By the Law Firm of Nisreen S. Mousa, P.C. | Houston, Texas | Immigration and Removal Defense | Updated July 2, 2026
When a green card applicant is placed in removal proceedings while a fully developed adjustment of status application is already pending with USCIS, the removal case can become the only thing standing between the applicant and a decision the agency is ready to make. Under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.18(d)(1)(ii)(B), an immigration judge has discretion to terminate removal proceedings so that USCIS can finish adjudicating that application. A recent federal court decision, Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS, No. 1:26-cv-00132 (D.R.I. June 5, 2026), removed one of the largest obstacles that had frozen many of these cases: the USCIS “hold” policies tied to the travel ban. This article explains how the regulation and the ruling work, and how they can work together to move a stalled case forward.
Key Takeaways
- 8 C.F.R. § 1003.18(d)(1)(ii)(B) lets an immigration judge terminate removal proceedings when a noncitizen is prima facie eligible for lawful status and USCIS has jurisdiction over the underlying application.
- Dorcas v. USCIS (D.R.I. June 5, 2026) vacated the USCIS policies that had paused adjudication of benefit applications for nationals of designated travel ban countries.
- Used together, the regulation and the ruling can clear the path for a paused adjustment of status (Form I-485) case to be decided by USCIS.
- The Dorcas ruling is on appeal to the First Circuit and a stay request is pending, so the landscape is still developing.
- These motions are discretionary and fact-specific. The strength of the record and the strategy behind the motion matter.
What Is 8 C.F.R. § 1003.18(d)(1)(ii)(B)?
This regulation is part of the Department of Justice rule titled “Efficient Case and Docket Management in Immigration Proceedings,” 89 Fed. Reg. 46742 (May 29, 2024), which took effect on July 29, 2024. It gives an immigration judge discretionary authority to terminate removal proceedings when three conditions are met:
- The noncitizen is prima facie eligible for naturalization, relief from removal, or lawful status.
- USCIS would have jurisdiction to adjudicate the associated petition or application if the person were not in removal proceedings.
- The person has filed that petition or application with USCIS.
The regulation adds an important point: no separate filing is required where the person is prima facie eligible for adjustment of status or naturalization.
The Board of Immigration Appeals summarized the core of the rule in Matter of Roque-Izada, 29 I&N Dec. 106 (BIA 2025): an immigration judge has discretionary authority to terminate proceedings where a respondent shows prima facie eligibility for adjustment of status and that USCIS has jurisdiction to adjudicate the adjustment application.
Does DHS Get to Veto a Motion to Terminate?
Not for adjustment-based motions. The regulation contains a specific limitation: if the basis for termination is prima facie eligibility for naturalization, the judge cannot grant the motion over DHS opposition. That automatic veto does not apply when the basis is prima facie eligibility for lawful status through adjustment of status. In that situation, the judge may grant termination in the exercise of discretion even if DHS opposes, after weighing the reason termination is sought and the basis for any opposition. This distinction is often decisive in the current enforcement climate, where the government frequently declines to join termination motions.
The Precedent Behind the Regulation: Coronado Acevedo and Roque-Izada
The regulation did not appear in a vacuum. In Matter of Coronado Acevedo, 28 I&N Dec. 648 (A.G. 2022), the Attorney General confirmed that immigration judges may consider and, where appropriate, grant termination where doing so is necessary for a respondent to pursue immigration relief before USCIS. The 2024 rule then codified much of that approach, and Matter of Roque-Izada confirmed the operative test. Read together, they establish that termination is a recognized, regulation-backed tool, not an extraordinary favor.
Villeda Chavez v. Bondi: The Fifth Circuit Applies the Framework to Marriage-Based Cases
For cases in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, the Fifth Circuit’s guidance is especially relevant. In Villeda Chavez v. Bondi, No. 25-60230 (5th Cir. Mar. 9, 2026) (unpublished), the court vacated and remanded a Board decision that had denied a motion to terminate in a marriage-based adjustment case. The petitioner had married a U.S. citizen, an I-130 had been filed on her behalf, and she had filed an I-485. The court held that failing to apply the termination regulation to that situation was an abuse of discretion, reasoning that a tribunal must apply the law in effect at the time it renders its decision. Although the opinion is unpublished and therefore persuasive rather than binding, it is directly on point for family-based adjustment cases arising in the Fifth Circuit.
Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS, Explained
Beginning in late 2025, USCIS issued policies that paused or delayed adjudication of immigration benefit applications for nationals of the countries designated under the travel ban proclamations (Proclamation 10949 and Proclamation 10998, which together reached thirty-nine countries), and, in practice, for certain stateless applicants and holders of Palestinian Authority documentation. For many applicants with completed interviews and complete records, the only thing missing was a decision.
On June 5, 2026, Chief Judge John J. McConnell, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island issued a sweeping decision in Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS, No. 1:26-cv-00132 (D.R.I. June 5, 2026). The court held that four USCIS policies violated the Administrative Procedure Act and exceeded the agency’s authority, and it vacated them:
- the Global Asylum Hold Policy;
- the Benefits Hold Policy, which froze adjudication of adjustment of status and employment authorization applications;
- the Comprehensive Re-Review Policy; and
- the Country-Specific Factors Policy, which treated nationality from a designated country as a significant negative discretionary factor.
Two features of the ruling matter most. First, the court found that USCIS lacked the authority to impose a blanket freeze on adjudications based on nationality, and that the agency had failed to reasonably explain its policies or to account for the reliance interests of applicants who had filed properly, paid their fees, and attended their interviews. Second, the remedy was vacatur of the policies themselves, which applies agency-wide, rather than relief limited to the named plaintiffs. The court entered final judgment on June 11, 2026, and USCIS has acknowledged that the vacated issuances (PM-602-0192, PM-602-0194, and PA-2025-26) should be treated as though they are not in effect.
Current Status: The Appeal and Pending Stay
This is a developing area of law. The government has appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (No. 26-1703) and has asked the court to pause the ruling while the appeal proceeds. If a stay is granted, the holds could resume. Anyone whose case was affected should confirm the current status before relying on the ruling and should be prepared for the landscape to shift. Importantly, the ruling does not eliminate the underlying travel ban and does not reopen overseas visa processing.
How the Regulation and the Ruling Work Together to Move a Case Forward
Here is where the two threads meet. Consider a common scenario: a person is the beneficiary of an approved I-130 filed by a U.S. citizen spouse, has filed an I-485 (and, where a ground of inadmissibility applies, a Form I-601 waiver), has attended one or more adjustment interviews, and has a complete record. USCIS has jurisdiction over the adjustment application, and the person is prima facie eligible for the relief sought. The only reason no decision issued was a hold policy that a federal court has now vacated.
In that situation, keeping the case in immigration court accomplishes nothing except delay and duplication. The immigration judge generally cannot reach into the USCIS file and grant the adjustment, and forcing the applicant to relitigate the same record in an adversarial hearing wastes the court’s limited time. Termination under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.18(d)(1)(ii)(B) returns the case to the agency that is positioned to finish it. That is precisely the efficient case and docket management purpose the regulation was written to serve, and courts have recognized it when the elements are met.
Termination is typically requested without prejudice, which preserves the government’s interests. If USCIS were to deny the application, the Department of Homeland Security could issue a new Notice to Appear and resume proceedings. If USCIS grants it, the person becomes a lawful permanent resident and further litigation serves no purpose.
Our Firm’s Experience With These Motions
Our firm recently secured termination of removal proceedings for a client using this exact framework, in a family-based adjustment matter where a substantially completed USCIS adjudication had been paused by the now-vacated hold policies. We build these motions on the strongest available grounds: the text of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.18(d)(1)(ii)(B), the controlling precedent, the Fifth Circuit’s guidance, and a fully documented record establishing prima facie eligibility and USCIS jurisdiction. We also plan for contingencies, including the possibility that the government opposes or appeals, so that the client’s position is protected either way.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is 8 C.F.R. § 1003.18(d)(1)(ii)(B)?
It is a federal regulation that gives immigration judges discretion to terminate removal proceedings when a noncitizen is prima facie eligible for lawful status (such as adjustment of status), USCIS has jurisdiction over the underlying application, and the application has been filed with USCIS. No separate filing is required where the person is prima facie eligible for adjustment of status or naturalization.
Can an immigration judge terminate my removal case so I can get my green card through USCIS?
Yes, in the right circumstances. If you are prima facie eligible for adjustment of status and USCIS has jurisdiction over your application, an immigration judge may terminate proceedings so USCIS can decide your case. Termination is discretionary, so the strength of the record and the arguments in the motion matter a great deal.
What is Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. USCIS?
It is a June 5, 2026 decision from the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island that struck down four USCIS policies, including the policy that paused adjudication of green card and work permit applications for nationals of designated travel ban countries. The court found the policies violated the Administrative Procedure Act and vacated them agency-wide.
My I-485 was paused because of my country of origin or the travel ban. Can it move forward now?
The Dorcas ruling vacated the policies that caused those pauses, and USCIS has said the policies should be treated as not in effect. In practice, resumed processing can be gradual, and the government has appealed, so you should confirm the current status of your case and of the litigation before relying on the ruling.
Which countries were affected by the USCIS hold policies?
The holds applied to nationals of the countries designated under Proclamation 10949 and Proclamation 10998, which together reached thirty-nine countries, and, in practice, to certain stateless applicants and holders of Palestinian Authority documentation. The specific list comes from the underlying proclamations.
Can DHS block a motion to terminate?
For a motion based on prima facie eligibility for naturalization, DHS opposition prevents the judge from granting it. For a motion based on prima facie eligibility for lawful status through adjustment of status, there is no automatic veto: the judge may grant termination in the exercise of discretion even over DHS opposition.
Is terminating removal proceedings the same as getting a green card?
No. Termination ends the removal case; it does not by itself grant lawful permanent residence. In these cases, termination clears the way for USCIS to adjudicate the pending adjustment application, which is the step that can lead to a green card.
What does “without prejudice” mean?
Termination without prejudice means the government keeps the ability to place the person back in proceedings later if circumstances change, for example if USCIS were to deny the application. It is a common and protective way to structure these motions.
Does the Dorcas ruling still apply if the government appeals?
As of now, the vacatur is in effect, but the government has appealed to the First Circuit and has asked the court to pause the ruling during the appeal. If a stay is granted, the holds could resume. This is why timing and ongoing monitoring are important, and why it helps to work with counsel who is tracking the litigation.
What happens after my removal proceedings are terminated?
The case leaves the immigration court’s active docket. If your adjustment application is pending with USCIS, the focus shifts to securing a decision from USCIS, which may include follow-up or an expedite request depending on the facts of your case.
Talk to a Houston Removal Defense and Immigration Attorney
If your removal case is standing in the way of a green card application that USCIS is ready to decide, or if your adjustment or work permit was paused because of the travel ban policies, the Law Firm of Nisreen S. Mousa can help you evaluate your options. We handle removal defense, motions to terminate, asylum, and family-based adjustment of status before the Houston Immigration Court.
Call us at (713) 828-0365 or contact us today to schedule a consultation.
About the Firm
The Law Firm of Nisreen S. Mousa, P.C. is a Houston-based immigration practice focused on removal defense and family-based immigration. Attorney Nisreen S. Mousa is licensed in Texas and Florida.
