(a) Alien to apply in consular district of residence. Unless otherwise directed by the Department, an alien applying for an immigrant visa shall make application at the consular office having jurisdiction over the alien's place of residence; except that, unless otherwise directed by the Department, an alien physically present in an area but having no residence therein may make application at the consular office having jurisdiction over that area if the alien can establish that he or she will be able to remain in the area for the period required to process the application. Finally, a consular office may, as a matter of discretion, or shall, at the direction of the Department, accept an immigrant visa application from an alien who is neither a resident of, nor physically present in, the area designated for that office for such purpose. For the purposes of this section, an alien physically present in the United States shall be considered to be a resident of the area of his or her last residence prior to entry into the United States.
(b) Transfer of immigrant visa cases. (1) All documents, papers, and other evidence relating to an applicant whose case is pending or has been refused at one post may be transferred to another post at the applicant's request and risk when there is reasonable justification for the transfer and the transferring post has no reason to believe that the alien will be unable to appear at the receiving post.
(2) Any approved petition granting immediate relative or preference status should be included among the documents when a case is transferred from one post to another.
(3) In no case may a visa number be transferred from one post to another. A visa number which cannot be used as a result of the transfer must be returned to the Department immediately.
[52 FR 42613, Nov. 5, 1987, as amended at 59 FR 39955, Aug. 4, 1994]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
50
cases (
40 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · leading case:
Dep't of State v. Munoz, 602 U.S. 899 (2024).
Dep't of State v. Munoz, 602 U.S. 899 (2024).
“§ 1255 (a) (adjustment of sta- tus to lawful permanent resident for noncitizens already admitted into the United States) with 22 CFR §§ 42.61 , 42.62 (2023) (noncitizens applying for 904 DEPARTMENT OF STATE v.”
United States v. Roberto Cervantes-Flores, 421 F.3d 825 (9th Cir. 2005).
“See 22 C.F.R. § 42.61 . The only consent granted by the Attorney General in this process is consent to reapply to the State Department for admission to the United States.”
Jesus Ramirez v. Linda Dougherty, 852 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2017).
“See 22 C.F.R. § 42.61 (a). If he obtains the visa, Ramirez could then return to the United States to request admission as a lawful permanent resident.”
Liberty Fund, Inc. v. Chao, 394 F. Supp. 2d 105 (D.D.C. 2005).
“See 22 C.F.R. § 42.61 . The number of visa allotments is limited for each employment category pursuant to 8 U.”
United States v. Sanchez-Milam, 305 F.3d 310 (5th Cir. 2002).
“22 C.F.R. § 42.61 . Consequently, the INS could not certify that a visa was granted or denied.”
Dep't of State v. Munoz, 602 U.S. 899 (2024).
“§1255 (a) (adjustment of sta- tus to lawful permanent resident for noncitizens already admitted into the United States) with 22 CFR §§42.61 , 42.62 (2023) (noncitizens apply- ing for immigrant visa must appear in person before consular officer in consular district of residence).”
Barmo v. Reno, 899 F. Supp. 1375 (E.D. Pa. 1995).
“22 C.F.R. § 42.61 . While the usual process contemplates that the alien for whom the visa is sought will be residing and applying from outside the United States, the immigration laws also make provision for aliens who wish to apply for visas while already residing in the United…”
Saavedra Estrade v. Mayorkas (E.D. Pa. 2023).
· cites it 3× “§ 1202 (a); 22 C.F.R. § 42.61 (a). In either case, the noncitizen must, among other requirements, demonstrate that he is not inadmissible under any ground set forth in 8 U.”
Chowdhury v. Blinken (D.D.C. 2022).
· cites it 2× “¶ 50; 22 C.F.R. § 42.61 . In September 2019, the State Department Office of the Inspector General inspected the Dhaka embassy and found a five-month visa backlog.”
— 22 C.F.R. § 42.61(a) — 3 cases
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.