attorney General issued a binding precedent decision holding that immigration judges have no inherent authority to terminate or dismiss removal proceedings outside the specific grounds expressly identified in governing regulations (8 C.F.R. § 1239.2(c), (f)) or when DHS fails to sustain charges of removability (8 C.F.R. § 1240.12(c)). Phase scope: Nationwide EOIR immigration court proceedings

Official source excerpt

Quoted verbatim from the official source below. Ellipses indicate omitted text.

(1) Consistent with Matter of Castro-Tum, 27 I&N Dec. 271 (A.G. 2018), immigration judges have no inherent authority to terminate or dismiss removal proceedings. (2) Immigration judges may dismiss or terminate removal proceedings only under the circumstances expressly identified in the regulations, see 8 C.F.R. § 1239.2(c), (f), or where the Department of Homeland Security fails to sustain the charges of removability against a respondent, see 8 C.F.R. § 1240.12(c). (3) An immigration judge’s general authority to “take any other action consistent with applicable law and regulations as may be appropriate,” 8 C.F.R. § 1240.1(a)(1)(iv), does not provide any additional authority to terminate or dismiss removal proceedings beyond those authorities expressly set out in the relevant regulations.
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney GeneralMatter of S-O-G- & F-D-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 462 (A.G. 2018)Open official source
Retrieved from https://justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1095046/dl?inline=

Review method

Two separate automated exact-claim source reviews

Automated source validation is not independent human legal review. The finding should not be treated as legal advice. Record fcp5-51e38824ec0a23e9136f. Something wrong? Flag this record.