Motion to Reopen or Reconsider? Different Immigration Court Records and Deadlines

Review the primary official source.

Identify the decision-maker and operative order

A motion to reopen and a motion to reconsider ask for different forms of review. Reopening generally relies on new facts supported by evidence that was not previously available or presented. Reconsideration asks the same tribunal to revisit an alleged error of fact or law in the prior decision based on the existing record. Begin with the complete order, service evidence, tribunal, custody posture, and any pending petition for review or appeal.

Start with the operative source and the decision it controls. Record the version, effective date, service method, and relationship to other rules or orders. Agency summaries are useful orientation, but the statute, regulation, order, or current filed notice controls the particular step.

Read the governing EOIR Immigration Court guidance; EOIR filing-deadline chart; BIA Practice Manual motion guidance with the complete record before applying this discussion to a current matter.

Choose the correct procedural vehicle

EOIR’s public guidance states that a motion to reopen is generally due within ninety days of a final administrative order, while a motion to reconsider is generally due within thirty days. Numerical limits and statutory or regulatory exceptions can change the analysis. Filing rules also differ depending on whether the immigration judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals issued the decision. Use the current manual and calculate the deadline from the operative event.

Build a chronology from contemporaneous records before drawing conclusions. Mark dates as confirmed, reported, disputed, or unknown. Preserve original envelopes, portal receipts, electronic metadata, and complete documents rather than screenshots or isolated pages.

Urgency should sharpen verification, not replace it. A short, documented chronology is more useful than a confident account that merges confirmed facts with assumptions.

Calendar receipt-based filing limits

For reopening, identify each new fact, why the evidence was previously unavailable, and how it could change the result. Include declarations, records, country evidence, eligibility materials, and proof of diligence where relevant. For reconsideration, identify the precise finding, governing authority, record citation, and claimed error. Repackaging old arguments as new evidence—or introducing new facts under a reconsideration label—can obscure the requested relief.

Map each record to the proposition it supports. A document proving notice may not prove timeliness, identity, causation, eligibility, or remedy. An issue-based index exposes gaps and prevents one favorable record from being asked to establish the entire case.

Place this issue beside our related guidance while keeping the distinct procedure and remedy analyzed here separate.

Connect every ground to the proper record

A motion does not automatically stay removal. Separate the motion, any stay request, custody strategy, and federal-court deadline. Confirm filing location, fee or waiver, proof of service, page limits, translation requirements, and receipt. If both reopening and reconsideration grounds exist, organize them distinctly and confirm that each independently satisfies its deadline, content rules, and requested disposition.

Finish with an authority-and-deadline review. Identify who can act, what that decision-maker can order, the earliest event that could narrow options, and the record still missing. Assign each follow-up and verify receipt instead of assuming that transmission completed the step.

For a focused review, assemble:

• complete decision and proof of service
• immigration-court and BIA record
• new evidence with availability chronology
• error chart with authority and record citations
• filing, fee, service, receipt, and stay records

Then compare the record with our related analysis and identify the next decision, deadline, and missing document.

Integrating the record

Organize the working file in three layers. First, keep a source set containing the controlling statute, regulation, agency instruction, or filed order in the version actually reviewed. Second, maintain a dated factual chronology with links to the documents supporting each event. Third, use an issue chart that states what must be shown, which evidence supports it, which evidence cuts the other way, and what remains missing. This structure prevents an old notice, incomplete download, or later recollection from silently replacing the operative source or contemporaneous record.

Communications belong in the same system. Preserve letters, emails, portal messages, call notes, tracking records, and acknowledgments in chronological order. Record who sent each item, the destination, the method, and confirmed receipt. Where a deadline depends on service or receipt, keep the envelope or electronic metadata. Where a decision depends on discretion, preserve both favorable and unfavorable facts so counsel can evaluate the complete presentation rather than a curated fragment.

Verification before action

A useful review ends by confirming that every cited source remains current, every linked decision is the complete filed document, and the known facts actually fit the rule. Court orders may bind only the parties and posture before that court. Agency guidance may describe a process without resolving a statutory exception. Preserve the operative version and the date it was reviewed.

Identify the first event that could change the available options: a hearing, appeal deadline, transfer, levy, transaction, medical appointment, or agency action. Work backward from that event. If a key fact remains unknown, label it unknown and investigate it. That discipline turns general information into an organized record for counsel without mistaking the article for a completed case-specific analysis.