BIA Decision: Matter of ARANA CASTILLO, et al.

The Board of Immigration Appeals made Matter of ARANA CASTILLO, et al., 29 I&N Dec. 593 (BIA 2026) precedential. The Board held that where the respondents appear at an initial master calendar hearing, but the Department of Homeland Security (i.e., ICE) does not, the Immigration Judge (IJ) errs in terminating proceedings without taking the respondents’ pleadings to the notices to appear.

The Board reasoned that the IJ erred when the case was terminated because pleadings were not taken to the notices to appear. According to 8 C.F.R. § 1240.10(c), the Immigration Judge “shall require the respondent[s] to plead to the notice[s] to appear.” Then, the respondents may admit or deny the factual allegations and charge(s). 8 C.F.R. § 1240.10(c). If they deny the charge(s), or the Immigration Judge finds that issues of law or fact remain, then the Immigration Judge “shall request the assignment of DHS counsel[] and shall receive evidence as to any unresolved issues.” 8 C.F.R. § 1240.10(d).

This decision limits an IJs ability to control proceedings and make sure that both parties are present. Even if an IJ terminates proceedings, DHS can file a new NTA with the immigration court and restart proceedings and show up to court for those new proceedings thereby eliminating the problem this decision would like to fix.