(a) In the Order to Show Cause, the Service shall provide the following administrative information to the Executive Office for Immigration Review. Omission of any of these items shall not provide the alien with any substantive or procedural rights:
(1) The alien's names and any known aliases;
(2) The alien's address;
(3) The alien's registration number, with any lead alien registration number with which the alien is associated;
(4) The alien's alleged nationality and citizenship;
(5) The language that the alien understands;
(b) The Order to Show Cause and Notice to Appear must also include the following information:
(1) The nature of the proceedings against the alien;
(2) The legal authority under which the proceedings are conducted;
(3) The acts or conduct alleged to be in violation of law;
(4) The charges against the alien and the statutory provisions alleged to have been violated;
(5) Notice that the alien may be represented, at no cost to the government, by counsel or other representative authorized to appear pursuant to 8 CFR 1292.1;
(6) The address of the Immigration Court where the Service will file the Order to Show Cause and Notice to Appear; and
(7) A statement that the alien must advise the Immigration Court having administrative control over the Record of Proceeding of his or her current address and telephone number and a statement that failure to provide such information may result in an in absentia hearing in accordance with § 1003.26.
(c) Contents of the Notice to Appear for removal proceedings. In the Notice to Appear for removal proceedings, the Service shall provide the following administrative information to the Immigration Court. Failure to provide any of these items shall not be construed as affording the alien any substantive or procedural rights.
(1) The alien's names and any known aliases;
(2) The alien's address;
(3) The alien's registration number, with any lead alien registration number with which the alien is associated;
(4) The alien's alleged nationality and citizenship; and
(5) The language that the alien understands.
(d) Address and telephone number. (1) If the alien's address is not provided on the Order to Show Cause or Notice to Appear, or if the address on the Order to Show Cause or Notice to Appear is incorrect, the alien must provide to the Immigration Court where the charging document has been filed, within five days of service of that document, a written notice of an address and telephone number at which the alien can be contacted. The alien may satisfy this requirement by completing and filing Form EOIR-33.
(2) Within five days of any change of address, the alien must provide written notice of the change of address on Form EOIR-33 to the Immigration Court where the charging document has been filed, or if venue has been changed, to the Immigration Court to which venue has been changed.
[57 FR 11571, Apr. 6, 1992, as amended at 60 FR 34089, June 30, 1995; 62 FR 10332, Mar. 6, 1997]
Notes of Decisions
Cecilia Aguilar Fermin v. William Barr, 958 F.3d 887 (9th Cir. 2020).
· cites it 6× “The panel further observed that Karingithi concluded that an NTA need not include time and date information to satisfy the regulations, because 8 C.F.R. § 1003.15 (b) does not require that the time and date of proceedings appear in the initial notice, and 8 C.”
Rosales Vargas & Rosales Rosales, 27 I. & N. Dec. 745 (BIA 2020).
· cites it 15× “Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals A notice to appear that does not include the address of the Immigration Court where the Department of Homeland Security will file the charging document, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.15 (b)(6)…”
United States v. Juan Cortez, 930 F.3d 350 (4th Cir. 2019).
· cites it 6× “18 (citing 8 C.F.R. § 1003.15 (b) - (c) ). Cortez, the court reasoned, was pointing to the wrong definition of "notice to appear": The statutory provision in § 1229(a) does not address "the immigration court's .”
Serah Karingithi v. Matthew Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2019).
· cites it 3× “8 C.F.R. § 1003.15 (b). Because the charging document in this case satisfied the regulatory requirements, we conclude the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) had jurisdiction over the removal proceedings.”
Gualterio Santos-Santos v. William P. Barr, 917 F.3d 486 (6th Cir. 2019).
· cites it 4× “8 C.F.R. § 1003.15 (b). An NTA for removal proceedings must also include the alien's name and any known aliases, the alien's address, the alien's registration number, the alien's alleged nationality and citizenship, and the language that the alien understands.”
Anthony Thompson v. Loretta Lynch, 788 F.3d 638 (6th Cir. 2015).
· cites it 8× “” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.15 (d)(1). As Judge Rawlinson reasoned, “the BIA could not act arbitrarily or irrationally by imposing an obligation that has been memorialized in a regulation.”
Odilia Velasquez-Escovar v. Eric Holder, Jr., 768 F.3d 1000 (9th Cir. 2014).
· cites it 9× “The panel held that this court could not affirm the BIA’s decision pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.15 (d)(1), which places the burden on an alien to inform the immigration court that the government used the wrong address on a Notice to Appear, because the BIA’s decision did not…”
Juan Hernandez-Castillo v. Jefferson Sessions, III, 875 F.3d 199 (5th Cir. 2017).
· cites it 2× “Hernandez-Castillo seeks to rely on 8 C.F.R. § 1003.15 (d)(1), which provides that if an alien’s address is not provided on the notice to appear, "the alien must provide to the Immigration Court where the charging document has been filed, within five days of service of that…”
Santiago-Rodriguez v. Holder, 657 F.3d 820 (9th Cir. 2011).
· cites it 2× “§ 1229 (a)(1)(C) & (D); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.15 (b)(3) & (4). [14] As previously mentioned, the admission that he smuggled his wife renders Santiago removable, but that ground of removability can be waived.”
United States v. Hernandez-Aguilar, 359 F. Supp. 3d 331 (E.D.N.C. 2019).
· cites it 3× “Yet another regulation- 8 C.F.R. § 1003.15 (b) - (c) -lists the specific items that must be included in a notice to appear filed with the immigration court for jurisdictional purposes, but the time and place of the removal *338 proceedings is not among the listed criteria.”
— 8 C.F.R. § 1003.15(a)(d) — 1 case
— 8 C.F.R. § 1003.15(b) — 2 cases
Serah Karingithi v. Matthew Whitaker, 913 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2019).
“8 C.F.R. § 1003.15 (b). Because the charging document in this case satisfied the regulatory requirements, we conclude the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) had jurisdiction over the removal proceedings.”
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.