Motions to Reopen for a Marriage During Proceedings: Matter of Velarde-Pacheco

A Velarde motion asks EOIR to reopen proceedings so the respondent can pursue adjustment based on a marriage entered after proceedings began. USCIS still decides the I-130. The motion therefore must satisfy EOIR’s procedural requirements while presenting enough relationship evidence to show a strong likelihood that the marriage is bona fide. It should not ask the BIA or Immigration Judge to substitute its judgment for USCIS on petition approval. The two adjudications are connected but legally distinct.

Velarde identifies a discretionary framework for timely, non-number-barred motions that are not otherwise procedurally barred and that present a strong bona fide marriage showing. Matter of Lamus later clarified that DHS opposition cannot function as an automatic veto.

The motion should be drafted as both a reopening motion and a marriage-evidence filing. Establish timeliness and number compliance first, then attach the I-130 receipt, complete bona fide evidence, adjustment application or required supporting documents, visa availability, and proof of statutory eligibility.

Include the marriage certificate, I-130 receipt, relationship chronology, joint evidence, affidavits, immigration history, I-485 materials, and any USCIS interview notice. If the motion is untimely, Velarde alone does not solve the deadline problem; identify a separate reopening basis.

Velarde is not a general exception to motion deadlines or number limits. It also does not guarantee reopening whenever a post-proceedings marriage exists. The Board retains discretion, and the respondent must present a substantial bona fide record rather than wait for USCIS to build the case.

USCIS adjudicates the I-130, while EOIR decides whether to reopen and, if jurisdiction exists, may later adjudicate adjustment. The motion bridges these processes by asking EOIR to reopen before the collateral petition is finally decided.

DHS may contest procedural compliance, bona fides, adjustment eligibility, or the significance of the pending petition. After Lamus, the substance of the opposition matters; the mere existence of opposition is not sufficient by itself.

Address every Velarde factor explicitly under separate headings. If the I-130 has progressed since filing, supplement the record. A USCIS interview notice, RFE response, or approval can materially strengthen the reopening request.

A reasoned decision should address timeliness, number limits, other procedural bars, the strength of bona fide marriage evidence, DHS’s substantive position, adjustment eligibility, and discretion. Collapsing the analysis into a statement that the I-130 is pending is incomplete.

If reopening is denied, identify which Velarde factor failed and whether Lamus was applied to DHS opposition. The appellate argument should also distinguish a discretionary denial from a legal error regarding motion eligibility.

Before analyzing the marriage, determine whether the motion is timely and whether the respondent has already used the single motion to reopen generally allowed by statute and regulation. Velarde did not create a free-standing exception to those limits. If the filing is late or number barred, identify an applicable statutory exception, equitable tolling theory where legally available, joint motion, or other recognized basis. A compelling marriage record cannot cure a procedural defect that the motion fails to confront.

Do not rely only on the I-130 receipt. Include clear and convincing evidence indicating a strong likelihood that the marriage is genuine: relationship chronology, shared residence, finances, insurance, tax filings, family evidence, photographs, children where applicable, and explanations for adverse facts. If USCIS has scheduled an interview or issued an RFE, attach the notice and explain how the petition is progressing. The reopening record should be sufficient for EOIR to evaluate the marriage factor without waiting for an unknown future submission.

Matter of Yadav, 29 I&N Dec. 438 (BIA 2026), holds that a valid marriage to a United States citizen entered after a removal order does not itself constitute an exceptional situation warranting sua sponte reopening. Yadav does not erase Velarde, but it underscores the importance of timeliness and the distinction between a marriage entered while proceedings were ongoing and equities acquired only after a final order. Counsel should not present post-order marriage alone as a substitute for a recognized procedural basis to reopen.

Reopening has little value if the respondent cannot ultimately adjust. Confirm visa availability, court jurisdiction, inspection or parole, INA §245(i) or other exceptions where necessary, admissibility, and any §204(g)/§245(e) restriction. The motion should show the path from reopening to an adjudicable I-485. If a waiver is required, identify it and explain where it will be adjudicated. This lets EOIR evaluate reopening in the context of a complete relief theory rather than a petition that may never lead to residence.

The 90-day reopening deadline and numerical limits remain central unless a recognized exception or other basis applies. A marriage-based theory does not silently erase those procedural requirements.