8 C.F.R. § 1003.13
Definitions
As used in this subpart:
Administrative control means custodial responsibility for the Record of Proceeding as specified in § 1003.11.
Charging document means the written instrument which initiates a proceeding before an Immigration Judge. For proceedings initiated prior to April 1, 1997, these documents include an Order to Show Cause, a Notice to Applicant for Admission Detained for Hearing before Immigration Judge, and a Notice of Intention to Rescind and Request for Hearing by Alien. For proceedings initiated after April 1, 1997, these documents include a Notice to Appear, a Notice of Referral to Immigration Judge, and a Notice of Intention to Rescind and Request for Hearing by Alien.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 147
cases (37 in the last 5 years), 2003–2026 · leading case: Serah Karingithi v. Matthew Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2019).
Serah Karingithi v. Matthew Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2019). “The panel explained that the issue of immigration court jurisdiction is instead governed by federal immigration regulations, including 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.13 , 1003.14(a), 1003.15(b), which do not require that the charging document include the time and date of the hearing.”
Gualterio Santos-Santos v. William P. Barr, 917 F.3d 486 (6th Cir. 2019). “§§ 1103 (g)(2), 1229a(a) ; 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.13 , 1003.14(a). These regulations provide that "[j]urisdiction vests, and proceedings before an Immigration Judge commence, when a charging document is filed with the Immigration Court by the [INS].”
United States v. Carlos Pedroza-Rocha, 933 F.3d 490 (5th Cir. 2019). “8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.13 - 14. 1 Thus, Pedroza-Rocha reasoned, the IJ in the 2003 proceeding lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, and the 2003 Removal Order was a nullity.”
United States v. Leon-Gonzalez, 351 F. Supp. 3d 1026 (W.D. Tex. 2018). “" 8 C.F.R. § 1003.13 (2013) ; see also Martinez-Garcia v.”
United States v. Ortiz, 347 F. Supp. 3d 402 (2018). “" 8 C.F.R. § 1003.13 . In turn, 8 U.S.C. § 1229 proscribes the process by which removal proceedings are to be initiated.”
Cecilia Aguilar Fermin v. William Barr, 958 F.3d 887 (9th Cir. 2020). “See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.13 . Thus, Aguilar claimed, because the NTA here was insufficient to satisfy Pereira, it was insufficient to vest jurisdiction in the immigration court, and so Aguilar’s ordered removal was in error.”
Jordany Pierre-Paul v. William Barr, U. S. Atty Ge, 930 F.3d 684 (5th Cir. 2019). “8 C.F.R. § 1003.13 . The regulations further specify that "[i]n removal proceedings pursuant to [ 8 U.”
United States v. Juan Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187 (9th Cir. 2022). “8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.13 , 1003.14(a). 5 And the question is whether this regulation goes to the subject matter jurisdiction of immigration courts, with all the procedural consequences attending the use of that label.”
Jose Tzompantzi-Salazar v. Merrick Garland, 32 F.4th 696 (9th Cir. 2022). “See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.13 (defining “charging document”); see also Romero v.”
Banegas Gomez v. Barr, 922 F.3d 101 (2d Cir. 2019). “See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.13 ; see also id. § 1003.”
Darvin Daniel Perez-Sanchez v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 935 F.3d 1148 (11th Cir. 2019). “5 Although we do not decide the issue today, we note the Seventh Circuit concluded that the NTA in 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.13 -1003.15, 1003.18, and the NTA in 8 U.”
Mario Ortiz-Santiago v. William P. Barr, 924 F.3d 956 (7th Cir. 2019). “14 states that "jurisdiction vests" when a charging document is filed with the Immigration Court; 8 C.F.R. § 1003.13 defines a charging document as one of several forms, among which is a Notice; and 8 C.”
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.