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.

This Facebook widget is no longer supported.

Similar Posts

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.
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.
By Juliana LaMendola March 13, 2026
On January 14, 2026, the Trump administration announced a freeze on immigrant visa issuance for nationals of 75 countries . The administration states that this “visa freeze” is intended to review security protocols, “reduce risks,” and control immigration flows. However, the immediate reality is that this change in policy has temporarily suspended visa processing and restricted travel for applicants from numerous countries across the globe. While the legal landscape surrounding these suspensions is highly fluid and subject to change, it is important to consider how this “visa freeze” might impact your current status or immigration plans. The scope of the restrictions varies drastically depending on your country of origin and specific visa category. Most notably, a nationality-based travel ban restricts visa issuance for 19 countries : Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. Beyond this targeted ban, a broader freeze affects applicants from a designated list of up to 75 countries, leading to indefinite delays for many visa petitions. However, it is important to note that immigrant visa applications first need to be processed through USCIS, which has not paused processing applications from the 75 countries. Thus, it is important to contact an attorney to understand at what point in the process this visa freeze may affect your case. While Brazil is included in the list of 75 countries, at the time of this publication, the freeze does not include non-immigrant visas for Brazil . Non-immigrant visas are granted to foreign nationals seeking to enter the United States on a temporary basis for specific purposes, such as tourism, studying, or temporary work. This means that Brazilian applicants can still safely pursue non-immigrant employment options, such as O visas for individuals with extraordinary ability or P visas for internationally recognized athletes, without being subjected to the current travel bans or suspensions. This alert is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. There are many changes and uncertainties, so please consult with a qualified attorney at Santos Lloyd Law Firm, P.C. to understand how these evolving policies might affect your specific case
By Denice Flores March 6, 2026
Recent data in 2026 shows a sharp increase in Requests for Evidence across employment-based visa categories such as EB-1, EB-2 NIW, O, and H-1B. Requests for Evidence (RFEs) are no longer reserved for borderline cases; even robust petitions for high-level talent are facing unprecedented scrutiny. The expansion of the USCIS Vetting Center means automated tools are cross-referencing every petition, triggering RFEs for even the smallest inconsistencies. For EB-2 NIW petitions, adjudicators are increasingly questioning the "National Importance" of a candidate’s endeavor. Even for those with impressive credentials, USCIS now demands evidence of how their work specifically benefits the U.S. on a prospective basis. For O-1A and O-1B visas, officers are applying narrower interpretations of "distinction" and "extraordinary ability," often mischaracterizing evidence already present in the record. Additionally, a troubling 2026 trend is the correlation between Premium Processing and RFEs . For discretionary categories like EB-1A and EB-2 NIW, Premium Processing has increasingly become a "fast track" to a poorly reasoned RFE. Reports indicate that adjudicators, pressured by 15-business-day timelines, may be relying on AI-assisted vetting tools that trigger automated RFEs with general and boilerplate language, rather than a thorough review and analysis of supporting documents and evidence filed. With USCIS employing more rigorous AI-driven vetting and a narrower interpretation of visa criteria, the margin for error has disappeared . As such, ensure you consult with an experienced immigration attorney before filing a petition. ' If you have any questions, please schedule a consultation with one of our experienced attorneys, and we will be more than happy to assist you.
By Juliana LaMendola February 19, 2026
In recent weeks, the U.S. government has moved to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for multiple countries, sparking a wave of last-minute litigation and creating significant uncertainty for beneficiaries. This shift is having a profound impact on those who rely on TPS for lawful presence and work authorization in the United States. Across the country, federal courts have intervened to pause or block scheduled TPS terminations for several countries, including Burma (Myanmar), Ethiopia, Haiti, South Sudan, and Syria. In response to these court orders, USCIS has updated its webpages to indicate that TPS status and related Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) are extended for these populations. However, USCIS is intentionally not providing specific new end dates for EAD validity while the litigation remains in flux. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has prominently noted that it "vehemently disagrees" with these court orders and is actively working with the Department of Justice on next steps. This legal landscape remains highly unpredictable and varies drastically depending on the country of origin. For example, on February 9, 2026, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay allowing the government to proceed with the termination of TPS for Nicaragua, Honduras, and Nepal while the underlying legal challenges continue. Because of this ruling, the automatic extension of work authorization for these individuals has ended, and employers are now required to reverify the work authorization of affected employees, who must present alternative valid documentation to continue their employment. These rapid changes and the lack of clear end dates are causing complications beyond the workplace. Because driver's licenses often track the length of an individual's authorized stay, many DMVs are currently declining to issue or renew driver's licenses for impacted TPS populations. For employers, managing internal communications, avoiding onboarding errors, and navigating Form I-9 compliance has become increasingly complex. It is more important than ever to be well-prepared and proactive in monitoring these rapid changes. At Santos Lloyd Law Firm, P.C., our immigration attorneys are ready to guide you through this evolving process and ensure you are informed, and supported. Please contact us if you have questions or need assistance.
Show More