22 C.F.R. § 42.43
Suspension or termination of action in petition cases
(a) Suspension of action. The consular officer shall suspend action in a petition case and return the petition, with a report of the facts, for reconsideration by DHS if the petitioner requests suspension of action, or if the officer knows or has reason to believe that approval of the petition was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, or other unlawful means, or that the beneficiary is not entitled, for some other reason, to the status approved.
(b) Termination of action. (1) The consular officer shall terminate action in a petition case upon receipt from DHS of notice of revocation of the petition in accordance with DHS regulations.
(2) The consular officer shall terminate action in a petition case subject to the provisions of INA 203(g) in accordance with the provisions of § 42.83.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1968–2026 · leading case: Abdul Baaghil v. Stephen Miller, 1 F.4th 427 (6th Cir. 2021).
Abdul Baaghil v. Stephen Miller, 1 F.4th 427 (6th Cir. 2021). “” 22 C.F.R. § 42.43 (a). Upon return of the petition to Immigration Services, an immigration officer may, after providing notice, “revoke the approval of” the lawful permanent resident’s I-130 petition.”
Wan Shih Hsieh v. Maurice F. Kiley, Dist. Dir., Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., United States Dep't of Just., 569 F.2d 1179 (2d Cir. 1978). “§ 205 and 22 C.F.R. § 42.43 to conduct and complete the investigation requested by the Consulate, the district court appears to have confused the INS’s duty to act on preference petitions, which are concerned solely with the family relationship between the parties, with the…”
Ticheva v. Ashcroft, 241 F. Supp. 2d 1115 (D. Nev. 2002). “§ 1153 (c)(1); 22 C.F.R. § 42.43 (e) (sic)). Based on this statutory deadline, the *1118 Court held that the INS lacked the statutory authority to award the relief sought by the plaintiffs.”
Patel v. Reno, 134 F.3d 929 (9th Cir. 1997). “Suspension is authorized upon discovery of misrepresentation or fraud, see 22 C.F.R. § 42.43 , but only if the consulate also returns the petition to the I.”
Cheung, 12 I. & N. Dec. 715 (BIA 1968). “In the instant case the visa petition was approved, the Consulate Officer did not take favorable action, and the visa petition was returned to the District Director for further action in accordance with 22 CFR 42.43 ( a) (1). The difficulty in the case arises out of the fraud…”
Al Khader v. Tillerson (N.D. Ill. 2021). “As explained below, Plaintiff is authorized to file a third amended complaint by March 23, 2021 limited to: (1) a claim that 22 C.F.R. § 42.43 required the Consulate to suspend action on Hani’s petition and case and return the petition, with a report of the facts, for…”
Al Khader v. Tillerson (N.D. Ill. 2022). “In the same Order, the Court gave Plaintiffs one last chance to amend their complaint limited to a “claim that 22 C.F.R. § 42.43 required the Consulate to suspend action on Hani’s petition and case and return the petition, with a report of the facts, for reconsideration by DHS.”
Al Ihsan Al-Gharawy v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec. (D.D.C. 2022). “” 22 C.F.R. § 42.43 ; see Dkt. 9 at 10. Should this occur, then the applicable regulation requires the “consular officer [to] suspend action in [the] petition case and return the petition, with a report of the facts, for reconsideration by DHS.”
Iddir v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 301 F.3d 492 (7th Cir. 2002). “§ 1153 (c)(1); 22 C.F.R. § 42.43 (e). Based on the statutory deadline set by Congress, the INS lacks the statutory authority to award the relief sought by the plaintiffs.”
Kumar v. U.S. Citizenship & Immig. Servs. (2d Cir. 2018). “22 C.F.R. § 42.43 (a) (“The consular officer shall suspend action in a petition case and return the petition, with a report of the facts, for reconsideration by DHS if the petitioner requests suspension of action .”
Tasneem (D. Mass. 2026). “81 (a), and 22 C.F.R. § 42.43 (which lists the circumstances under which a consular officer “shall suspend action in a petition case” and if the officer does so, the regulation directs that she must “return the petition, with a report of the facts, for reconsideration by DHS”)…”
Abdolsalam Hussein v. R. Stephen Beecroft (6th Cir. 2019). “” 22 C.F.R. § 42.43 (a). Thus, if a beneficiary is ineligible for “immediate relative” status, or is otherwise ineligible for entry, a consular officer shall reject and return the petition to USCIS.”
— 22 C.F.R. § 42.43(a) — 1 case
Thatikonda v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec. (D.D.C. 2022).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.