What “New Facts” Actually Means
A motion to reopen is built around one core idea: something material has come to light that the original decision-maker never had a chance to consider, and that fact could change the outcome. It is not a second chance to argue the same case better, and it is not a vehicle for evidence that existed all along but wasn’t submitted the first time.
The regulatory standard — used across USCIS, immigration court, and the BIA, with slightly different wording in each — requires evidence that is material and that was not available and could not have been discovered or presented at the earlier proceeding. That second half does real work: if the evidence existed and was accessible to you at the time, a motion to reopen generally isn’t the right tool, even if the evidence is genuinely important. That’s a meaningful trap for people who assume “new to the case” and “new to exist” mean the same thing — they don’t.
Motion to Reopen vs. Motion to Reconsider
These two get confused constantly, and the confusion has real consequences, because filing the wrong one can burn a deadline without fixing anything. A motion to reopen is about facts the decision-maker never saw. A motion to reconsider is about arguing that the decision-maker got something wrong — legally or factually — based on the record that was already there, with no new evidence involved. See What Is a Motion to Reconsider? for the fuller distinction. If your case involves both a legal argument and new evidence, you may need to think through — with an attorney — whether one motion, filed as one or the other, or some combination, actually captures what your case needs.
Three Forums, Three Sets of Rules
Immigration court. Under the regulation governing motions before an immigration judge, a motion to reopen is generally due within 90 days of the final order, and a party generally gets only one. Exceptions exist for certain jointly filed motions and for asylum or withholding claims based on changed country conditions in the country of removal, which aren’t bound by the standard time or number limits in the same way.
The Board of Immigration Appeals. The BIA applies its own version of the same general framework — a standard filing window measured from the date the Board’s decision was rendered, and generally one motion to reopen per case, with similar exceptions for changed-country-conditions asylum claims and jointly filed motions. Because the BIA is often the last stop before a case would need to go to a federal circuit court, getting a motion to reopen right at this stage carries particular weight.
USCIS. Motions to reopen filed with USCIS follow a different regulatory framework, filed on Form I-290B, generally due within 30 days of the decision (33 days if the decision was mailed). Unlike the immigration-court and BIA rules, the USCIS regulation doesn’t set a hard numerical cap on how many motions can be filed, though late filing can be excused only if the delay was reasonable and beyond your control — a standard USCIS applies narrowly.
In Absentia Orders Are a Special Case
If you were ordered removed because you missed a hearing, the rules shift meaningfully in your favor on timing, and — critically — filing certain motions to reopen an in absentia order can automatically pause removal while the motion is pending, which is not true of most other motions to reopen. This is significant enough, and different enough, that it has its own guide: Can You Reopen an In Absentia Removal Order?.
Common Problems
The most frequent way a motion to reopen fails isn’t a weak underlying case — it’s a filing that doesn’t actually meet the “new and material” standard, because the evidence existed before but wasn’t used, or because the motion doesn’t explain why it couldn’t have been discovered or presented earlier. A close second is missing the deadline: because deadlines here run in days, not months, and because each forum counts differently (from the date of decision, from mailing, from electronic notice), people frequently miscalculate how much time they actually have. A third, quieter problem is filing a second motion to reopen without realizing the one-motion limit already applies, closing off an otherwise-strong filing on a technicality.
Risks and Exceptions
The exceptions built into these regulations — changed country conditions for asylum, jointly filed motions, in absentia orders — are genuine escape valves from the standard limits, but they have their own specific evidentiary and procedural requirements. Relying on an exception without confirming your facts actually satisfy it is a common and costly mistake. And because a motion to reopen generally does not pause removal on its own outside the in absentia context, timing a motion without also addressing whether you need a separate stay request can leave you technically “in the process” while still facing enforcement. See Does Filing an Appeal or Motion Stop Removal?.
What Happens Next
If you believe something material has changed or come to light since your case was decided, the two things that matter most right now are confirming which forum’s deadline applies to you and whether your new facts genuinely meet the “not available before” standard — both of which are easier to get right with someone who can review your actual order and evidence than from a general description like this one.
