Practitioner orientation

The EOIR motion to reopen

The law of reopening is scattered across statutes, regulations, agency guidance, Board decisions, and circuit opinions. Before drafting can begin, someone has to identify the right ground, determine jurisdiction, calculate the deadline, identify what evidence is missing, and make sure the filing itself will hold together. This page orients that review. It does not replace it.

By Julio Costa, LL.M. — licensed Brazilian attorney; legal consultant collaborating with U.S. immigration attorneys and law firms; not admitted to practice law in any U.S. jurisdiction. Authorities reviewed for currency through July 22, 2026. This page is general information for legal professionals, not legal advice for any case.

What a motion to reopen is

A motion to reopen asks the Immigration Judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals to reopen proceedings after a decision so that new facts or another legally recognized basis for reopening or rescission can be considered. Ordinary motions to reopen generally must state the new facts to be proven and must be supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material. Statutory rescission motions, joint motions, and requests invoking the adjudicator’s regulatory authority operate under distinct rules. The governing sources are principally 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7), 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2, and 8 C.F.R. § 1003.23.

A motion to reopen is not a motion to reconsider. A motion to reconsider challenges legal or factual error in the existing decision on the existing record; reopening generally seeks consideration of new facts, evidence, or a separate statutory or regulatory basis for reopening the proceedings.

For ordinary reopening, the adjudicator evaluates procedural compliance, whether the evidence is new and material, and — where applicable — prima facie eligibility for the relief sought. Different requirements govern statutory rescission and other specialized reopening mechanisms. A filing may still fail because it uses the wrong ground or forum, miscalculates the governing deadline, omits a required application or supporting record, or does not satisfy the applicable legal standard.

The filing deadline

The general deadline for an ordinary motion to reopen is 90 days from the final administrative order (8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i)). An in absentia removal order may generally be rescinded within 180 days when the failure to appear resulted from exceptional circumstances, or at any time upon a sufficient showing of lack of legally required notice or qualifying Federal or State custody through no fault of the respondent (§ 1229a(b)(5)(C)).

Separate time-and-number exceptions apply to motions based on material changed country conditions supporting asylum, statutory withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture (§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii), 1003.23(b)(4)(i)), and special rules apply to qualifying VAWA-based motions (§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(iv)). Equitable tolling may also be available depending on the claim, the record, and the governing circuit law.

Identifying the correct clock — and determining whether an exception or tolling theory is supported — belongs at the beginning of the case review, not the end.

Threshold requirements

Most motions require threshold analysis of forum, timeliness, number limitations, evidentiary support, service, and fees. The precise requirements depend on the reopening ground and procedural posture. Statutory rescission motions, for example, do not always require the same prima facie or new-evidence showing as ordinary reopening.

• final administrative posture and the correct forum — Immigration Judge or the Board;
• the applicable deadline, a statutory exception, or equitable tolling;
• the applicable number limitation or an exception to it;
• new and material evidence where required;
• prima facie eligibility where required;
• affidavits and supporting documentation where required;
• service and filing mechanics;
• fee payment, fee exemption, or a fee-waiver request as applicable.

Each element has its own body of law. The manual devotes a chapter to these threshold requirements before any ground-specific work begins.

The grounds for reopening

The manual develops seven motion-specific chapters. Chapters 3 through 8 are built on a recurring framework — purpose, threshold screening, strategic risk assessment, required documents and evidence, affidavit guidance, common failure points, and strategic notes — and Chapter 9 follows its own specialized settlement structure:

• In absentia — defective notice. Rescission based on the absence of legally sufficient notice of the hearing the respondent failed to attend. A defective initial Notice to Appear does not, by itself, necessarily establish lack of notice when a later statutorily compliant notice of hearing supplied the required time and place. See Campos-Chaves v. Garland, 602 U.S. 447 (2024), and Matter of Laparra-Deleon, 29 I&N Dec. 389 (BIA 2026).
• In absentia — exceptional circumstances. Rescission where the failure to appear resulted from circumstances beyond the respondent’s control.
• Ineffective assistance of counsel. Reopening under the framework of Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988), with its compliance and prejudice requirements.
• VAWA. Special rules, confidentiality protections, and evidentiary standards for survivors.
• New and material evidence / changed country conditions. The general pathway for reopening based on previously unavailable material evidence, and the separate exception for material changed country conditions supporting asylum, statutory withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture (8 U.S.C. § 1229a(c)(7)(C)(ii); 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.2(c)(3)(ii), 1003.23(b)(4)(i)).
• Sua sponte reopening. The Immigration Judge’s or Board’s regulatory discretionary authority to reopen or reconsider a matter on its own motion. Judicial review of a refusal to exercise that authority is sharply limited and varies by circuit.
• Calderon Jimenez joint motions. A time-limited settlement process for qualifying class members who reside or are detained in the six New England states. Eligible requests must be submitted to ICE OPLA by January 16, 2027.

Compatible grounds may be presented together when each is independently supported, their factual premises are consistent, and combining them is strategically appropriate. The free preview reproduces the manuscript’s treatment of that problem in full.

Motion to reopen templates

A template is a drafting aid, not a determination. It cannot decide whether reopening is available, which ground fits the record, which forum has jurisdiction, or what the deadline is — and a template used before those determinations tends to produce the failures listed above. A sound template must account for the ground’s elements, the governing circuit’s standards, the evidentiary record, and the procedural posture of the specific case.

The manual’s companion templates are built on that premise and are licensed with the Manual + Template Pack edition at publication. They are not distributed separately.

How to approach drafting a motion to reopen

At orientation level, the sequence is:

1. Review the order and the full procedural history.
2. Determine jurisdiction — whether the Immigration Judge or the Board should receive the motion.
3. Identify the ground and the deadline that governs it.
4. Build the evidentiary record the ground actually requires.
5. Draft, then independently verify filing mechanics, service, and fees before submission.

Each step carries its own body of law; this page states the sequence, not the analysis.

Where to go deeper

The complete Table of Contents shows the full architecture — the decision tree, the threshold requirements, the seven motion chapters, evidence assembly, filing mechanics, fees, and the appendices. The free preview reproduces a selected passage exactly as it appears in the manual.