Getting Your Removal Case Dismissed or Terminated in 2026: What Actually Works
If a government attorney asks the judge to dismiss your removal case, your first instinct will be relief. As of August 2026 that instinct is dangerous, and understanding why may be the most important thing you learn before your next hearing.
Start Here: An ICE Motion to Dismiss Is Often a Trap
Since May 2025, the Department of Homeland Security has used dismissal as an enforcement tool, not a favor. A government attorney moves to dismiss, often orally and without warning. The judge grants it. The person walks out, is arrested, and is processed for expedited removal, a procedure with no judge and almost no chance to present a defense.
The American Immigration Council, analyzing EOIR data from May 20 through July 28, 2025 and publishing in October and November 2025, found that DHS filed 6,210 motions to dismiss in that window. About 80.6 percent were made orally, roughly 86.5 percent were decided the same day, skipping the ten day response period, and judges granted about 79.6 percent of those. Grant rates ran from 193 of 193 in one Atlanta court to 77 of 268 in New York.
So the rule is simple. Do not consent. Do not agree on the record. Object out loud, in the moment, and follow up in writing. Dismissal is without prejudice, so the government can start over. Talk to a removal defense attorney serving the Lehigh Valley first.
Dismissal and Termination Are Not the Same Thing
People use these words interchangeably, and the difference is where clients get hurt. Termination ends the proceeding, usually because the government cannot prove its case. Either party may move for it.
Dismissal is different. Under 8 CFR 1239.2(c), only DHS may move to dismiss, and only on one of the seven grounds in 8 CFR 239.2(a), such as United States nationality, non removability, an improvidently issued Notice to Appear, or changed circumstances. If a respondent asks for dismissal on any other ground, judges treat it as a motion to terminate.
Prosecutorial Discretion in 2026: What Actually Remains
For years the standard advice was to request prosecutorial discretion from ICE. As of August 2026, that program does not meaningfully exist. Executive Order 14159, signed January 20, 2025, directs agencies to enforce the immigration laws against all removable noncitizens. There is no priority list. EOIR rescinded its guidance telling judges to weigh enforcement priorities, with PM 25-16 rescinding DM 23-04 on February 3, 2025. The 2022 Doyle memo that let ICE attorneys join dismissal requests in nonpriority cases is superseded in practice. Government attorneys still hold discretion, but no program stands behind it.
One carve out matters. In ICWC v. Noem, No. 2:25-cv-09848 (C.D. Cal.), the court granted class wide relief on May 20, 2026 and denied a stay pending appeal on July 28, 2026, blocking 2025 ICE policies that exposed U visa, T visa, and VAWA petitioners to removal without any prima facie eligibility check. See our overview of humanitarian relief options. It does not cover Special Immigrant Juvenile applicants.
A Judge Can Still Terminate Your Case: Matter of Coronado Acevedo Stands
In 2018, Matter of S-O-G- & F-D-B-, 27 I&N Dec. 462 (A.G. 2018), held that judges had no inherent authority to terminate or dismiss. It was overruled by Matter of Coronado Acevedo, 28 I&N Dec. 648 (A.G. 2022), issued November 17, 2022. Judges and the Board may now terminate or dismiss in three situations: when a person becomes a lawful permanent resident after proceedings begin, when the pending case forces foreign travel for visa processing, and when termination is necessary for relief before USCIS. As of August 2026, no Attorney General decision has reversed this.
Be realistic about the limits. In Matter of Arana Castillo, 29 I&N Dec. 593 (BIA 2026), decided March 12, 2026, the Board held that where respondents appear and DHS does not, the judge errs by terminating without taking pleadings. In Matter of Santiago-Santiago, 29 I&N Dec. 589 (BIA 2026), DACA alone did not justify termination. The authority is real, narrow, and must be asked for correctly.
The Regulations Shifted in June 2026, and the Scope Is Unsettled
A 2024 Department of Justice rule, Efficient Case and Docket Management in Immigration Proceedings, 89 FR 46742, wrote administrative closure and termination standards into 8 CFR 1003.18(c) and (d). On June 22, 2026, a federal court in the Northern District of Texas, in State of Texas v. United States Department of Justice, vacated that rule on the parties' joint motion, concluding that no statute lets judges indefinitely suspend cases.
We will tell you plainly what is not known. The scope of that vacatur is unsettled as of August 2026. It clearly reaches administrative closure. Whether it also wipes out the termination provisions at 8 CFR 1003.18(d) is unresolved, the published Code of Federal Regulations still displays 8 CFR 1003.18(c) and (d), and EOIR has issued no implementing guidance.
Pennsylvania and New Jersey clients have a backstop. In Arcos Sanchez v. Attorney General, 997 F.3d 113 (3d Cir. 2021), the Third Circuit held that general administrative closure authority is unambiguously authorized by 8 CFR 1003.10(b) and 1003.1(d)(1)(ii), binding precedent independent of the vacated rule. Read it with our analysis of the Board's recent closure rulings.
Did ICE just ask the judge to dismiss your case?
Do not agree on the record. Object in writing, and get counsel before your next hearing. We handle removal defense in the Philadelphia Immigration Court. Consultations by phone or Google Meet. Hablamos español.
Talk to a Removal Defense AttorneyOr call (484) 763-4984
The Ground That Still Wins Most Often: DHS Cannot Prove the Charge
The most durable path to termination is unchanged: the government has to prove its case. Under INA section 240(c)(3)(A) and 8 CFR 1240.8(a), if you were lawfully admitted, DHS must establish deportability by clear and convincing evidence. Under 8 CFR 1240.8(c), if you are charged as present without admission, DHS must first establish alienage before any burden shifts to you. If the charge is legally wrong, or the conviction does not categorically match it, the case should end.
The government's usual proof is a Form I-213. In Matter of Mercado-Martinez, 29 I&N Dec. 529 (BIA 2026), decided March 26, 2026, the Board held it carries a presumption of reliability, and a judge finding it unreliable must point to specific record evidence rebutting that presumption. Material errors or coercion can do it. A bare denial cannot.
Stop Filing Defective NTA Motions to Terminate
This is the most outdated advice still circulating, and it costs people hearings. For years lawyers argued that a Notice to Appear missing the time and date was fatally defective and required termination. That theory is gone. The Supreme Court decided Campos-Chaves v. Garland, 602 U.S. 447 (2024). Then came Matter of Laparra-Deleon, 29 I&N Dec. 389 (BIA 2026), decided December 17, 2025 and designated as precedent by the Attorney General on January 9, 2026, holding that a compliant notice of hearing is sufficient written notice even where the Notice to Appear was not. To be clear, that is a Board decision, not an Attorney General decision.
Matter of Lopez-Orellana, 29 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 2026), decided March 27, 2026, then held that the objection belongs to the respondent and is forfeited if not timely raised. One narrow use survives, and it is the objection itself. Raise it at your first master calendar hearing, on the record, or you lose it. See our discussion of in absentia removal orders and motions to reopen.
What This Means in the Lehigh Valley and at the Philadelphia Immigration Court
Pennsylvania removal cases are heard at the Philadelphia Immigration Court, 900 Market Street, Suite 504, Philadelphia, PA 19107. The York immigration court closed July 30, 2021, and Pennsylvania cases route to Philadelphia.
Be honest about your exposure. The Philadelphia Inquirer reported on April 21, 2026 that more than one hundred immigrants had been arrested after being followed from the Criminal Justice Center over roughly the previous year, and that officials declined to extend protections beyond the courthouse doors. Chicago and Oregon went further. Philadelphia has not.
Federal orders limiting these practices do not help here. One of them does reach Pennsylvania. In Pablo Sequen v. Albarran, No. 5:25-cv-06487 (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2026), the court vacated ICE's courthouse arrest policies and EOIR's Operating Policies and Procedures Memorandum 25-06 under the Administrative Procedure Act, and vacatur under 5 U.S.C. 706(2)(A) is not limited by geography. The government has appealed to the Ninth Circuit and, as of August 2026, no stay has been entered. Do not assume it protects you on the ground. Plaintiffs have already had to move to enforce that order. The narrower stay in African Communities Together v. Lyons covers only three Manhattan courthouses and does not reach Pennsylvania. The D.C. Circuit also vacated the stay of expanded expedited removal in Make the Road New York v. Mullin on June 23, 2026, so the nationwide designation is operative as of August 2026.
Practically: never attend a master calendar hearing alone, carry proof of more than two years of continuous presence, and make a family emergency plan beforehand.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is prosecutorial discretion still available in 2026?
Not as a program. Executive Order 14159, signed January 20, 2025, directs enforcement against all removable noncitizens, and EOIR rescinded its prosecutorial discretion guidance to judges through PM 25-16 on February 3, 2025. Individual ICE attorneys retain legal discretion, but no priority framework remains. The one meaningful exception is for U visa, T visa, and VAWA petitioners, who have class wide protection under ICWC v. Noem, a Central District of California order issued May 20, 2026. It does not cover Special Immigrant Juvenile applicants.
Can an immigration judge still terminate my case?
Yes. Matter of Coronado Acevedo, 28 I&N Dec. 648 (A.G. 2022) overruled the 2018 decision that had eliminated that authority, and as of August 2026 no Attorney General has reversed it. Judges may terminate where you became a lawful permanent resident after proceedings started, where the pending case blocks visa processing abroad, or where termination is necessary to pursue relief at USCIS. The strongest ground remains that DHS cannot prove the charge.
ICE is asking the judge to dismiss my case. Isn't that good news?
Usually not. Since May 2025, DHS has used dismissal to move people out of immigration court and into expedited removal, where there is no judge and almost no chance to present a case, sometimes with an arrest just outside the courthouse the same day. Dismissal is without prejudice, so DHS can start over. According to the American Immigration Council, between May 20 and July 28, 2025 DHS filed 6,210 motions to dismiss, over 80 percent orally, and judges granted about 80 percent on the spot. Do not consent. Do not agree on the record. Object.
My Notice to Appear didn't have a hearing date. Can I get my case terminated?
Almost certainly not, and this is the most outdated advice still circulating. Campos-Chaves v. Garland (2024), together with the Board's decisions in Matter of Laparra-Deleon, 29 I&N Dec. 389 (BIA 2026) and Matter of Lopez-Orellana, 29 I&N Dec. 533 (BIA 2026), closed this door. Under Lopez-Orellana the objection is yours to raise and you forfeit it if you do not raise it timely, and even a successful objection generally does not produce termination. Raise it at your first master calendar hearing.
What happens to my work permit if my case is dismissed?
It can end. If your employment authorization is tied to an application pending before the immigration court, most commonly a pending asylum application, dismissal can eliminate the basis for that work permit. It can also expose you to re detention if you were released on bond, and to reinstatement of a prior removal order under INA section 241(a)(5). This is one of several reasons a dismissal is not automatically a win.
Talk to Us Before Your Next Hearing
We cannot promise a dismissal or a termination, and any lawyer who does is not being straight with you. What we can tell you is what the record shows: outcomes on these motions vary enormously from judge to judge and courtroom to courtroom. In 2025, immigration courts granted DHS dismissal motions at rates ranging from under 30 percent in one court to 100 percent in another. What we control is the record. The cases that end well are the ones where somebody objected on the record, in writing, at the right moment, with evidence attached.
We represent clients before the Philadelphia Immigration Court and throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and we offer a free bilingual consultation. Call (484) 763-4984 or contact our Allentown office. If you have a hearing coming up, call now rather than after.
General legal information current as of August 2026, not legal advice. This law changes quickly. Consult a licensed attorney about your case.