Petição para encerramento ou encerramento administrativo: qual a diferença?

Angelica Rice • September 22, 2022

Click here to read this article in English

O sistema judiciário de imigração dos Estado Unidos está atualmente sobrecarregado com milhares de casos imigratórios que ainda precisam ser julgados. Para tentar lidar com esse volume de casos e processar os que estão atrasados, o Departamento de Segurança Interna dos Estados Unidos (DHS) e o sistema judiciário imigratório atenuaram suas regras nas petições de encerramento e no encerramento administrativo, fechando certos tipos de casos que não consideram ser casos relevantes para execução. E o quê isso significa? Qual a diferença entre a petição para encerramento e o encerramento administrativo? É algo que possa ser feito no seu caso? Continue lendo para descobrir.

Encerramento Administrativo

Encerramento administrativo é um instrumento para administração dos processos judiciais, usado para temporariamente pausar os procedimentos de deportação, estabelecido de acordo com o caso Matter of W-Y-U, 27, Lei de Imigração e Naturalização (I&N) Dez 17,18 (BIA 2017). Encerrando administrativamente um caso, temporariamente o remove do calendário processual do Juiz e o coloca “em espera” até o advogado do DHS ou do respondente fazer o pedido para ser colocado novamente no calendário processual. Para ter seu caso encerrado administrativamente, o DHS precisa concordar com o pedido.

Juízes de imigração podem encerrar casos administrativamente por várias razões, uma das mais comuns é por serem de prioridade baixa ou “um caso não relevante para execução” e o DHS não deseja julgar o caso naquele momento. Outro motivo comum para o encerramento administrativo, é quando o respondente tem outro tipo de processo pendente com a imigração (USCIS) e a decisão desse processo afetaria o caso que está sendo julgado pelo juiz. Por exemplo, uma pessoa que tenha a petição I-130 pendente com a USCIS, mas ao mesmo tempo está com um processo judicial imigratório contra ele, o juiz pode concordar em fazer o encerramento administrativo desse processo para aguardar a decisão da imigração na petição I-130. Dessa forma, nenhuma audiência será agendada no processo até o DHS ou advogado do respondente colocar o caso novamente no calendário processual. Se a petição I-130 for aprovada, o respondente pode pedir para seu caso voltar ao calendário processual e pedir para que seu processo judicial imigratório seja dispensado. Quando seu caso for encerrado administrativamente, em certas circunstâncias, você tem como aplicar para uma autorização de trabalho.

Extinção do processo

Se achar que seu caso não deveria estar no sistema judiciário de imigração, porque você já recebeu algum outro tipo de benefício imigratório ou porque o processo não foi feito de forma apropriada, ou mesmo por alguma outra razão, o respondente ou seu advogado pode fazer um pedido para que o caso seja extinto.

Extinção do processo judicial significa que você não tem mais um processo no sistema judiciário imigratório. De acordo com as regras do DHS e desse sistema judiciário(?), o DHS é encorajado a usar sua discrição para extinguir os processos que não são prioridade para execução. Não são prioridade se o requerido não for uma ameaça à segurança nacional, não tenha histórico criminal e tenha entrado nos Estados Unidos antes de novembro de 2020. Entretanto, se seu processo for extinto e você não tem outra forma de benefício imigratório ou não tem como aplicar para nenhum benefício com a USCIS, não terá como obter a autorização de trabalho e estará nos Estados Unidos sem status e sem nenhuma condição imigratória legal. Por esse motivo, os respondentes às vezes preferem não buscar a extinção do processo, continuando com o caso em andamento.

Determinar se uma dessas opções é a certa para você pode ser complicado. Você precisa consultar um advogado de imigração, que determine se o encerramento administrativo ou o encerramento da petição será o melhor para você.

Este blog não se destina a dar aconselhamento jurídico e nada aqui deve ser interpretado como estabelecimento de uma relação cliente-advogado. Por favor, agende uma consulta com um advogado de imigração, antes de agir baseado em qualquer informação lida neste blog.

Angelica Rice

Motion to Terminate or Admin Close: What’s the Difference?

By Angelica Rice • August 11, 2022

The United States Immigration Court system is currently overwhelmed with hundreds of thousands of immigration cases that have yet to be adjudicated. In an effort to handle this volume of cases and clear out some of their backlogged cases, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Court, have relaxed their policies on terminating and administratively closing certain kinds of cases that they have deemed not to be enforcement priority cases. So, what does this mean? What is the difference between administratively closing a case or terminating a case? Is this something you want to pursue in your case? Keep reading to find out.

Can Undocumented Immigrants Obtain a Driver’s License in the U.S.?

By Angelica Rice • May 20, 2022

Many undocumented immigrants, or immigrants without status, wonder if they are able to get a United States driver’s license. Some states allow for this, while many states still do not, so whether or not you are able to get a driver's license without evidence of status depends on where you live. See below a brief guide to obtaining a non-immigrant driver’s license in the United States.

< Older Post

Newer Post >

The Laken Riley Act: A New Era of State Involvement in Federal Immigration Policy

By Kris Quadros-Ragar • February 6, 2025

On January 29, 2025, President Trump signed the Laken Riley Act into law, significantly altering how immigration policies are enforced in the United States. This legislation grants State attorneys general and other authorized officials unprecedented authority to interpret and implement federal immigration policies. It also empowers them to take legal action against the federal government if they believe federal immigration enforcement negatively impacts their state. With this new authority, states now play a direct role in shaping immigration outcomes—a responsibility traditionally held by the federal government. One of the most immediate effects of the Laken Riley Act is that it allows states to seek injunctive relief to block the issuance of visas to nationals of countries that refuse or unreasonably delay the acceptance of their citizens who have been ordered removed from the United States . This means that if a country does not cooperate with U.S. deportation efforts, its nationals—regardless of their legal status—could face significant difficulties obtaining or renewing visas. As a result, foreign nationals from these countries may encounter increased uncertainty when traveling internationally or securing work authorization in the U.S. Beyond visa processing, the law introduces a new level of unpredictability into the immigration system. By allowing state attorneys general to intervene in federal procedures, and immigration policies that may now vary based on state-level decisions. In the coming months, it remains to be seen how individual states will wield this power—whether they will actively seek to block visa issuance or push for broader immigration enforcement measures. For foreign nationals and employers, staying informed about which countries are deemed “uncooperative” is now more important than ever. Those needing visa renewals or planning international travel should prepare for potential delays and seek professional guidance to navigate these uncertainties. The Laken Riley Act also mandates federal immigration authorities to detain and deport individuals without legal status who are charged with certain offenses, including minor theft or shoplifting, assaulting a law enforcement officer, and crimes resulting in death or serious bodily injury. This provision underscores a stricter approach to immigration enforcement, affecting individuals accused of both minor and serious offenses. With immigration policies now subject to a new layer of state involvement, it is more important than ever to stay informed and prepared for potential challenges. If you have concerns about how the Laken Riley Act may affect your immigration status or business, contact Santos Lloyd Law Firm for strategic counsel tailored to your needs.

Understanding the January 28, 2025, Vacatur Memo on Venezuela TPS

By Angelica Rice • January 31, 2025

On January 28, 2025, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem vacated the January 10, 2025, decision by former Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas that had extended the 2023 designation of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Venezuela and ordered that his January 17, 2025, notice re-designating Venezuela TPS be vacated. This action has understandably caused confusion and concern among Venezuelan TPS beneficiaries and those with pending applications. It is critical to clarify that this does not mean that the TPS program for Venezuela has been eliminated . Instead, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) must now reconsider whether to re-designate (extend) or terminate the previous Venezuela TPS designations from 2021 and 2023. What Does the Vacatur Mean? Because the January 17, 2025, TPS extension was vacated, the most recent valid TPS designation for Venezuela remains the October 3, 2023, designation . The vacatur does not immediately affect TPS protections for individuals covered under the prior designations. However, DHS must make key decisions in the coming months: By February 1, 2025 , DHS must decide whether to extend or terminate the October 3, 2023, designation . By July 12, 2025 , DHS must decide whether to extend or terminate the March 9, 2021, designation . If the Secretary does not make a timely determination (for example, if the Secretary were not to make determination by February 1, 2025 whether to extend or terminate the 2023 Venezuela TPS designation), then the statute provides for an automatic extension of the designation for an additional period of 6 months . INA 244(b)(3)(C), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(b)(3)(C). Until these decisions are made, TPS remains in effect under the previous designations , and those who have already been granted TPS are not immediately impacted. Who Is Affected and What Should You Do? Current TPS Holders If you were already granted TPS under the March 9, 2021, or October 3, 2023, designations, your status remains valid. You must continue to comply with all re-registration requirements to maintain your protection and work authorization. Re-registration period: TPS beneficiaries under the 2021 and 2023 designations must re-register between January 17, 2025, and September 10, 2025 , to maintain their legal status and work authorization. Individuals with Pending TPS Applications as of January 17, 2025 If you applied for TPS before January 17, 2025 , under a previous designation, your application will continue to be processed . If your application is approved, your TPS protection will remain valid at least until April 2, 2025 . There is no need to reapply. Individuals Who Applied for TPS Between January 10, 2025, and January 28, 2025 If you applied for TPS during this period, USCIS will cease processing your applications and issue refunds of any fees paid in association with those applications . Additionally, USCIS will invalidate EADs; Forms 1-797, Notice of Action (Approval Notice); and Forms 1-94, Arrival/Departure Record (collectively known as TPS-related documentation) that have been issued with October 2, 2026 expiration dates under the January 17, 2025 Mayorkas Notice. What Happens Next? Given the Biden administration’s prior support for TPS, many expect DHS to extend or re-designate Venezuela for TPS rather than terminate it . However, no final decision has been made , and Venezuelan nationals with TPS or pending applications should continue to follow updates closely. What Should You Do Now? If you currently hold TPS , continue to comply with all TPS renewal requirements and remain aware of DHS’s upcoming decisions. If you have a pending application , check USCIS updates regularly and consult with an immigration attorney for the latest guidance. If you applied between January 17, 2025, and January 28, 2025 , seek legal counsel to understand how the vacatur may affect your application. Stay Informed and Get Legal Guidance Our immigration firm is closely following these developments and will provide updates as soon as DHS makes its decision. If you have questions about your TPS status or how this memo affects your case, contact our office today for a consultation. For more information, refer to the official DHS notice on the vacatur: Vacatur of 2025 Temporary Protected Status Decision for Venezuela .

U.S. Birthright Citizenship: The new Trump Order and its Legal Challenges

By Angelica Rice • January 23, 2025

On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order titled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship," which aims to end birthright citizenship for certain children born in the United States . This order specifically targets children born to mothers who are either unlawfully present or temporarily in the U.S. on visas, such as student, work, or tourist visas, if the father is neither a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident. Under this new policy, these children will no longer be granted automatic U.S. citizenship. The order is set to take effect 30 days from its signing and applies only to births occurring after that period, meaning it does not retroactively affect children born before the effective date. This executive order challenges the long-standing interpretation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees citizenship to all individuals born on American soil . The amendment states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." For over a century, this provision has been understood to grant citizenship to most individuals born in the U.S., regardless of their parents' immigration status. In response to the executive order, immigrant rights advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), have filed lawsuits challenging its constitutionality . They argue that the order violates the clear mandate of the 14th Amendment and undermines fundamental American values. Legal experts anticipate that this issue will be contested in courts, with the potential for the order to be blocked or overturned. On January 23, 2025, a federal judge in Seattle issued a temporary restraining order (TRO), effectively blocking the executive order from taking effect for the next 14 days . The court cited potential constitutional violations and the need for further legal briefings before any enforcement could proceed. This ruling provides temporary relief to affected families and signals the likelihood of a prolonged legal battle. Further hearings are scheduled to determine whether the order will be permanently blocked or allowed to proceed. For families affected by this order, there is growing concern about the potential challenges their children may face without U.S. citizenship. Access to essential services, education, and employment opportunities could become more difficult for those impacted. However, it is important to remain hopeful, as the legal system provides checks and balances to ensure that any executive action aligns with constitutional principles. Historically, similar attempts to restrict birthright citizenship have faced significant legal challenges and have not been upheld . If you or someone you know may be impacted by this executive order, staying informed and understanding your rights is crucial. At Santos Lloyd Law Firm, P.C., our trusted immigration attorneys are available to provide guidance and support during this uncertain time, please contact us if you need assistance.