(a) Waiver of presence of the parties. The Immigration Judge may, for good cause, and consistent with section 240(b) of the Act, waive the presence of the alien at a hearing when the alien is represented or when the alien is a minor child at least one of whose parents or whose legal guardian is present. When it is impracticable by reason of an alien's mental incompetency for the alien to be present, the presence of the alien may be waived provided that the alien is represented at the hearing by an attorney or legal representative, a near relative, legal guardian, or friend.
(b) Stipulated request for order; waiver of hearing. An Immigration Judge may enter an order of deportation, exclusion or removal stipulated to by the alien (or the alien's representative) and the Service. The Immigration Judge may enter such an order without a hearing and in the absence of the parties based on a review of the charging document, the written stipulation, and supporting documents, if any. If the alien is unrepresented, the Immigration Judge must determine that the alien's waiver is voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. The stipulated request and required waivers shall be signed on behalf of the government and by the alien and his or her attorney or representative, if any. The attorney or representative shall file a Notice of Appearance in accordance with § 1003.16(b). A stipulated order shall constitute a conclusive determination of the alien's deportability or removability from the United States. The stipulation shall include:
(1) An admission that all factual allegations contained in the charging document are true and correct as written;
(2) A concession of deportability or inadmissibility as charged;
(3) A statement that the alien makes no application for relief under the Act;
(4) A designation of a country for deportation or removal under section 241(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Act;
(5) A concession to the introduction of the written stipulation of the alien as an exhibit to the Record of Proceeding;
(6) A statement that the alien understands the consequences of the stipulated request and that the alien enters the request voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently;
(7) A statement that the alien will accept a written order for his or her deportation, exclusion or removal as a final disposition of the proceedings; and
(8) A waiver of appeal of the written order of deportation or removal.
(c) Telephonic or video hearings. An Immigration Judge may conduct hearings through video conference to the same extent as he or she may conduct hearings in person. An Immigration Judge may also conduct a hearing through a telephone conference, but an evidentiary hearing on the merits may only be conducted through a telephone conference with the consent of the alien involved after the alien has been advised of the right to proceed in person or, where available, through a video conference, except that credible fear determinations may be reviewed by the Immigration Judge through a telephone conference without the consent of the alien.
[62 FR 10334, Mar. 6, 1997]
Notes of Decisions
United States v. Isaac Ramos, 623 F.3d 672 (9th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 12× “§ 1229a(d), 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25 (b). He argues that the stipulated removal order entered by an IJ at the Eloy Detention Center in Eloy, Arizona, is invalid because he was not accorded his Fifth Amendment due process rights and the deportation officers and IJ failed to comply with…”
United States v. Faustino Gomez, 757 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 2014).
· cites it 9× “We hold that the removal was invalid for two independent reasons: (1) the stipulated removal proceeding violated Gomez’s right to due process because he was denied his right to appeal the removal order, and (2) the Immigration Judge (“U”) violated 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25 (b) by…”
United States v. Faustino Gomez, 732 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 2013).
· cites it 11× “We hold that the removal was invalid for two independent reasons: (1) the stipulated removal proceeding violated Gomez’s right to due process because he was denied his right to appeal the removal order, and (2) the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) violated 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25 (b) by…”
United States v. Gabriela Cordova-Soto, 804 F.3d 714 (5th Cir. 2015).
· cites it 5× “More specifically, Cordova contends that the Immigration Judge (“IJ”) failed to expressly find that her waiver of rights and stipulation of removability was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent as required by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25 (b). She also contends that her waiver was…”
Rapheal v. Mukasey, 533 F.3d 521 (7th Cir. 2008).
· cites it 2× “In arguing that her due process rights were violated, Rapheal first argues, in effect, that 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25 (e) is facially unconstitutional.”
Akinwande v. Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 517 (1st Cir. 2004).
· cites it 4× “Specifically, Akinwande argues, under both the Due Process Clause and INS regulation 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25 , that the IJ erred in permitting a witness, Akinwande’s second ex-wife, to testify via telephone.”
United States v. Mansa Baptist, 759 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 2014).
· cites it 3× “The Immigration Judge may enter such an order without a hearing and in the absence of the parties based on a review of the charging document, the written stipulation, and supporting documents, if any.”
Angov v. Holder, 788 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2013).
“§ 1229a(b)(2)(A); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25 (c) (“An Immigration Judge may conduct hearings through video conference to the same extent as he or she' may conduct hearings in person.”
Eke v. Mukasey, 512 F.3d 372 (7th Cir. 2008).
“Eke claims that this part of the statute, which is implemented by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25 (c), violates his constitutional due process rights.”
Cordova-Soto v. Holder, 732 F.3d 789 (7th Cir. 2013).
“See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25 (b) (“If the alien is unrepresented, the Immigration Judge must determine that the alien’s waiver is volun *796 tary, knowing, and intelligent.”
Sarr v. Garland, 50 F.4th 326 (2d Cir. 2022).
“§ 1229a(b)(2); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25 (c). In such remote proceedings, the Immigration Judge (“IJ”), respondent, and counsel may each participate from different locations.”
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.