In Matter of Lamus, 25 I&N Dec. 61 (BIA 2009), the Board held that an IJ may not deny an otherwise properly filed motion to reopen under Matter of Velarde, 23 I&N Dec. 253 (BIA 2002), based solely on the fact that DHS opposed the motion. In Matter of Velarde, the BIA had set forth the factors to consider when adjudicating a motion to reopen to adjust status based on a marriage entered into after the commencement of proceedings but where the visa petition has not been adjudicated. The last factor is whether DHS opposed the motion. The government had argued that DHS’ opposition is dispositive. However, the Board rejected this argument and said that though DHS’s opposition should be considered, it does not preclude an IJ from exercising independent judgment. Prior to Matter of Lamus, three courts had similarly rejected the government’s contention that DHS’ opposition is dispositive. Melnitsenko v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 42 (2d Cir. 2008); Sarr v. Gonzales, 485 F.3d 354 (6th Cir. 2007); Ahmed v. Mukasey, 548 F.3d 768 (9th Cir. 2008). Two courts, however, the Third and Fifth Circuits, had held that DHS can block a Velarde motion by opposing the motion. Bhiski v. Ashcroft, 373 F.3d 363 (3d Cir. 2004); Ramchandani v. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 2005). Given these court’s prior treatment of the issue, the Board and IJs can be expected to follow Matter of Lamus even in the Third and Fifth Circuits.