Motion to Reopen a Deportation Order: Deadlines and Evidence

Under INA § 240(c)(7), applicants generally have 90 days from the final administrative order to file one motion to reopen. The deadline ordinarily runs from the final administrative decision, not a later notice from ICE.

Equitable tolling may apply in qualifying circumstances, including certain claims involving ineffective assistance of counsel. Applicants must establish the applicable legal requirements and demonstrate reasonable diligence.

The time and number limits generally do not apply to qualifying motions seeking asylum or withholding of removal based on changed country conditions. The evidence must be material and previously unavailable.

Under INA § 240(b)(5)(C), certain in absentia removal orders may be rescinded within 180 days for exceptional circumstances. Qualifying lack of notice or federal or state custody without fault may support rescission without that deadline.

Reopening introduces material facts that could not previously be presented. Reconsideration instead challenges legal or factual errors in the existing decision and generally carries a 30-day filing deadline.

Repeating arguments already considered does not ordinarily justify reopening. The requested procedure should match the reason the applicant challenges the original decision.

A motion ordinarily goes to the immigration court when the immigration judge issued the controlling decision and jurisdiction remains there. If the BIA issued the final administrative decision, the motion generally belongs before the Board.

When an appeal is pending before the BIA, new evidence ordinarily requires a motion to remand. The immigration judge generally lacks jurisdiction after the appeal transfers the case to the Board.

There is no standard EOIR form for an ordinary motion to reopen. The written submission must identify new facts, include supporting evidence, and satisfy the applicable filing requirements.

The filing package commonly includes:

• The challenged decision and requested relief
• Affidavits, declarations, or other material evidence
• The relevant relief application, when required
• Applicable fee documentation or a permitted waiver request
• Proof of service on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

Since February 23, 2026, EOIR has required electronic payment through its payment portal for applicable fees. The amount and availability of a fee waiver depend on the filing type and governing rules.

DHS, generally represented by ICE counsel, is the opposing party in removal proceedings. USCIS does not automatically require separate service merely because another immigration application is pending.

Relevant evidence might include updated country reports, medical records, sworn declarations, or documents establishing eligibility for relief. Applicants should explain when the evidence became available and how it affects the requested outcome.

A document created after the hearing is not automatically sufficient. The tribunal examines its substance, the earlier opportunity to present the information, and its relevance to the legal claim.

When reopening seeks additional immigration relief, the applicant generally must establish prima facie eligibility for that relief. The evidence must support the relevant statutory requirements rather than merely suggest a more favorable outcome.

Common obstacles include immaterial evidence, missed deadlines, and failure to explain prior unavailability. Establishing prima facie eligibility does not automatically require the tribunal to grant reopening.

The judge reviews the motion, supporting documents, and any DHS response before deciding whether reopening is warranted. A live evidentiary hearing is not required merely because the applicant requests reopening.

If proceedings reopen, the court may receive testimony, examine documents, and hear challenges from DHS counsel. The issues addressed depend on the relief requested and the scope of the reopening order.

An ordinary motion to reopen does not automatically stop removal under 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(f) and 1003.23(b). A separate stay request may be necessary, and filing that request does not itself suspend enforcement.

A qualifying motion to rescind an in absentia removal order automatically stays removal while the immigration judge considers the motion. Different rules govern certain older deportation proceedings, including appeals from the denial of reopening.

Applicants facing enforcement should distinguish an automatic statutory stay from a discretionary order issued by the immigration court, BIA, or DHS. Only an applicable automatic stay or an effective granted stay prevents execution of the order.

A Notice of Appeal, Form EOIR-26, generally must reach the BIA within 30 calendar days after the immigration judge renders an oral decision or mails a written decision. The Board applies the review standards in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(d)(3).

The BIA generally reviews legal questions de novo and factual findings for clear error, while discretionary determinations receive the applicable review. The Board may affirm, reverse, or remand the decision.

The BIA ordinarily reviews the administrative record rather than conducting a new evidentiary hearing. A party seeking consideration of previously unavailable evidence may request remand to the immigration judge.

The request should explain why the evidence matters and why it was not presented earlier. A pending appeal does not eliminate the requirements governing newly offered facts.

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, qualifying challenges generally proceed through a petition for review in the appropriate federal court of appeals. The ordinary deadline is 30 days, and filing a motion to reopen does not extend the deadline for reviewing the original removal order.

Courts generally review reopening denials for abuse of discretion, subject to applicable rules governing legal questions and jurisdiction. Federal review is not an unrestricted opportunity to introduce new evidence.

A habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 may address certain immigration detention claims. It generally does not replace the statutory petition-for-review process for challenging a removal order.

Possibly. Qualifying changed country conditions, certain in absentia orders, and other recognized exceptions permit filing outside the ordinary deadline. Equitable tolling may also apply when the applicant meets the governing requirements.

Generally, yes, unless an automatic stay applies or an authorized decision-maker grants a stay. The rules differ for certain in absentia orders, including some orders issued under older deportation procedures.