Hector Zelaya Diaz v. Jeffrey A. Rosen, 986 F.3d 687

Hector Manuel Zelaya Diaz entered the U.S. without inspection in 1995; a deportation order was entered in absentia after he missed a master calendar hearing.
Zelaya later reentered the U.S.; in 2014 he successfully moved to reopen the 1995 deportation because the original notice never reached him.
At a 2018 master calendar hearing Zelaya requested administrative closure to permit "repapering"—conversion of his pre‑1996 deportation case into a cancellation‑of‑removal case under current law.
The immigration judge denied closure; the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed in Jan. 2020, citing the Attorney General’s Castro‑Tum directive (which restricts administrative closure) and DHS’s opposition and refusal to repaper.
Zelaya petitioned for review in the Seventh Circuit; the court reviewed denial of administrative closure for abuse of discretion and considered whether the Board improperly followed Castro‑Tum instead of applying Avetisyan and W‑Y‑U factors.
The Seventh Circuit granted the petition and remanded because Castro‑Tum had been held contrary to law in Meza Morales and the Board failed to apply its precedent factors for closure.

Issue	Zelaya's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether Accardi required grant of administrative closure based on earlier internal memoranda	Zelaya: Board/IJ were bound by prior internal guidance and must follow it under Accardi	Government: Internal memoranda lack formal legal force; Accardi doesn’t apply to such informal guidance	Rejected — Accardi does not compel relief here because the memoranda lacked the formality required to bind the agency
Whether Board erred by denying administrative closure by following Castro‑Tum instead of Avetisyan/W‑Y‑U factors	Zelaya: Board abused discretion by relying on Castro‑Tum and DHS opposition without applying Avetisyan/W‑Y‑U factors	Government/Board: Castro‑Tum restricts closure; DHS opposition and refusal to repaper justified denial	Granted — Court held Castro‑Tum is contrary to law in this circuit (per Meza Morales); remand for Board to apply Avetisyan and W‑Y‑U factors and exercise discretion accordingly

Meza Morales v. Barr, 973 F.3d 656 (7th Cir. 2020) (held AG’s Castro‑Tum directive contrary to law; IJs may administratively close cases when appropriate)
United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954) (Accardi doctrine: agencies must follow their own binding rules/procedures)
Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199 (1974) (internal agency manuals not legally binding absent APA‑style promulgation or entitlement)
Vahora v. Holder, 626 F.3d 907 (7th Cir. 2010) (jurisdictional and reviewability principles for administrative closure decisions)
Khan v. Holder, 766 F.3d 689 (7th Cir. 2014) (standards for reviewing denial of administrative closure for abuse of discretion)
Victor v. Holder, 616 F.3d 705 (7th Cir. 2010) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard and permissible bases for denying administrative relief)