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. § 1003.21

Pre-hearing conferences and statement

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

(a) Pre-hearing conferences may be scheduled at the discretion of the Immigration Judge. The conference may be held to narrow issues, to obtain stipulations between the parties, to exchange information voluntarily, and otherwise to simplify and organize the proceeding.

(b) The Immigration Judge may order any party to file a pre-hearing statement of position that may include, but is not limited to: A statement of facts to which both parties have stipulated, together with a statement that the parties have communicated in good faith to stipulate to the fullest extent possible; a list of proposed witnesses and what they will establish; a list of exhibits, copies of exhibits to be introduced, and a statement of the reason for their introduction; the estimated time required to present the case; and, a statement of unresolved issues involved in the proceedings.

(c) If submission of a pre-hearing statement is ordered under paragraph (b) of this section, an Immigration Judge also may require both parties, in writing prior to the hearing, to make any evidentiary objections regarding matters contained in the pre-hearing statement. If objections in writing are required but not received by the date for receipt set by the Immigration Judge, admission of all evidence described in the pre-hearing statement shall be deemed unopposed.

[57 FR 11572, Apr. 6, 1992]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2004–2022 · leading case: Mooneer Riad Tawadrus v. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen., 364 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mooneer Riad Tawadrus v. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen., 364 F.3d 1099 (9th Cir. 2004). “21 (1998) (now located at 8 C.F.R. § 1003.21 ). The date is then set for the hearing on the merits and the matter is continued until that time.”
Ru Lin v. Gonzales, 190 F. App'x 301 (4th Cir. 2006). “Although the regulations contemplate that parties will stipulate to certain facts in order to “simplify and organize the [removal] proceeding,” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.21 , there is no indication that Lin and the government entered into any stipulation here.”
Ta v. Garland (5th Cir. 2022). “See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.21 (a)– (b); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.”
Melvin Paiz-Cabrera v. Atty Gen USA, 467 F. App'x 129 (3rd Cir. 2012). “Noting that the IJ has the authority to narrow issues and obtain stipulations, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.21 (a), the Board further reasoned that Paiz withdrew his cancellation of removal application “as a strategic option to await adjudication of his 1-130 [petition] and to seek consular…”
Ahmed v. Atty Gen USA, 106 F. App'x 111 (3rd Cir. 2004). “Nonetheless, at the hearing, Ahmed’s counsel requested, for the first time, that Dr. Del-ston be allowed to testify on his client’s behalf and that his written report be submitted into evidence.”
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.