Matter of Pierre-Louis: The Board Will Not Reopen an Arriving Alien’s Case So USCIS Can Grant a Green Card

This is a common Miami fact pattern. Someone charged as an “arriving alien” — often a person who came in on parole — loses in immigration court, and years later marries a citizen or sees a spouse naturalize. The immigration judge cannot grant adjustment to an arriving alien; only USCIS can. So the person asks the Board to reopen and terminate the old case to clear the way. On October 30 the Board said, as precedent, that it generally will not.

The case

The respondent, from Haiti, was served a notice to appear in February 2017 as an arriving alien and ordered removed in September 2018. The Board dismissed his appeal in February 2021 and denied a remand for adjustment, because USCIS has exclusive jurisdiction over an arriving alien’s adjustment application. A first motion to reopen was denied in 2023; a second, based on a grant of Temporary Protected Status, was denied in 2024. The third motion, filed in March 2025, said his wife had naturalized, an immigrant visa was immediately available, and she suffers from psychological disorders; he asked the Board to use its sua sponte authority because the motion was both untimely and number-barred.

The Board denied it. It reaffirmed Matter of Yauri: the Board “will not generally exercise its discretion to sua sponte reopen exclusion, deportation, or removal proceedings pending a third party’s adjudication of an underlying application that is not itself within our jurisdiction.” Its reasons were resources — “best allocated to matters over which we have jurisdiction to prevent further overcrowding of our dockets” — and the existence of an alternative: “aliens may request a stay of removal from the Department of Homeland Security (‘DHS’) while an application is adjudicated.” A request to reopen so an arriving alien can adjust before USCIS “is a common situation, not an exceptional one.”

The Ninth Circuit wrinkle

The case arose in the Ninth Circuit, whose 2014 decision in Singh v. Holder rejected Yauri’s first holding — that the Board lacks authority to reopen for collateral relief. The Board acknowledged that Singh binds it there, then rested on Yauri’s second holding, which Singh never reached: even where reopening is not precluded, the Board will, as a matter of discretion, decline. The decision does not discuss the Eleventh Circuit, where Miami cases arise; absent contrary circuit law, the Board’s precedent applies there.

What the path is instead

The decision does not say an arriving alien with a final order cannot get a green card. It says the removal case will not be reopened to make room for it. The adjustment application is filed with USCIS while the order stands; a stay of removal is requested from DHS; and the Board had noted in 2024 that this respondent had been issued advance parole and could seek parole from ICE. Each of those steps has its own risks and timing, and a final order of removal makes the sequence unforgiving. Anyone in this posture — an old arriving-alien order, a new citizen spouse — should have the whole plan reviewed before anything is filed.

This article is general legal information about a recent precedent decision, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Whether and how a person with a final order may pursue adjustment of status depends on the facts, the circuit, and the current practice of USCIS and ICE. Consult a qualified immigration attorney before filing anything. This website is attorney advertising.