Motions to terminate
Termination ends removal proceedings without a removal order and without any grant of relief. It is the cleanest outcome a case can have, and it is available more often than people assume: when the government cannot prove its charge, when the charging document is defective, when a naturalization application is pending, and in the other circumstances the regulations now list.
Current as of September 2026. We re-check this page every quarter and after any rule change.
A motion to terminate is a motion that the case should not go on. It is different from an application for relief, which asks the judge to let you stay despite being removable. Termination says the government has not shown, or cannot show, that you are removable at all, or that some other rule requires or permits the judge to end the case.
Ground one: the charge is not sustained
For a person who was admitted to the United States, DHS must prove deportability by clear and convincing evidence under INA 240(c)(3)(A) and 8 C.F.R. 1240.8(a). The Supreme Court described the standard in Woodby v. INS, 385 U.S. 276 (1966), as clear, unequivocal and convincing evidence. If the government cannot meet it, there is nothing to defend against, and the judge terminates.
This is where contesting removability leads. The most common examples:
- The criminal conviction charged does not fit the ground of removability under the categorical approach.
- The conviction has been vacated for a substantive or procedural defect, so under Matter of Pickering, 23 I&N Dec. 621 (BIA 2003), there is no longer a conviction.
- The government cannot prove alienage or the manner of entry, because the only evidence has been suppressed or is unreliable.
- The factual allegations, even if true, do not establish the charge.
For a person charged as inadmissible, the burden is on the respondent under INA 240(c)(2), which is why the manner-of-entry question is contested so hard at the pleadings stage.
Ground two: the Notice to Appear is defective and not cured
A Notice to Appear must contain the items listed in INA 239(a)(1), including the time and place of the hearing. Under Pereira v. Sessions, 585 U.S. 198 (2018), and Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 593 U.S. 155 (2021), a notice that omits them is not a notice to appear under section 239(a) for purposes of the stop-time rule, and a later hearing notice does not cure it.
The Board has held, however, that the defect does not deprive the immigration court of jurisdiction, in Matter of Arambula-Bravo, 28 I&N Dec. 388 (BIA 2021), and in Matter of Fernandes, 28 I&N Dec. 605 (BIA 2022), that the time-and-place requirement is a claim-processing rule: the objection must be raised before the close of pleadings or it is generally forfeited, and the judge may allow DHS to remedy the defect. The practical rule is that the objection is made at the first hearing, in writing, before any pleading. See defective Notices to Appear.
Ground three: you can naturalize
Under the 2024 regulation, 8 C.F.R. 1003.18(d)(1)(ii)(B), an immigration judge may in discretion terminate proceedings where the respondent is prima facie eligible for naturalization, and the rule does not require that an application already be on file with USCIS. The judge may not grant the motion if DHS opposes it. That is the whole test today. The older provision, 8 C.F.R. 1239.2(f), which required an affirmative communication from DHS and "exceptionally appealing or humanitarian factors," was removed by the same 2024 rule, and the Board's decision applying it, Matter of Acosta Hidalgo, 24 I&N Dec. 103 (BIA 2007), no longer governs; the rule's preamble says so.
So the work is in two places: showing the judge that every element of naturalization is met on the record, including good moral character over the statutory period, and persuading the DHS attorney not to oppose, since opposition ends the motion. A person who is a lawful permanent resident and removable on a ground that does not bar citizenship is the typical candidate. Deferred action alone is not a basis: in Matter of Santiago-Santiago, 29 I&N Dec. 589 (BIA 2026), the Board held that a grant of DACA by itself does not justify termination.
Ground four: the 2024 regulation
On May 29, 2024, EOIR published "Efficient Case and Docket Management in Immigration Proceedings," 89 FR 46742, effective July 29, 2024. It added 8 C.F.R. 1003.18(d), which for the first time codified termination in the regulations. The rule lists circumstances in which the judge must terminate, such as where no charge can be sustained or where the respondent has obtained lawful permanent residence, and circumstances in which the judge may terminate as a matter of discretion, including where the parties jointly ask for it and where termination is otherwise in the interest of justice.
Before the rule, the scope of an immigration judge's authority to terminate had been contested. In 2018 the Attorney General held in Matter of S-O-G- & F-D-B- that judges had no general authority to terminate. That decision was overruled in Matter of Coronado-Acevedo, 28 I&N Dec. 648 (A.G. 2022), which restored the broader authority the 2024 rule then wrote down.
We cite the regulation, and we check it
Rules published in 2024 have been reviewed and in some cases rescinded since January 2025. As of the date on this page, 8 C.F.R. 1003.18(d) is in force as published, and we confirm that against the Federal Register before we file a motion that relies on it. If that changes, this page will say so.
Ground five: the government moves to dismiss
DHS may move to dismiss its own Notice to Appear under 8 C.F.R. 1239.2(c), on the grounds listed in 8 C.F.R. 239.2(a), which include that the notice was improvidently issued and that circumstances have changed so that continuing is no longer in the government's interest. This is the vehicle for prosecutorial discretion. Whether the government will agree depends on priorities that change with administrations, and the request is made to the government's trial attorney case by case. See prosecutorial discretion.
When to file
- A defective-notice objection: at the first hearing, before pleading. Under Fernandes, waiting forfeits it.
- A failed-charge motion: after the government has put in its evidence. Often the motion is made orally at the hearing where DHS rests on the I-213 and the conviction records, and then briefed.
- A naturalization motion: once the application is pending and DHS has communicated prima facie eligibility. Getting that communication is the work.
- A joint motion: whenever the government agrees. That can be any time.
Termination and the alternatives
Termination is not the only way to end or pause a case without relief, and the right vehicle depends on the goal.
| Vehicle | What it does | Who moves | Read |
|---|---|---|---|
| Termination | Ends the case. No order, no relief | Respondent, or the judge on a regulatory ground | This page |
| Dismissal | Ends the case on the government's motion | DHS | Prosecutorial discretion |
| Administrative closure | Pauses the case, off the active docket | Either party | Administrative closure |
| Continuance | Postpones the next hearing for good cause | Either party | The first hearing |
There is no government filing fee for a motion to terminate filed while the case is pending before the immigration judge. Fees apply to motions to reopen and reconsider after a decision, and those are government fees, not our legal fees.
Read next: contesting removability, defective Notices to Appear, administrative closure, or every form of relief.
Common questions
What is the difference between termination and dismissal?
Both end the case. Termination is ordered by the immigration judge, usually on the respondent's motion, on a ground in the statute, the regulations or the case law. Dismissal is what happens when the Department of Homeland Security moves to withdraw its own Notice to Appear under 8 C.F.R. 1239.2(c), most often as a matter of prosecutorial discretion. The judge grants or denies either motion.
If my case is terminated, do I have status?
Not by itself. Termination returns you to the position you were in before the Notice to Appear was filed. If you had a green card, you keep it. If you had no status, you still have none, but you have no removal order and you are free to pursue whatever you were eligible for outside of court, such as a pending family petition or a naturalization application.
Can the government start a new case after termination?
In most circumstances, yes. Termination is not a ruling that you can never be removed. If DHS has a charge it can prove and chooses to file a new Notice to Appear, a new case begins. What termination prevents is a removal order in the case that was terminated.
What if the judge denies the motion?
The case continues, and you preserve the issue for appeal. A denial of a motion to terminate is reviewed by the Board of Immigration Appeals as part of the appeal from the final decision, and, if it presents a question of law, by the court of appeals on a petition for review.
Tell us where your case is. We will tell you what is still possible.
You get a free case review with an attorney, in your language. We speak English, Russian, Spanish and Uzbek in-house, and we bring in a live interpreter for anything else. We will tell you what stage you are at, which forms of relief are open to you, what your deadlines are, and whether we can help. If we cannot, we will say so.