The difference is what you are asking the adjudicator to look at. A motion to reconsider says the decision was legally or factually wrong based on the record that already exists. A motion to reopen says there are new facts, supported by new evidence, that the adjudicator never saw. The deadlines are different, thirty days for reconsideration and ninety days for reopening, and choosing the wrong one is a common and often fatal error because by the time the mistake is apparent the correct deadline has usually passed.
THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER
Section 240(c)(6) of the Immigration and Nationality Act governs motions to reconsider. The motion must be filed within thirty days of the final administrative order, and a person is generally limited to one. The statute requires that the motion specify the errors of law or fact in the prior decision and be supported by pertinent authority.
That last requirement is the substance of the motion. A motion to reconsider is an argument that the adjudicator misapplied a statute, misread a regulation, overlooked controlling circuit or Board precedent, or made a factual finding unsupported by the record that was before it. It is not an opportunity to reargue the case in different words. A motion that simply restates the position already rejected, without identifying a specific error and citing authority, is routinely denied on that basis.
Because the motion addresses the existing record, no new evidence accompanies it. Attaching new documents to a motion to reconsider does not convert it into something else, and it does not cure the absence of an identified legal error.
THE MOTION TO REOPEN
Section 240(c)(7) governs motions to reopen. The deadline is ninety days from the final administrative order, and again the general limit is one. The motion must state new facts and be supported by affidavits or other evidentiary material, and under 8 CFR 1003.2(c)(1) it will not be granted where the evidence was available and could have been presented at the earlier hearing.
Reopening is the vehicle when circumstances have changed, when evidence has surfaced that did not exist or could not be obtained before, when country conditions have deteriorated, when a hearing was missed, or when prior counsel's failures kept relevant facts out of the record. It says nothing about whether the original decision was correct on what the adjudicator had.
THE PRACTICAL TEST
The question that resolves nearly every case is simple. Would the adjudicator have decided differently if they had applied the law correctly to what was already in front of them? That is reconsideration. Or would they have decided differently only if they had known something they did not know? That is reopening.
Two examples make the distinction concrete. An Immigration Judge denies cancellation of removal after applying a hardship standard that conflicts with a Board decision issued the year before. Nothing about the facts has changed; the legal analysis was wrong. That is a motion to reconsider. Alternatively, an Immigration Judge denies asylum, and eight months later the applicant's home government begins detaining members of the political party the applicant belongs to. The decision was defensible when made. The facts have changed. That is a motion to reopen.
THE DEADLINES ARE DIFFERENT AND THIS MATTERS MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE
Thirty days for reconsideration and ninety for reopening run from the same event, the final administrative order. A respondent who spends six weeks deciding what to do has already lost the option to seek reconsideration even if that was the correct remedy. If you are working out which deadlines are still open in your own case, the case review lays them out by type of decision.
This is why the analysis has to happen immediately after an adverse decision rather than after other options have been explored. It also intersects with the appeal deadline, which is separate and shorter still, and which is generally the first thing to evaluate after an Immigration Judge rules against a respondent. Filing a motion does not extend the time to appeal.
THE MOTIONS CAN BE COMBINED
Nothing prevents filing both, and in some situations both are appropriate: the decision contained a legal error and separately there is new evidence. The statutory limits are counted separately, one motion to reconsider and one motion to reopen, so filing both does not exhaust either allowance twice.
Where both are filed, they should be presented as distinct arguments with distinct legal standards rather than merged into a single undifferentiated request. Adjudicators evaluate them under different provisions, and a filing that blurs the two invites denial of both.
WHERE EACH IS FILED
Jurisdiction follows the decision being challenged. A motion directed at an Immigration Judge's decision is filed with the immigration court under 8 CFR 1003.23(b). A motion directed at a Board decision is filed with the Board under 8 CFR 1003.2. If the Board affirmed an Immigration Judge and the argument is that the Board erred, the motion belongs at the Board. If the case never went up on appeal, it belongs with the court.
LIMITS AND EXCEPTIONS
The time and number limits on motions to reopen have several exceptions. A motion to reopen to apply for asylum or related protection based on changed country conditions is subject to neither limit under INA 240(c)(7)(C)(ii). Motions to reopen orders entered in absentia follow separate deadlines under INA 240(b)(5)(C). Joint motions filed with the Department of Homeland Security are not subject to the limits.
Motions to reconsider have no comparable set of exceptions. The thirty-day deadline is the deadline. This asymmetry is one more reason the reconsideration question has to be answered first, while the option still exists.
FILING DOES NOT STOP A REMOVAL
Neither motion automatically stays removal, with the exception of a motion to reopen an in absentia order, which carries an automatic stay under INA 240(b)(5)(C) pending disposition. In every other situation a stay must be requested separately and is granted at the adjudicator's discretion. A respondent with an outstanding removal order should not assume that a pending motion provides protection.
WHEN LEGAL REPRESENTATION MATTERS
The choice between these motions is a legal judgment made under time pressure, usually by someone who has just received bad news and is not in a position to parse the difference between a factual error and a factual development. Identifying whether the adjudicator actually erred, whether evidence qualifies as previously unavailable, whether an appeal is the better vehicle, whether both motions should be filed, and whether a stay request is necessary are decisions that determine whether anything can be salvaged.
If you have received an adverse decision from an Immigration Judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals, Malouche Law Firm can review the decision and the timing of your order and discuss which remedies remain available. Because these deadlines are short and run from the date of the decision, the review should happen promptly. Consultations can be scheduled here.
This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It reflects the law as of August 7, 2026. The remedies available in any case depend on its procedural posture and the applicable circuit law. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship with Malouche Law Firm PLLC.