8 C.F.R. § 1003.19

Custody/bond

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

(a) Custody and bond determinations made by the service pursuant to 8 CFR part 1236 may be reviewed by an Immigration Judge pursuant to 8 CFR part 1236.

(b) Application for an initial bond redetermination by a respondent, or his or her attorney or representative, may be made orally, in writing, or, at the discretion of the Immigration Judge, by telephone.

(c) Applications for the exercise of authority to review bond determinations shall be made to one of the following offices, in the designated order:

(1) If the respondent is detained, to the Immigration Court having jurisdiction over the place of detention;

(2) To the Immigration Court having administrative control over the case; or

(3) To the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge for designation of an appropriate Immigration Court.

(d) Consideration by the Immigration Judge of an application or request of a respondent regarding custody or bond under this section shall be separate and apart from, and shall form no part of, any deportation or removal hearing or proceeding. The determination of the Immigration Judge as to custody status or bond may be based upon any information that is available to the Immigration Judge or that is presented to him or her by the alien or the Service.

(e) After an initial bond redetermination, an alien's request for a subsequent bond redetermination shall be made in writing and shall be considered only upon a showing that the alien's circumstances have changed materially since the prior bond redetermination.

(f) The determination of an Immigration Judge with respect to custody status or bond redetermination shall be entered on the appropriate form at the time such decision is made and the parties shall be informed orally or in writing of the reasons for the decision. An appeal from the determination by an Immigration Judge may be taken to the Board of Immigration Appeals pursuant to § 1003.38.

(g) While any proceeding is pending before the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the Service shall immediately advise the Immigration Court having administrative control over the Record of Proceeding of a change in the respondent/applicant's custody location or of release from Service custody, or subsequent taking into Service custody, of a respondent/applicant. This notification shall be in writing and shall state the effective date of the change in custody location or status, and the respondent/applicant's current fixed street address, including zip code.

(h)(1)(i) While the Transition Period Custody Rules (TPCR) set forth in section 303(b)(3) of Div. C of Pub. L. 104-208 remain in effect, an immigration judge may not redetermine conditions of custody imposed by the Service with respect to the following classes of aliens:

(A) Aliens in exclusion proceedings;

(B) Arriving aliens in removal proceedings, including persons paroled after arrival pursuant to section 212(d)(5) of the Act;

(C) Aliens described in section 237(a)(4) of the Act;

(D) Aliens subject to section 303(b)(3)(A) of Pub. L. 104-208 who are not “lawfully admitted” (as defined in § 1236.1(c)(2) of this chapter); or

(E) Aliens designated in § 1236.1(c) of this chapter as ineligible to be considered for release.

(ii) Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as prohibiting an alien from seeking a redetermination of custody conditions by the Service in accordance with part 1235 or 1236 of this chapter. In addition, with respect to paragraphs (h)(1)(i)(C), (D), and (E) of this section, nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as prohibiting an alien from seeking a determination by an immigration judge that the alien is not properly included within any of those paragraphs.

(2)(i) Upon expiration of the Transition Period Custody Rules set forth in section 303(b)(3) of Div. C. of Pub. L. 104-208, an immigration judge may not redetermine conditions of custody imposed by the Service with respect to the following classes of aliens:

(A) Aliens in exclusion proceedings;

(B) Arriving aliens in removal proceedings, including aliens paroled after arrival pursuant to section 212(d)(5) of the Act;

(C) Aliens described in section 237(a)(4) of the Act;

(D) Aliens in removal proceedings subject to section 236(c)(1) of the Act (as in effect after expiration of the Transition Period Custody Rules); and

(E) Aliens in deportation proceedings subject to section 242(a)(2) of the Act (as in effect prior to April 1, 1997, and as amended by section 440(c) of Pub. L. 104-132).

(ii) Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as prohibiting an alien from seeking a redetermination of custody conditions by the Service in accordance with part 1235 or 1236 of this chapter. In addition, with respect to paragraphs (h)(2)(i)(C), (D), and (E) of this section, nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as prohibiting an alien from seeking a determination by an immigration judge that the alien is not properly included within any of those paragraphs.

(3) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (h)(1) of this section, an alien subject to section 303(b)(3)(A) of Div. C of Pub. L. 104-208 may apply to the Immigration Court, in a manner consistent with paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of this section, for a redetermination of custody conditions set by the Service. Such an alien must first demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that release would not pose a danger to other persons or to property. If an alien meets this burden, the alien must further demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that the alien is likely to appear for any scheduled proceeding or interview.

(4) Unremovable aliens. A determination of a district director (or other official designated by the Commissioner) regarding the exercise of authority under section 303(b)(3)(B)(ii) of Div. C. of Pub. L. 104-208 (concerning release of aliens who cannot be removed because the designated country of removal will not accept their return) is final, and shall not be subject to redetermination by an immigration judge.

(i) Stay of custody order pending appeal by the government—(1) General discretionary stay authority. The Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) has the authority to stay the order of an immigration judge redetermining the conditions of custody of an alien when the Department of Homeland Security appeals the custody decision or on its own motion. DHS is entitled to seek a discretionary stay (whether or not on an emergency basis) from the Board in connection with such an appeal at any time.

(2) Automatic stay in certain cases. In any case in which DHS has determined that an alien should not be released or has set a bond of $10,000 or more, any order of the immigration judge authorizing release (on bond or otherwise) shall be stayed upon DHS's filing of a notice of intent to appeal the custody redetermination (Form EOIR-43) with the immigration court within one business day of the order, and, except as otherwise provided in 8 CFR 1003.6(c), shall remain in abeyance pending decision of the appeal by the Board. The decision whether or not to file Form EOIR-43 is subject to the discretion of the Secretary.

[57 FR 11571, Apr. 6, 1992, as amended at 60 FR 34089, June 30, 1995; 62 FR 10332, Mar. 6, 1997; 63 FR 27448, May 19, 1998; 66 FR 54911, Oct. 31, 2001; 70 FR 4753, Jan. 31, 2005; 71 FR 57884, Oct. 2, 2006]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 380 cases (194 in the last 5 years), 2003–2026 · leading case: Joseph v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir. 2010).
Joseph v. Holder, 600 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir. 2010). · cites it 28× “In support of his claim, Joseph cites 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19 (d). This regulation, which pertains to bond hearings, states that "[c]onsideration by the[IJ] of an application or request of a respondent regarding custody or bond under this section shall be separate and apart from, and…”
Aracely v. Nielsen, 319 F. Supp. 3d 110 (D.C. Cir. 2018). · cites it 5× “See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19 (h)(2)(i)(B). In other words, a POE asylum seeker may be paroled into the United States after passing a credible fear interview, but that individual is still considered an "arriving alien" under the law, ICE may revoke the parole at any time, and ICE's…”
Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA 2025). · cites it 2× “See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19 (h)(2)(i)(A) (2025). An Immigration Judge is also without authority to conduct a custody redetermination hearing for an arriving alien, including an alien paroled after arrival pursuant to section 212(d)(5) of the INA, 8 U.”
Reyes v. Bonnar, 362 F. Supp. 3d 762 (N.D. Cal. 2019). · cites it 4× “) Petitioner moved for the second bond hearing pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19 (e), based on changed circumstances.”
Zavala v. Ridge, 310 F. Supp. 2d 1071 (N.D. Cal. 2004). · cites it 12× “Petitioner asserts that he is currently being detained in violation of the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution by virtue of the automatic stay of his bail redetermination pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19 (i)(2). Having carefully reviewed the parties’ papers and…”
Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018). “The same statute, same lan­ guage applies to the detention of those asylum seekers and the ones before us, so the statute must be consistent with bail in the Board of Immigration Appeals’ view. Fourth, in Zadvydas we found (to avoid similar constitu­ tional questions) that the…”
Darko v. Sessions, 342 F. Supp. 3d 429 (S.D. Ill. 2018). · cites it 3× “8 C.F.R. § 1003.19 (f). Importantly, § 1226(a) does not indicate whether the government or the alien bears the burden of proof at a custody redetermination hearing and what amount of evidence would satisfy that burden.”
X-k, 23 I. & N. Dec. 731 (BIA 2005). · cites it 7× “§ 1229a (2000), following a positive credible fear determination, is eligible for a custody redetermination hearing before an Immigration Judge unless the alien is a member of any of the listed classes of aliens who are specifically excluded from the custody jurisdiction of…”
Pensamiento v. McDonald, 315 F. Supp. 3d 684 (D.D.C. 2018). · cites it 3× “8 C.F.R. § 1003.19 (f). Notably, § 1226(a) is silent as to whether the government or the alien bears the burden of proof at a custody redetermination hearing and what amount of evidence would satisfy that burden.”
Aaron Hope v. Warden Pike Cnty. Corr, 972 F.3d 310 (3rd Cir. 2020). “§ 1226 (a), (c); and 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.19 , 1236.1(c); see also Nielsen v.”
Guerra, 24 I. & N. Dec. 37 (BIA 2006). · cites it 2× “8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.19 , 1236.1 (2006). In the present matter, the respondent’s custody determination is governed by the provisions of section 236(a) of the Act.”
Alejandro Rodriguez v. Timothy Robbins, 715 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “Detainees are permitted to ask an Immigration Judge to reconsider the applicability of mandatory detention, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19 (h)(2)(ii), but such review is limited in scope and addresses only whether the individual’s criminal history falls within the statute’s purview.”
— 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(a) — 1 case
Noem (N.D. Ill. 2025).
— 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(d) — 3 cases
Al-Siddiqi, Mohamed v. Achim, Deborah, 531 F.3d 490 (7th Cir. 2008).
Perry (E.D. Va. 2025).
— 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(e) — 3 cases
Brevil v. Jones, 283 F. Supp. 3d 205 (S.D. Ill. 2018).
Gonzalez v. Green (D.N.J. 2019).
— 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(h)(2)(h) — 1 case
Gayle v. Johnson, 81 F. Supp. 3d 371 (D.N.J. 2015).
— 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(h)(2)(i)(B) — 2 cases
Alawad v. Figueroa (S.D. Cal. 2021).
Araya v. Guadian (D. Kan. 2020).
— 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(h)(2)(ii) — 1 case
Gayle v. Warden Monmouth Cnty. Corr. Inst., 838 F.3d 297 (3rd Cir. 2016).
— 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(i)(1) — 1 case
Puerto-Hernandez (W.D. Mich. 2025).
— 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(i)(2) — 11 cases
Cortes Fernandez v. Lyons (D. Neb. 2025).
Palma Perez v. Berg (D. Neb. 2025).
Ozuna Carlon v. Kramer (D. Neb. 2025).
B.D.V.S. v. Forestal (S.D. Ind. 2025).
Merchan-Pacheo (D. Colo. 2026).
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.