THE FIGHT FOR SURVIVAL: WHEN THE GOVERNMENT COMES FOR YOUR CLOSED CASE

A three-part examination of DHS’s mass recalendar campaign and one man’s battle against the system

PART ONE: THE LAW AS WEAPON

The Recalendar Surge Begins

On May 12, 2025, DHS launched a systematic campaign to recalendar thousands of administratively closed immigration cases. Many had been dormant for years, some for over a decade. By July, ICE sent out nearly 10,000 new fine notices; by August, the wave of recalendaring had engulfed courts nationwide.

DHS Enforcement Surge: Timeline May-August 2025

• Motions to recalendar issued in every major jurisdiction
• Surge in reopening long-closed cases, many with complex family and hardship factors

The Eight-Factor Battleground

8 CFR §§ 1003.18(c) and 1003.1(l) set out the supposed protections: eight distinct factors immigration judges must weigh before granting any motion to recalendar. These include:

• Reason for recalendaring
• Basis for opposition
• Length of administrative closure
• Status of collateral applications
• Results of application adjudication
• Likelihood of success on pending applications
• Anticipated outcome if proceedings restart
• ICE detention status

No single factor dominates: the law requires a “totality of circumstances” analysis. Yet, DHS routinely files template motions that treat these critical safeguards as mere suggestions, ignoring the actual lives on the line.

The Stop-Time Revolution

Two Supreme Court decisions changed the game for many:
Pereira v. Sessions (2018) and Niz-Chavez v. Garland (2021) held that defective Notices to Appear (NTAs) — those lacking specific time, date, and place — don’t trigger the “stop-time” rule for cancellation of removal. For thousands, this technical ruling means their clock for qualifying relief never stopped running. Immigrants who were ineligible years ago are now suddenly eligible for relief thanks to a paperwork oversight.
Source: VisaVerge

Matter of B-N-K- vs. Reality

Despite the regulation, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) tried to elevate “persuasive reasons for a case to proceed on the merits” above all else via Matter of B-N-K-. This contradicts the Administrative Closure Final Rule: judges must consider all factors, not just government preferences or expediency.
Source: ILRC Practice Advisory

Procedural Warfare

Most recent DHS recalendaring motions openly flout procedural standards:

• No good faith “meet and confer” attempts
• Deficient or defective service (mismatched postmarks and proofs)
• Missed or improper signatures
• Recycled, erroneous case info
• Generic, non-individualized arguments

A few courts push back, rejecting template filings; others allow them, fueling deeply inconsistent nationwide standards.

The Four Response Strategies

1. Motion to Extend Response Time: Use procedural flaws to delay and strengthen your substantive challenge, especially with the near-impossible 10-day response window and snail mail service.
2. Strategic Non-Opposition: When recalendaring means the client now qualifies for valuable relief (like cancellation of removal), returning to active court can serve their interests.
3. Termination of Proceedings: Under 2024 regs, many cases meet the bar for permanent termination—not just closure. If successful, the case isn’t simply “paused” but ended unless DHS re-files charges.
4. Total Opposition: In all cases where reopening puts clients at risk, document every procedural and due process violation; force the judge to honestly follow the eight-factor framework.

PART TWO: THE POLITICS OF CRUELTY

The Human Toll of Bureaucratized Enforcement

Numbers reveal only part of the suffering. In Chicago, over 193,000 pending immigration cases rank it as the nation’s fifth most backlogged court.
Source: CBP Monthly Update
Yet the administration has slashed staffing: more than 103 judges fired or resigned. Chicago’s immigration court, intended for significantly more judges, now operates with only a handful—exacerbating already massive delays. Hearings scheduled as far out as 2029 have become the norm, while detained immigrants typically wait 3-6 months before their first court appearance..
Source: NBC Data

Economic Terrorism, Bureaucracy-as-Weapon

Despite <$170 billion in funding> and a congressional mandate to grow the system, ICE detention hit an all-time high of 56,945 people as of July 2025—71.1% with no criminal record. The pretext of “targeting criminals” is a myth; the reality is mass detention of families, workers, and vulnerable survivors.
Source: Immigration Issues

Arrested at the Courthouse Door

In a chilling new twist, EOIR lifted bans on courthouse arrests. ICE now detains people the moment their cases are terminated, turning courthouses into ambush sites. Attorneys describe watching their clients leave court victorious, only to be snatched by ICE moments later.
Source: TRAC Reports

Representation in Crisis

Only one in four immigrants in Chicago’s courts has a lawyer. Nationally, the number is barely one in three. Representation makes a massive difference: five-times higher success rates for those with counsel. But the combination of soaring backlogs, remote detention, and system hostility cripples access to justice.
Source: TRAC Reports

Expedited Removal: The Ignorance Gambit

The nationwide expansion of expedited removal means any noncitizen unable to prove two years continuous presence is at risk of summary ejection—no hearing, no judge, no lawyer. Most don’t even realize they must claim fear of return to get a real hearing, making ignorance itself a tool for government speed.

Constitutional Challenges Emerge

The mass recalendar campaign raises deep constitutional concerns—from due process violations to equal protection, from arbitrary enforcement to family separation without compelling cause. Federal courts are beginning to intervene: Chicago’s sanctuary city status was recently upheld by a judge citing Tenth Amendment protections.

PART THREE: JUAN CARLOS—THE AMERICAN DREAM ON TRIAL

The Face of Bureaucratic Terror

Juan Carlos Mendoza starts his day in his Pilsen office, staring at the DHS motion that could destroy everything he built. He arrived at seventeen—alone, bereaved, fleeing a future with nothing in Mexico. By 2012, he’d founded J.C. Landscaping, built a regular client base, and bought a home with his U.S. citizen spouse, Miguel.

Love in the Time of DOMA

Their story is one of hope through struggle: from learning English via telenovelas, to building a business with nothing but drive, to navigating marriage after DOMA fell and Illinois finally recognized same-sex unions.

Seven Years of Security—Now at Risk

Juan Carlos’s case was administratively closed in 2017 due to prosecutorial discretion. He became deeply woven into his community—expanding his business, hiring six employees, coaching soccer, and paying taxes. Seven years pass in peaceful, productive work.

The Government Letter

On a random Tuesday, Miguel delivers the DHS motion to recalendar—fear and uncertainty return overnight. This is “bureaucratic terrorism” in practice: just numbers on a spreadsheet to DHS, but lives and families hanging in the balance.

The Legal Reality

Juan Carlos’s opposition is a clinic in the eight-factor analysis:

• Generic government interest: insufficient
• Deep community ties, approved family petition, business contributions
• Seven years of closure—settled expectations, reliance interests
• Approved I-130, strong grounds for adjustment
• Not detained, integrated into local economy

His NTA, like many, is defective—missing key details—so his clock for cancellation relief never stopped. With over fourteen years of continuous presence, he passes every statutory hurdle.
Source: VisaVerge

Exceptional and Extremely Unusual Hardship

The hardship analysis centers on Miguel, Juan Carlos’s U.S. citizen spouse. Matter of Monreal requires hardship “substantially beyond that which would ordinarily be expected to result from the alien’s deportation”.
Source: TRAC Reports

• Economic devastation: Juan Carlos built their business from nothing. Miguel works at the Cultural Center for $35,000 annually. The landscaping business generates $180,000 in revenue. Without Juan Carlos, the business fails and their mortgage defaults.
• Medical hardship: Miguel has Type 1 diabetes requiring expensive medication and regular monitoring. Juan Carlos manages his care, insurance, and medical appointments. Separation would threaten Miguel’s health.
• Social isolation: Miguel’s family accepted their relationship only gradually. Juan Carlos became his primary emotional support. His removal would isolate Miguel from the Latino community they’ve built together.
• Cultural barriers: Miguel speaks limited Spanish and has never lived in Mexico. Following Juan Carlos would mean abandoning his career, his community, and his medical care system.

The Business That Built a Community

J.C. Landscaping employs six people, all immigrants, all supporting families. The business maintains forty-seven properties, mostly for middle-class families in Pilsen, Little Village, and Bridgeport. Juan Carlos charges fair prices and provides reliable service that larger companies won’t match in these neighborhoods.
The employees include Maria, whose son just started high school; Roberto, saving money to bring his wife from Guatemala; and David, a DACA recipient studying business at UIC. If Juan Carlos is deported, six families lose their primary income.

The Weight of the American Dream

Juan Carlos feels the weight differently now. At seventeen, crossing the desert, he carried only hope and fear. Now he carries the dreams of six employees, the expectations of forty-seven clients, the mortgage on a two-flat, and the promise he made to Miguel at City Hall eleven years ago.

The Night Before the Hearing

Juan Carlos and Miguel spend a sleepless night, gripped by the possibility of losing everything to a bureaucratic decision. Their fight is personal, but it echoes thousands more.

The Morning of Truth

Thirty-seven pages of compelling evidence: financial records, medical documentation, employee affidavits, proof of community roots. The legal strategy is airtight, but the system is broken. The battle is between hope and a government machine programmed for attrition.

As of publication, Juan Carlos waits for his verdict. He is not alone. Their business runs on; Miguel manages his health. Their employees come to work. But they all wonder what tomorrow will bring.

Strategic Options for Respondents with Pending I-601A Waiver Cases: Carlos’ Path

For individuals like Carlos, whose removal proceedings are being targeted for recalendaring and who have a pending I-601A provisional waiver (with a USCIS receipt), recent practice advisories outline two clear, fact-based legal avenues:

1. Seek Termination of Proceedings and Consular Process Abroad

Overview:
Carlos may request that the Immigration Judge terminate his removal case based on his pending I-601A waiver and any other relevant grounds.

• Benefits:
  • Allows Carlos to complete his waiver application with USCIS and, if approved, proceed to consular processing for his immigrant visa abroad.
  • The process before USCIS is generally faster, more predictable, and avoids EOIR court backlog and delays.
• Risks/Considerations:
  • If departing the United States for consular processing, Carlos must ensure his I-601A is approved. If denied, he may face significant reentry bars.
  • Must assess the risk of expedited removal should his case be terminated while the waiver is pending.
  • All required evidence (USCIS receipt, supporting documents) must be prepared and presented with the motion to terminate.
• Best Practice: File a motion to terminate removal proceedings, attach the I-601A receipt and support, and clearly explain why termination is preferable. Counsel Carlos about risks and process before making this decision.

Termination of Proceedings (Permanent Case End):
Under regulations effective July 29, 2024 (8 CFR §1003.18(d)), immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals can now end—not just pause—removal cases in several specific scenarios. When a case is terminated, it is completely closed and cannot be restored unless the Department of Homeland Security files new charges. This is a more decisive outcome than administrative closure, which merely suspends a case until further notice.

Mandatory termination applies if:
– No charge of removability can be proven,
– The noncitizen obtains citizenship or qualifying legal status (LPR, asylee, refugee, or designated survivor/trafficking visas),
– Mental incompetency renders a fair hearing impossible,
– Both parties jointly move for termination, or other legal requirements (like NACARA adjustment, see 8 CFR §1245.13(l)) are met.

Judges also have discretionary authority to terminate cases in selected additional circumstances based on a full review of the record, and DHS no longer has unilateral veto power over this relief.

Regulatory authority: 8 CFR §1003.18(d) (July 2024); see ILRC Practice Advisory, ilrc.org/resources/seeking-administrative-closure-and-termination-using-new-eoir-regulations-hostile.

Sample Language for Motion to Terminate (for Carlos):

“Respondent has a pending I-601A provisional waiver (receipt attached). In light of these circumstances, termination of proceedings will allow the respondent to pursue consular processing following waiver approval, avoiding unnecessary delay and hardship associated with backlogged removal proceedings.”

Law on Motions to Terminate Removal Proceedings

• Motions to terminate are governed by 8 CFR §§ 1003.18(d) and 1003.1(m).
• Termination ends removal proceedings entirely; a new Notice to Appear (NTA) is required to bring someone back into court.
• Mandatory termination: The immigration judge must terminate proceedings in specific situations set out in the regulations, such as lack of jurisdiction, ineligible charging documents, granted relief (e.g. U visa, TPS, DACA, SIJ, DALE), or other qualifying status.
• Discretionary termination: Even if mandatory grounds do not apply, the judge may terminate in the exercise of discretion—for instance, where law or circumstances justify resolving the case without further proceedings.
• The motion should identify all relevant mandatory and discretionary grounds, and include documentary evidence supporting those grounds (e.g. grant notices, proof of pending application, deferred action approval).