When USCIS Relief Is Too Speculative for Termination: Matter of Roque-Izada

Roque-Izada involved a request to terminate so the respondent could pursue Cuban Adjustment Act relief before USCIS based on the possibility that USCIS might later grant humanitarian parole. The Board found that theory too speculative and emphasized that there was no persuasive evidence of existing parole or a concrete basis to expect it. The case is a useful reminder that termination should rest on present eligibility facts, not a chain of discretionary events that may or may not occur after EOIR ends the proceedings.

Roque-Izada requires more than the possibility that USCIS could later create eligibility. Termination is not warranted when the asserted path to adjustment depends on speculation about a discretionary predicate that has not been granted and is not otherwise established in the record.

Before seeking termination, identify every legal predicate between the current status and the requested USCIS benefit. Distinguish existing facts—such as an approved petition or current parole—from hoped-for future agency actions. The farther the chain extends, the more carefully each link must be supported.

Include proof of current admission or parole, petition approvals, statutory eligibility, USCIS jurisdiction, and any agency decision already made. Do not characterize a request for parole, waiver, or other discretionary action as though approval had occurred.

The case does not eliminate termination authority recognized in Coronado Acevedo. It instead requires a realistic and legally grounded pathway. A respondent who already possesses the necessary predicate status or approval presents a different record from one asking the court to assume USCIS will create eligibility later.

EOIR decides whether to terminate; USCIS decides benefits within its jurisdiction. Roque-Izada prevents the termination analysis from collapsing those roles by treating hypothetical future USCIS action as an established fact.

DHS may identify missing predicates, challenge prima facie adjustment eligibility, or argue that the respondent is asking the court to forecast a discretionary USCIS grant. The response should either prove the predicate or candidly explain why the governing law still makes the path sufficiently concrete.

Create a predicate chart before filing: current status, required USCIS action, statutory consequence, next application, and final relief. If one step is legally unavailable or purely speculative, consider whether another procedural request is more appropriate.

The decision should specify which predicate is missing or established, why that affects the availability of USCIS relief, and how the case fits with Coronado Acevedo. A generalized statement that relief is possible is not enough.

Appellate briefing should focus on the exact predicate the Board or Immigration Judge considered speculative. If documentary evidence established that fact, cite it. If the dispute instead concerns legal effect, frame the issue as statutory or regulatory interpretation rather than probability.

When a proposed USCIS benefit requires a condition the respondent does not yet possess, identify whether that condition is ministerial, pending, discretionary, or merely contemplated. An approved petition awaiting a routine next step is different from a future parole grant, waiver, or classification with no current filing or evidentiary foundation. The motion should not collapse these stages into a single assertion of “eligibility.” The Immigration Judge needs to know whether termination unlocks an existing benefit or simply creates an opportunity to ask another agency for a new discretionary predicate.

Roque-Izada also noted that the Immigration Judge had jurisdiction to adjudicate the respondent’s Cuban Adjustment Act application. If EOIR can decide the relief directly, termination may not be necessary merely because the respondent prefers USCIS as the forum. A motion should therefore identify any legal reason USCIS must adjudicate the benefit or any limitation that prevents EOIR from granting equivalent relief. Forum preference alone is not the same as a jurisdictional need.

General proof that USCIS has granted similar discretionary benefits to other applicants does not establish that this respondent will receive one. The record should contain individualized facts satisfying the relevant threshold and should distinguish objective eligibility from predictions about agency discretion. If the key predicate is discretionary, counsel should be candid about that uncertainty and explain any concrete evidence supporting the request. Overstating probability can make the entire termination theory appear speculative.

Before filing, identify every event that must occur between termination and the ultimate immigration benefit. If several unfiled or discretionary steps appear in that chain, ask whether another procedural mechanism is more appropriate or whether additional predicates should be secured first. This exercise can prevent premature termination motions and clarify what evidence is missing. It also helps counsel explain why a later renewed request is materially different if USCIS subsequently grants the predicate that was previously speculative.

The best timing is usually when the collateral path is concrete enough to show prima facie eligibility and a defined next step. Filing before key predicates exist can make the request look speculative; waiting too long can create unnecessary litigation and enforcement risk.