ARANA CASTILLO, et al.

page
593
Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 593 (BIA 2026) 	Interim Decision #4187
Matter of Karen Paola ARANA CASTILLO, et al., Respondents
Decided by Board March 12, 20261
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
Where the respondents appear at an initial master calendar hearing, but the Department
of Homeland Security does not, the Immigration Judge errs in terminating proceedings
without taking the respondents’ pleadings to the notices to appear.
FOR THE RESPONDENTS: Pro se
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY: Pierre E. Leandre, Assistant
Chief Counsel
BEFORE: 	Board Panel: 	RADICS, Deputy Chief Appellate Immigration Judge;
GALLOW and HANSELL, Appellate Immigration Judges.
HANSELL, Appellate Immigration Judge:
The Department 	of 	Homeland 	Security (“DHS”) appeals 	from 	the
Immigration Judge’s February 8, 2024, decision terminating these removal
proceedings without prejudice. 	The respondents have not responded to the
appeal. 	The appeal will be sustained, and the record will be remanded for
further proceedings.
The respondents were placed into removal proceedings after being served
with notices to appear charging each of them with removability under section
212(a)(6)(A)(i) 	of 	the 	Immigration 	and 	Nationality 	Act, 	8 	U.S.C.
§ 1182(a)(6)(A)(i) (2018). The respondents were present at the initial master
calendar hearing held on February 8, 2024, but DHS was not. 	The
Immigration Judge issued an order terminating proceedings, finding she was
unable to sustain the charge of removability because DHS did not meet its
respective burden. The Immigration Judge did not attempt to take pleadings
nor did she ask the respondents if they were seeking termination of their
proceedings; rather, she sua sponte terminated proceedings based on DHS’
1 	Pursuant to Order No. 6755-2026, dated April 23, 2026, the Acting Attorney General
designated the Board’s decision in Matter of Arana Castillo and Solano Arana
(BIA Mar. 12, 2026), as precedent in all proceedings involving the same issue or issues.
See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(g)(3) (2026). Editorial changes have been made consistent with the
designation of the case as a precedent.

Cite as 29 I&N Dec. 593 (BIA 2026) 	Interim Decision #4187
page
594
failure to appear and corresponding inability to establish the respondents’
alienage.
We agree with DHS that termination was not warranted under the
circumstances of this case.2 	Because the respondents appeared at the
hearing, the Immigration Judge was obligated to take their pleadings to the
notices 	to 	appear 	as 	contemplated 	in 	8 	C.F.R. 	§ 	1240.10 	(2026).3
Specifically, the Immigration Judge “shall require the respondent[s] to plead
to the notice[s] to appear.” 	8 C.F.R. § 1240.10(c). 	The respondents may
admit or deny the factual allegations and charge(s). 8 C.F.R. § 1240.10(c).
If they deny the charge(s), or the Immigration Judge finds that issues of law
or fact remain, then the Immigration Judge “shall request the assignment of
DHS counsel[] and shall receive evidence as to any unresolved issues.” 	8
C.F.R. § 1240.10(d). The Immigration Judge did not follow these provisions.
Therefore, we will reverse the decision of the Immigration Judge and remand
the record to the Immigration Court for further proceedings to include taking
pleadings from the respondents.
ORDER: DHS’ appeal is sustained and the decision of the Immigration
Judge terminating proceedings is vacated.
FURTHER ORDER: 	The record is remanded to the Immigration
Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
2 	DHS did not file a separate brief as indicated in the notice of appeal.
3 	By contrast, if the respondents did not appear in Immigration Court, then this regulation
would have no bearing. See Matter of Tepec-Garcia, 29 I&N Dec. 371, 372 (BIA 2025).