Using an Approved I-360 in Removal Proceedings: When It Supports Termination

This post focuses on what an approved Form I-360 can and cannot do in Immigration Court. The short answer is that an approved SIJ- or VAWA-based I-360 can be a strong litigation tool, but it does not automatically terminate removal proceedings.

The Core Legal Framework

Current EOIR regulations state that, after proceedings begin, an immigration judge or the Board may resolve a case through an order of dismissal or order of termination. See 8 C.F.R. § 1239.2(b). The regulation also says that a motion to dismiss for reasons outside 8 C.F.R. § 1239.2(c) is treated as a motion to terminate under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.18(d) in immigration court or 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(m) before the Board.

The Attorney General's decision in Matter of Coronado Acevedo, 28 I&N Dec. 648 (A.G. 2022) is also important. That decision overruled Matter of S-O-G- & F-D-B- and confirmed that immigration judges and the Board may consider termination or dismissal in certain limited circumstances, including where termination is necessary for the respondent to seek relief before USCIS.

That means termination authority exists. It does not mean every approved I-360 case should be terminated.

Why an Approved I-360 Matters

An approved I-360 can establish a major threshold point in the case:

• In an SIJ case, USCIS has already approved the respondent's SIJ classification.
• In a VAWA case, USCIS has already approved the respondent's self-petition.

That approval is often persuasive evidence that the respondent has a real path to lawful permanent residence. It can support:

• A motion to terminate;
• A request for DHS to join or not oppose termination;
• A continuance request while visa availability, waivers, or adjustment strategy are sorted out; or
• Status-docket management where immediate adjustment is not yet available.

SIJS Cases: Stronger Argument for USCIS-Facing Relief, but Not Automatic

SIJ cases have a specific jurisdiction wrinkle. USCIS policy guidance states that if an SIJ is in removal proceedings, the immigration court must terminate the proceedings before USCIS can adjudicate the adjustment application. That makes termination especially important in some SIJ cases.

But there is still a critical second question: is a visa available now?

For SIJ-based adjustment:

• The respondent still needs an immigrant visa to be immediately available before USCIS can approve adjustment.
• Visa backlogs in the EB-4 category mean many SIJ beneficiaries cannot adjust right away.
• When the visa is not current, termination may still be argued, but some courts may prefer continuances or other docket-management tools instead of ending the case outright.

So in SIJ cases, an approved I-360 is often the starting point for a termination argument, not the end of the analysis.

VAWA Cases: The Jurisdiction Question Comes First

VAWA cases require a more careful jurisdiction analysis. USCIS policy guidance explains that:

• Immediate-relative VAWA self-petitioners may often file adjustment as soon as they are otherwise eligible because visas are immediately available.
• Preference-category VAWA self-petitioners may need to wait for visa availability.
• In removal proceedings, the immigration judge generally has adjustment jurisdiction in non-arriving-alien cases, while USCIS generally retains jurisdiction over arriving-alien adjustment cases.

That means an approved VAWA I-360 does not always point to the same next step:

• In some cases, termination is strategically useful because USCIS must adjudicate the adjustment application.
• In other cases, the better move may be to pursue adjustment directly before the immigration judge rather than seek termination first.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

• Do not argue that an approved I-360 automatically ends the case.
• Do not treat SIJS and VAWA as identical. They are not.
• Do not assume USCIS will always adjudicate the I-485 after termination. Jurisdiction depends on the posture of the case.
• Do not ignore inadmissibility issues. An approved I-360 is not the same as an approved waiver.
• Do not discuss "derivative children" as if SIJS created derivative beneficiaries. SIJ classification does not create derivative beneficiaries, while some VAWA cases do involve derivatives.

Practical Takeaways

• Start with the approval notice for Form I-360 and the current charging documents.
• Determine whether the respondent is an arriving alien or a non-arriving alien.
• Check visa availability before presenting termination as the only sensible option.
• Review inadmissibility and waiver issues before telling the court the path to residence is clear.
• Seek DHS's position early. DHS concurrence is not legally required in every case, but it often helps materially.

Conclusion

An approved I-360 can be one of the strongest documents in a removal-defense file, but the right litigation move depends on benefit type, visa availability, adjustment jurisdiction, and inadmissibility. In SIJ cases, termination may be necessary before USCIS can decide adjustment. In VAWA cases, termination may be useful, but sometimes the better path is to pursue adjustment directly before the immigration judge.

Call to action: If you have an approved SIJ or VAWA Form I-360 and are in removal proceedings, contact New Horizons Legal to assess whether termination, continuances, or direct adjustment in court is the better strategy.

Disclaimer: This blog is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship.