C.F.R. » Title 8 » CHAPTER V—EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE › SUBCHAPTER A—GENERAL PROVISIONS › PART 1003—EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW › Subpart C—Immigration Court—Rules of Procedure

8 C.F.R. § 1003.20

Change of venue

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

(a) Venue shall lie at the Immigration Court where jurisdiction vests pursuant to § 1003.14.

(b) The Immigration Judge, for good cause, may change venue only upon motion by one of the parties, after the charging document has been filed with the Immigration Court. The Immigration Judge may grant a change of venue only after the other party has been given notice and an opportunity to respond to the motion to change venue.

(c) No change of venue shall be granted without identification of a fixed street address, including city, state and ZIP code, where the respondent/applicant may be reached for further hearing notification.

[57 FR 11572, Apr. 6, 1992, as amended at 60 FR 34089, June 30, 1995; 62 FR 10332, Mar. 6, 1997]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 42 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 2004–2026 · leading case: Yang You Lee v. Lynch, 791 F.3d 1261 (10th Cir. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Yang You Lee v. Lynch, 791 F.3d 1261 (10th Cir. 2015). · cites it 5× “In addition to the internal memorandum, the Attorney General points us to a regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.20 (a)(4), that the EOIR proposed in 2007 but never promulgated, which provides: For purposes of judicial review of a final order of removal, as provided in section 242(b)(2)…”
Dugboe v. Holder, 644 F.3d 462 (6th Cir. 2011). · cites it 3× “3d at 1159 (citing 8 C.F.R. § 1003.20 (b)). But the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kucana undermines the Tenth Circuit’s holding because the Court held “that the key words ‘specified under this subchapter’ refer to statutory, but not to regulatory, specifications.”
Maung Zar Kay v. John Ashcroft, 387 F.3d 664 (7th Cir. 2004). · cites it 2× “See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.20 (b) (stating an applicant must file a motion to change venue with the Immigration Court).”
Aguilar v. United States Immigr. & Customs Enf't Div. of the Dep't of Homeland Sec., 510 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2007). “See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.20 (b). Each petitioner who raised an issue of this sort may seek review, first by the BIA and then by the regional court of appeals, of any adverse determination impacting his or her right to counsel.”
Makhoul v. Ashcroft, 387 F.3d 75 (1st Cir. 2004). “See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.20 . Shortly thereafter, the petitioner recanted the story he had told at his asylum interview.”
Samuel Dacostagomez-Aguilar v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 40 F.4th 1312 (11th Cir. 2022). “” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.20 (b). Violating that regulation, he says, deprived him of due process.”
Elfido Gonzalez Castillo v. Attorney Gen. United States, 109 F.4th 127 (3d Cir. 2024). · cites it 3× “Upon that filing, administrative venue vested in that Immigration Court, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.20 (a), and the IJ could have “change[d] venue only upon motion by one of the parties[.”
Bogar Allax Monter v. Alberto Gonzales, 430 F.3d 546 (2d Cir. 2005). “8 C.F.R. § 1003.20 (b). “Good cause is determined by balancing such factors as administrative convenience, the alien’s residence, the location of witnesses, evidence and counsel, expeditious treatment of the case, and the cost of transporting witnesses and evidence to a new…”
Jorge L. Frech v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 491 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2007). “We similarly retain jurisdiction to review a denial of change in venue because the authority to grant or deny such a motion is also derived from regulations, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.20 . In this case, although the IJ failed to consider several relevant factors (particularly those…”
Rosales Vargas & Rosales Rosales, 27 I. & N. Dec. 745 (BIA 2020). “, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.20 (a) (2019) (“Venue shall lie at the Immigration Court where jurisdiction vests pursuant to § 1003.”
Enrique Colin Ballesteros v. John Ashcroft, 452 F.3d 1153 (10th Cir. 2006). “” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.20 (b) (emphasis added). This regulation gives the immigration judge complete discretion, even to the extent that the immigration judge may still deny the a change of venue motion when good cause is present.”
Sarr v. Garland, 50 F.4th 326 (2d Cir. 2022). “” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.20 (emphasis added). There is no such motion in the CAR.”
Show all 42 citing cases →
8 C.F.R. § 1003.20(b): 1 case
Jose Mendoza-Jovel v. Merrick Garland, 860 F. App'x 389 (6th Cir. 2021).
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.