BIA One-Motion Limit Is Absolute: Matter of M-M-L-J- (2026)

The BIA ruled that under INA § 240(c)(7)(A), an immigrant in removal proceedings is allowed to file exactly one motion to reopen — whether with the Immigration Court or with the BIA itself. The only statutory exception is for battered spouses, children, and parents under INA § 240(c)(7)(C)(iv). Congress did not write any other exception into the statute. Because Congress spelled out exactly one exception, the BIA held, the statute's silence on every other possible exception means those exceptions do not exist.

Equitable tolling is a legal doctrine that courts sometimes use to extend a deadline when a person missed it through no fault of their own — most commonly when their attorney gave them bad advice or handled their case improperly. For years, a widely used argument went like this: "My attorney filed that motion incorrectly, or failed to file it at the right time, and that lawyer malpractice is why my motion should be allowed to go forward even though the deadline or the number bar applies." The BIA has now said that argument works for the 90-day time deadline — equitable tolling of the time limit is not what this decision is about — but it does not work for the one-motion number bar. The decision states clearly at p.848: "while the filing deadline for such motions may be tolled, the statute mandates a limitation on the number of motions that may be filed." That sentence is the load-bearing distinction for anyone reading this post.

The BIA adopted the reasoning of the Fifth Circuit's 2025 decision in Garcia Morin v. Bondi, 152 F.4th 626 (5th Cir. 2025), cert. denied, 224 L.Ed.2d 498 (Apr. 20, 2026). The Fifth Circuit, quoting the U.S. Supreme Court's 2023 decision in Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465 (2023), explained that a deadline is merely about when you can bring a claim. A number bar is different in kind — it is a "modified res judicata rule" that embodies Congress's deliberate judgment about how many bites at the apple are appropriate.

Put simply: courts have traditionally had the power to pause a clock. They do not have the same power to override a Congress-set limit on how many times a claim can be brought. The BIA said that distinction applies equally in immigration — neither the Immigration Courts nor the Board have identified any source of equitable authority to override the number bar, and they declined to invent one.

The statute itself provides an exception for battered spouses, children, and parents under INA § 240(c)(7)(C)(iv). If you or your child experienced battery or extreme cruelty at the hands of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident spouse or parent, this exception may allow a motion to reopen that would otherwise be number-barred. It has four strict statutory requirements. This is not an exception you self-apply — it requires careful legal analysis.

The Immigration Court and the BIA both have independent authority to reopen a case on their own motion — "sua sponte" — at any time, regardless of the number bar — though this is a discretionary power reserved for exceptional circumstances, not something available on request. The BIA is clear that sua sponte authority is "separate and not related to the analysis of whether a motion to reopen is number-barred."

There is a critical catch: the BIA has consistently held that sua sponte is limited to "exceptional circumstances" and is not a tool to cure filing defects or circumvent the regulations simply because enforcing them causes hardship. In this very decision, the BIA declined to exercise sua sponte authority because the respondent's equities — including a marriage to a U.S. citizen — had been acquired years after his removal order, and no exceptional situation existed on the record.

Requesting sua sponte reopening requires a genuine showing of exceptional circumstances, not just hardship. Whether your situation qualifies is a question for an attorney, not the internet.

The BIA expressly noted in a footnote that it was not deciding whether the number bar applies to motions to reopen for asylum or related relief based on changed country conditions or circumstances. If your underlying case involves asylum and there have been genuine changes in the country you are fleeing, this avenue may exist separately and deserves individual analysis.

The BIA is the highest administrative body in the immigration system, but it is not the last word. A final BIA order can be challenged in the federal court of appeals for the circuit where the immigration court was located. Several circuit courts (the Second, Seventh, and Ninth) have applied equitable tolling to the number bar in some fashion, and those decisions remain the law in their circuits. But both the Fifth Circuit (in Garcia Morin) and now the BIA have rejected that reasoning, and the BIA noted those earlier decisions offered "minimal analysis." This is a genuinely contested and evolving landscape.

Whether federal court review makes sense for a specific case depends on which circuit you are in and the strength of the arguments available. For an overview of the firm's BIA appellate work, see our appellate advocacy practice.

If you filed a motion to reopen after your removal order, it counts against your one-motion limit regardless of the grounds and regardless of whether it was granted or denied. A second filing — even if you had terrible attorney representation on the first one — is now number-barred under this decision unless the battered-spouse exception or another independent authority applies.

The IAC-based equitable-tolling argument — "my bad lawyer used up my motion, so I should get a real one" — is the specific argument this decision forecloses. If you are in removal proceedings and your plan relied on that argument to get back into court, speak with an attorney now about what remains available. The result of this decision does not erase the IAC itself (an attorney who harmed you may still have professional liability), but it closes the equitable-tolling door at the BIA level for a second motion.

For clients researching criminal-conviction-adjacent removal proceedings, see also our post on BIA appeals and criminal deportation orders.

Clients whose cases arise in the Second, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits may have relied on those circuits' precedent allowing equitable tolling of the number bar. The BIA has now issued a contrary national rule that it will apply where a circuit has not yet spoken — and it expressed disagreement with the older circuit decisions. Whether the BIA's position or the existing circuit court precedent governs in those circuits is likely to be litigated.

As this case illustrates, relabeling a second or successive motion as a "sua sponte" request does not change its analysis. The BIA will look at the substance of what is being requested, not the label. A motion that is substantively asking for equitable tolling of the number bar will be treated as such, even if it is captioned differently.

No — and this decision does not change that. The one-motion limit was already the rule under INA § 240(c)(7)(A). What this decision adds is the confirmation that you cannot argue around that limit using equitable tolling, even if your first motion was filed by an attorney who made serious mistakes.

Not necessarily. A bad first motion forecloses a second statutory motion to reopen under the number bar. But depending on your situation, you may still be able to request sua sponte reopening by the BIA (for exceptional circumstances), pursue federal court review if you are in a circuit that has recognized equitable tolling, or argue changed-country-conditions grounds if your case involves asylum. Whether any of these paths exist for you requires case-specific analysis.

The 90-day time limit on motions to reopen can be equitably tolled — meaning, extended — in appropriate cases, including where ineffective assistance of counsel caused you to miss the deadline. The one-motion number limit cannot. This decision did not touch the time-bar tolling rule. What it closed is the argument that a bad attorney's errors entitle you to a second motion even if your first one already used up your one-motion allowance.

Both. The statute and this decision apply to motions filed with the Immigration Court and the Board. The one-motion limit is counted across both — not one-per-tribunal.

INA § 240(c)(7)(C)(iv) provides a limited statutory exception to the one-motion number bar for certain battered spouses, children, and parents. To qualify, you must meet four strict requirements set out in the statute. If you experienced battery or extreme cruelty at the hands of a U.S.-citizen or lawful-permanent-resident spouse or parent, speak with an attorney about whether this exception applies to your case. The BIA applies this exception narrowly.