8 C.F.R. § 1.1

Applicability

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

This part further defines some of the terms already described in section 101 and other sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act (66 Stat. 163), as amended, and such other enactments as pertain to immigration and nationality. These terms are used consistently by components within the Department of Homeland Security including U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 133 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1955–2026 · leading case: Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003).
Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003). · cites it 2× “8 CFR § 1.1 (p) (2002). He may therefore claim the due process to which a lawful permanent resident is entitled.”
Koloamatangi, 23 I. & N. Dec. 548 (BIA 2003). · cites it 3× “” The regulations at 8 C.F.R. § 1.1 (p) (2002) contain a definition of the same term that repeats verbatim the statutory definition and, pursuant to a 1996 amendment, includes the following sentence: “Such status terminates upon entry of a final administrative order of exclusion…”
Monsalvo Velazquez v. Bondi, 604 U.S. 712 (2025). · cites it 4× “8 CFR §1.1 (a)(6) (1958) (emphasis added).”
Gerardo Aguilera-Ruiz v. John Ashcroft, United States Attorney Gen., 348 F.3d 835 (9th Cir. 2003). · cites it 3× “§ 1101 (a)(2) and 8 C.F.R. § 1.1 (p), and runs counter to Congressional intent to preserve the status of a legal permanent resident who makes a “brief, casual, and innocent” departure.”
Djenaba Camara v. John Ashcroft, in His Off. Capacity as Attorney Gen. of the United States, 378 F.3d 361 (4th Cir. 2004). “While not explicitly rejecting this evidence, the IJ expressed suspicion about the documents Camara obtained from the courthouse only because her story of obtaining them from her cousin "ma [d]e[] no sense.” This would appear, however, to be mere speculation.”
Escobar, 18 I. & N. Dec. 412 (BIA 1983). · cites it 6× “8 C.F.R. 1.1(h). (2) The Service's interpretation of this ambiguity would have the effect of shortening the period under 8 C.”
Castro v. United States, 560 F.3d 381 (5th Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “The Border Patrol, officially called The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, is an agency of the Department of Homeland Security, and is specifically included as a defined agency subject to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1953 ("INA"), 8 U.”
Juan Mendoza Manimbao v. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen., 329 F.3d 655 (9th Cir. 2003). “Under the governing statute, the IJ conducting the deportation proceedings “shall administer oaths, receive evidence, and interrogate, examine, and cross-examine the alien and any witnesses.” 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(l). The immigration judge has the duty of developing the record on…”
Sparrow, 20 I. & N. Dec. 920 (BIA 1994). · cites it 23× “3 Decided by Board June 22, 1994 (1) Because the Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representative (Form G- 28) is designed to determine whether an individual is an attorney within the meaning of 8 C.F.R. § 1.1 (1) (1994), an attorney filing this form has a duty to…”
Lee Moi Chong v. Dist. Dir., Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., Andrea Quarantillo, 264 F.3d 378 (3rd Cir. 2001). “” 8 C.F.R. § 1.1 (e) (2001); id. at § l.l(Z).”
David Ibragimov v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney Gen., 476 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “Therefore, neither the expedited removal statute, nor the above-cited exception set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 1.1 (q), applies to him. Second, petitioner’s argument that he was not an “arriving alien” at the time his Notice to Appear issued is further undermined by the terms of 8 C.”
Emma Altamirano v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney Gen., 427 F.3d 586 (9th Cir. 2005). “Further, 8 C.F.R. § 1.1 (q) (2000) provides: The term arriving alien means an applicant for admission coming or attempting to come into the United States at a port-of-entry, or an alien seeking transit through the United States at a port-of-entry, or an alien interdicted in…”
— 8 C.F.R. § 1.1(1) — 2 cases
Majid Ghorbani v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 686 F.2d 784 (9th Cir. 1982).
— 8 C.F.R. § 1.1(11) — 1 case
Ss. Castel Felice, 11 I. & N. Dec. 831 (BIA 1966).
— 8 C.F.R. § 1.1(b) — 1 case
Ss Fed. Commeroe, 8 I. & N. Dec. 366 (BIA 1959).
— 8 C.F.R. § 1.1(f) — 4 cases
Bogart, 15 I. & N. Dec. 552 (BIA 1975).
Matter of Tracy, 676 N.E.2d 738 (Ind. 1997).
Koden, 15 I. & N. Dec. 739 (BIA 1976).
Elly Velez Pamatong, 17 I. & N. Dec. 175 (BIA 1979).
— 8 C.F.R. § 1.1(h) — 1 case
Escobar, 18 I. & N. Dec. 412 (BIA 1983). “8 C.F.R. 1.1(h). (2) The Service's interpretation of this ambiguity would have the effect of shortening the period under 8 C.”
— 8 C.F.R. § 1.1(j) — 2 cases
Koden, 15 I. & N. Dec. 739 (BIA 1976).
Guerra & Sanchez, 15 I. & N. Dec. 251 (BIA 1975).
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.