T-Visa Application Pending: Responding to Opposition to Court Termination

Start with the current USCIS form.

You have filed a T-visa application, but DHS wants the immigration case to continue. The next step is a focused response to the opposition, supported by the notices you actually have. This guide explains how to distinguish the available court requests and avoid mistaking a pending application for protection already granted.

DHS opposes termination. What must the judge decide?

A pending T-visa application does not require the immigration judge to end the removal case. If DHS objects, identify its actual reason and answer it with the filed application, the relevant USCIS notice and the procedural history. The question is not simply whether trafficking occurred. It is why the particular court disposition is justified now. USCIS decides the T application; the judge decides the court request.

A receipt and a favorable decision prove different things

A receipt establishes that USCIS received a filing. It does not establish that every eligibility requirement is met, that USCIS made a bona-fide determination or that deferred action was granted. Prepare a short table identifying each notice, its date and what it actually decides. If the motion relies on prima-facie eligibility, connect the evidence to the required elements rather than treating the receipt as a merits ruling.

Check whether the ground asserted is actually available

The published docket-management rule distinguishes a filed application with prima-facie eligibility under section 1003.18(d)(1)(ii)(B) from granted deferred action under subsection (C). They are separate discretionary grounds. An employment-authorization request, an anticipated T filing or a lawyer’s prediction that deferred action will be granted is not the same as an existing grant. Identify the precise ground and attach the evidence that supports it.

Answer the opposition without relitigating a different case

In Matter of Santiago-Santiago, 29 I&N Dec. 589, 590–592 (BIA 2026), the judge relied on DACA but did not adequately address DHS’s opposition and the relevant favorable and adverse considerations. DHS pointed to the absence of evidence that the respondent’s spouse had filed an immigrant visa petition. The Board also emphasized DHS’s interest in resolving the proceedings on the merits and in finality, concerns the termination motion needed to address. The Board remanded. The case concerned DACA, not a T application. Its useful lesson here is how to explain discretion: Identify the actual pending process, the requested disposition and the answer to DHS’s stated concern.

Explain why ending the case is better than pausing it

If USCIS already has the application, explain what termination would accomplish that a continuance or administrative closure would not. Address the expected effect of a USCIS denial, the history of delay and the government’s interest in resolving removability. Do not promise that termination grants lawful status or prevents future proceedings. A factual explanation of the requested outcome is more useful than a general appeal to fairness.

Separate bona-fide review from deferred action and final approval

USCIS’s T-visa policy distinguishes an initial bona-fide determination from the discretionary decision to grant deferred action and employment authorization, and from final T approval. A person who does not receive deferred action or a bona-fide employment document may still proceed to full review of the T application; that outcome is not itself a denial of Form I-914. Conversely, a favorable initial notice does not guarantee final approval. Quote the actual notice accurately and update the court if the stage changes.

Ask DHS to state its position on the actual request

Provide the proposed disposition and supporting record, and preserve the response. Affirmative non-opposition is different from silence. Under the published rule, a joint motion or affirmative non-opposition receives mandatory-termination treatment subject to unusual, clearly identified and supported reasons for denial. A contested motion does not acquire that treatment merely because counsel asked DHS to join. Explain unresolved disagreements candidly.

Keep the hearing and removal-protection questions separate

Continue complying with the court’s schedule unless an order changes it. Administrative closure temporarily removes a case from the active calendar; it does not grant T status, and either party can seek recalendaring. Its factors include likely success outside court, duration, responsibility for delay, anticipated outcome and detention. A final removal order requires a separate stay analysis. USCIS expressly says merely filing Form I-914 does not automatically stay removal; ICE, rather than the judge or Board, decides an administrative stay requested on the basis of the T filing. Do not infer protection from an unresolved court motion.

Read the order before assuming the problem is over

A grant, denial, continuance and administrative closure have different consequences. Obtain the actual ruling and identify any remaining hearing or filing obligation. If USCIS later approves T status, its policy distinguishes a DHS-issued order, which is cancelled by operation of law under the T regulation, from an immigration-judge or Board order, for which reopening and termination must be sought in the appropriate forum. Bring the charging document, court ruling and USCIS decision together so counsel can identify the remaining step.