(a) Jurisdiction vests, and proceedings before an Immigration Judge commence, when a charging document is filed with the Immigration Court by the Service. The charging document must include a certificate showing service on the opposing party pursuant to § 1003.32 which indicates the Immigration Court in which the charging document is filed. However, no charging document is required to be filed with the Immigration Court to commence bond proceedings pursuant to §§ 1003.19, 1236.1(d) and 1240.2(b) of this chapter.
(b) When an Immigration Judge has jurisdiction over an underlying proceeding, sole jurisdiction over applications for asylum shall lie with the Immigration Judge.
(c) Immigration Judges have jurisdiction to administer the oath of allegiance in administrative naturalization ceremonies conducted by the Service in accordance with § 1337.2(b) of this chapter.
(d) The jurisdiction of, and procedures before, immigration judges in exclusion, deportation and removal, rescission, asylum-only, and any other proceedings shall remain in effect as it was in effect on February 28, 2003, until the regulations in this chapter are further modified by the Attorney General. Where a decision of an officer of the Immigration and Naturalization Service was, before March 1, 2003, appealable to the Board or an immigration judge, or an application denied could be renewed in proceedings before an immigration judge, the same authority and procedures shall be followed until further modified by the Attorney General.
[57 FR 11571, Apr. 6, 1992, as amended at 60 FR 34089, June 30, 1995; 62 FR 10332, Mar. 6, 1997. Redesignated and amended at 68 FR 9830, 9832, Feb. 28, 2003]
Notes of Decisions
Jordany Pierre-Paul v. William Barr, U. S. Atty Ge, 930 F.3d 684 (5th Cir. 2019).
· cites it 15× “Title 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14 states that the immigration court's "[j]urisdiction vests, and proceedings before an Immigration Judge commence, when a charging document is filed with the Immigration Court .”
United States v. Juan Bastide-Hernandez, 39 F.4th 1187 (9th Cir. 2022).
· cites it 11× “The en banc court explained that 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14 (a)—a regulation by which the Attorney General purported to condition the “jurisdiction” of immigration courts upon the filing of a charging document, including NTAs—is a claim-processing rule not implicating the court’s…”
United States v. Juan Cortez, 930 F.3d 350 (4th Cir. 2019).
· cites it 16× “8 C.F.R. § 1003.14 (a). The regulations list three documents that may qualify as "charging document[s]," including a "[n]otice to [a]ppear.”
Rosales Vargas & Rosales Rosales, 27 I. & N. Dec. 745 (BIA 2020).
· cites it 17× “15 (b)(6) (2019), or include a certificate of service indicating the Immigration Court in which the charging document is filed, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14 (a) (2019), does not deprive the Immigration Court of subject matter jurisdiction.”
Cecilia Aguilar Fermin v. William Barr, 958 F.3d 887 (9th Cir. 2020).
· cites it 4× “The panel rejected Fermin’s contention, noting that Pereira addressed the requirements for an NTA in regards to the stop-time rule under 8 U.”
United States v. Zapata-Cortinas, 351 F. Supp. 3d 1006 (W.D. Tex. 2018).
· cites it 7× “8 C.F.R. § 1003.14 (a). The phrase "charging document" refers to a "written instrument which initiates a proceeding before an Immigration Judge .”
Serah Karingithi v. Matthew Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2019).
· cites it 2× “” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14 (a). A charging document is “the written instrument which initiates a proceeding before an Immigration Judge,” and one of the enumerated examples is a notice to appear.”
Emerald Nkomo v. Attorney Gen. United States, 930 F.3d 129 (3rd Cir. 2019).
· cites it 3× “Her argument boils down to the following logical sequence: (1) Pereira defined "notice to appear" for all purposes; (2) 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14 (a) provides that "[j]urisdiction vests, and proceedings before an Immigration Judge commence, when a charging document is filed with the…”
— 8 C.F.R. § 1003.14(a) — 8 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.