Over the past year, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) attorneys have sharply increased their use of Motions to Pretermit in immigration court—especially in cases involving ACA Agreements (Administrative Closure Agreements).

These agreements were often created years ago, sometimes under different administrations, and many immigrants never fully understood their long‑term consequences. Now, DHS is aggressively attempting to enforce them to block applications for relief.

At ATR Law Group, we want our clients and community members to understand what ACA Agreements are, why DHS is suddenly relying on them, and what to do if DHS files a Motion to Pretermit in your case.

What Is a Motion to Pretermit?

A Motion to Pretermit is DHS’s attempt to deny a respondent’s application without a hearing. DHS argues that, as a matter of law, the person is not eligible for the requested relief—no testimony, no documents, and no day in court.

It is essentially a request to shut down the case before it even gets to the merits stage.

What Are ACA Agreements in EOIR?

ACA Agreements (Administrative Closure Agreements) are arrangements made between DHS and respondents—usually during a previous phase of the case—where the respondent agreed to specific conditions in exchange for administrative closure, termination, or another form of case resolution.

Common ACA terms have included:

• Agreeing to depart the U.S. by a certain date
• Agreeing not to file for certain forms of relief
• Agreeing to reopen the case only for a specific purpose
• Agreeing to maintain good moral character for a set period
• Agreeing to abide by prosecutorial discretion conditions

Many respondents were never fully advised about how binding or enforceable these agreements would become in the future. Today, DHS is treating these old agreements like strict contracts—using them to argue that immigrants are barred from applying for relief.

Why Is DHS Relying on ACA Agreements Now?

DHS attorneys are increasingly arguing that respondents are ineligible for relief because they:

• Allegedly violated terms of a prior ACA
• Filed for relief that the ACA supposedly restricted
• Missed a voluntary‑departure or departure-by date in the ACA
• Reopened a case contrary to the agreement
• Reapplied for relief after many years, contrary to past terms

This trend is particularly common in cases that were administratively closed long ago and have recently been reopened, either by counsel or by the court.

When Does DHS Usually File Motions to Pretermit Based on ACA Agreements?

DHS is most likely to file a Motion to Pretermit when:

1. The respondent previously had their case administratively closed under an ACA.
Once the case is reopened, DHS reviews the old terms and argues the respondent is bound by them.

2. The respondent is seeking a form of relief not permitted by the ACA.
DHS may argue the respondent waived the right to apply.

3. The ACA required departure by a certain date, and DHS claims the respondent did not leave.
Even if the agreement was vague or the departure deadline was unclear, DHS may assert breach.

4. The ACA included conditions DHS now claims were violated.
For example, if the agreement referenced good moral character or compliance with certain obligations.

5. The case has been dormant for many years.
Older cases are more likely to contain poorly documented or informal agreements that DHS interprets broadly.

6. DHS seeks docket efficiency.
Some local offices use pretermission to quickly eliminate cases based on technical or procedural arguments.

What Happens If DHS Files a Motion to Pretermit?

The immigration judge may:

• Order you to submit a written response
• Set a briefing schedule
• Review only written briefs without testimony
• Deny the application if no timely response is filed

A Motion to Pretermit is serious, but absolutely defendable with the right legal arguments.

How We Defend Against ACA‑Based Motions to Pretermit

At ATR Law Group, we push back aggressively when DHS misinterprets or overstates ACA terms. Our defense strategies often include:

• Arguing the ACA was not legally binding or enforceable
• Showing the agreement was vague, ambiguous, or not on the record
• Demonstrating that any alleged “violation” is factually incorrect
• Establishing that immigration law permits the relief despite the ACA
• Citing case law limiting DHS’s authority to enforce past agreements
• Raising due‑process concerns when agreements were entered without clear notice

DHS often overreaches in these motions. When challenged, many pretermission attempts fail.

Why This Trend Matters for Immigrants

DHS’s increased reliance on ACA Agreements means respondents must be prepared for unexpected legal arguments—especially in reopened or long‑pending cases.

Even if the agreement was made many years ago, DHS may still try to use it to block relief.

The good news: with experienced representation, you can challenge DHS’s interpretation and protect your eligibility for relief.

Need Help Responding to a Motion to Pretermit?

If DHS filed a Motion to Pretermit in your case—or if you suspect an old ACA Agreement might affect your options—our Phoenix immigration attorneys can help you understand your rights and defend your ability to apply for relief.

Call us at (602) 702‑0981 or request a consultation at www.atrlawgroup.com.

We’re here to help you move forward with confidence.