August 21, 2026

BIA Decision Alert: Can You File More Than One Motion to Reopen? (Matter of M-M-L-J-)

By Wendy R. Barlow, Esq. | Partner at Cohen, Tucker + Ades Specializing in Complex Immigration Matters

Does equitable tolling apply to the number bar on motions to reopen in immigration court?

No. Under the landmark Board of Immigration Appeals decision Matter of M-M-L-J-, 29 I&N Dec. 843 (BIA 2026), an individual facing removal is strictly limited to one motion to reopen under INA § 240(c)(7)(A). The BIA ruled that equitable tolling—even for severe claims like Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (IAC)—only pauses time deadlines (the time bar), but cannot bypass the strict limit of one motion (the number bar). The only statutory exception to this numerical limit is for battered spouses, children, or parents under VAWA protections.

The legal landscape surrounding removal defense and post-order immigration appeals has shifted significantly. In its precedential ruling in Matter of M-M-L-J-, 29 I&N Dec. 843 (BIA 2026), the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) issued a major holding regarding the statutory limit on motions to reopen immigration proceedings.

If you or a loved one are facing a final order of removal and are considering filing a motion to reopen, understanding the difference between time limits and number limits is now vital.

What Happened in Matter of M-M-L-J-?

The respondent, a native and citizen of Jordan, entered the U.S. as an F-1 student in 2010 and was subsequently placed in removal proceedings. After an Immigration Judge (IJ) denied his applications for relief, the BIA dismissed his appeal, resulting in a final order of removal.

Over the next several years, the respondent filed four separate motions to reopen:

A motion based on a pending Form I-130 filed by his second wife.
A motion alleging Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (IAC) by prior lawyers.
A motion based on a Form I-130 filed by his third wife (a U.S. citizen).
A fourth motion requesting reopening based on the third wife’s I-130 while again arguing that ineffective assistance of counsel should “toll” (waive) the limit on filing multiple motions.

The BIA formally denied the fourth motion, setting a strict precedent for all future cases.

Key Takeaways from the BIA’s Decision

                      IMMIGRATION MOTION LIMITS
┌───────────────────────────────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────┐
│              TIME BAR                 │              NUMBER BAR               │
├───────────────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Rule: Generally within 90 days of     │ Rule: Strictly ONE motion to reopen   │
│ final removal order.                  │ permitted per person.                 │
├───────────────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Tolling Allowed? YES                  │ Tolling Allowed? NO                   │
│ (Equitable tolling can pause time limit│ (Equitable tolling CANNOT bypass the │
│ for IAC or extraordinary events).     │ 1-motion limit under Matter of        │
│                                       │ M-M-L-J-).                            │
└───────────────────────────────────────┴───────────────────────────────────────┘

1. The “Number Bar” is Absolute (With One Exception)

Section 240(c)(7)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) states that an individual may file only one motion to reopen. The BIA emphasized that Congress established this rule to maintain finality in immigration cases.

The only statutory exception to the one-motion limit is for battered spouses, children, and parents seeking relief under special rules (VAWA provisions).

2. Equitable Tolling Does NOT Apply to the Number Limit

In the past, some individuals argued that if their previous attorney was ineffective, “equitable tolling” should allow them to file a second or third motion to reopen.

The BIA rejected this argument. Aligning with recent federal circuit court rulings (such as the Fifth Circuit’s Garcia Morin v. Bondi), the BIA held that equitable tolling can pause a clock (a time deadline), but it cannot erase a cap (a number limit).

3. Claims of Ineffective Counsel Won’t Bypass a Second Motion

Even if a respondent successfully proves that their previous attorney provided ineffective assistance (following Matter of Lozada and Matter of Assaad standards), that claim cannot be used to justify filing a second, third, or fourth motion to reopen.

4. “Sua Sponte” Reopening is Unlikely to Cure Filing Defects

While Immigration Judges and the BIA hold independent discretionary authority to reopen cases on their own (sua sponte), the Board reiterated that this power is reserved exclusively for exceptional circumstances. Simply marrying a U.S. citizen or acquiring new equities long after a removal order is issued does not meet the “exceptional” standard.

Why Matter of M-M-L-J- Makes Getting It Right the First Time Critical

Prior to this decision, respondents often believed they had multiple opportunities to challenge a removal order if subsequent life events occurred or if previous legal counsel failed to file proper paperwork.

Under Matter of M-M-L-J-, you effectively get ONE shot at a Motion to Reopen.

If your first Motion to Reopen is drafted improperly, lacks required evidence, or fails to raise all available grounds for relief, you cannot simply “try again” with a new lawyer later on—even if your first lawyer made severe errors.

                   YOUR MOTION TO REOPEN CHECKLIST
┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ [ ] Am I within the 90-day time window?                                       │
│ [ ] Is this my FIRST motion to reopen?                                        │
│ [ ] Have all available forms of relief and evidence been included?            │
│ [ ] Have all procedural guidelines (e.g., Matter of Lozada) been met?        │
│ [ ] Is an experienced appellate immigration attorney reviewing the motion?    │
└───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

What is the difference between a time bar and a number bar in immigration court?

A time bar dictates when you can file (generally within 90 days of a final administrative order of removal). A number bar dictates how many times you can file (statutorily limited to one single motion to reopen).

Can I file a second motion to reopen if my first lawyer made a mistake?

In jurisdictions following the BIA’s rule in Matter of M-M-L-J-, no. Ineffective assistance of counsel may toll the 90-day deadline for your first motion, but it cannot grant you permission to file a second or successive motion.

Are there any exceptions to the one-motion limit?

Yes. Under INA § 240(c)(7)(C)(iv), a specific statutory exception exists for battered spouses, children, and parents. Additionally, separate rules may apply for motions to reopen based on changed country conditions in asylum cases.

How Cohen, Tucker + Ades Can Help

Navigating Board of Immigration Appeals precedent requires deep technical knowledge and strategic litigation foresight. Founded in 1964, Cohen, Tucker + Ades has spent over 60 years advocating for individuals facing complex immigration challenges, deportation proceedings, and federal appeals.

Because you only get one motion to reopen, working with experienced appellate counsel from day one is essential to protecting your legal rights and your future in the United States.

Facing a final order of removal or considering a Motion to Reopen?

Contact Cohen, Tucker + Ades today to schedule a confidential consultation with our immigration trial and appellate attorneys.

About the Author

Wendy R. Barlow, Esq. is a Partner at Cohen, Tucker + Ades, P.C. with nearly 20 years of experience in high-stakes immigration litigation. A graduate of the Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University, Wendy is admitted to practice in New York and New Jersey as well as before the U.S. Supreme Court and multiple Federal Circuit Courts. Wendy is recognized for her ability to handle cases that many consider insurmountable.

Disclaimer: This blog post contains general information and is for informational purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Cohen, Tucker + Ades P.C. Immigration laws and fee schedules are subject to frequent change. The information provided herein may not reflect the most current legal developments. You should not act or refrain from acting based on information contained in this post without seeking professional counsel from an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction. Cohen, Tucker + Ades P.C. expressly disclaims all liability in respect to actions taken or not taken based on any or all of the contents of this post.

Serving clients since 1964 with a legacy of success.