8 C.F.R. § 1003.28
Recording equipment
The only recording equipment permitted in the proceeding will be the equipment used by the Immigration Judge to create the official record. No other photographic, video, electronic, or similar recording device will be permitted to record any part of the proceeding.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases, 2005–2018 · leading case: Saul Contreras-Rodriguez v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 462 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 2006).
Saul Contreras-Rodriguez v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 462 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 2006). “Contreras-Rodriguez appealed to the BIA, asserting that the IJ could reopen the proceedings at any time under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.28 (b) (4) (ii), and that there were due process concerns in his deportation proceeding because he had not received notice of the hearing.”
Dahal v. Holder, 489 F. App'x 470 (1st Cir. 2012). “See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.28 . As it happened, however, nearly two years passed between the immigration judge’s ruling and the Board’s decision on the initial appeal.”
Wannaku Fernando v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 554 F. App'x 852 (11th Cir. 2014). “8 C.F.R. § 1003.28 (b)(1). The time limitation does not apply, however, “when (1) an alien files a motion to reopen that seeks asylum, withholding of removal, or relief under the [CAT]; (2) the motion is predicated on changed country conditions; and (3) the changed conditions…”
Perez v. Sessions, 686 F. App'x 59 (2d Cir. 2017). “§ 1229a(c)(7)(C)(i) (setting 90-day period for filing motion to reopen); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.28 (b)(1) (same). This time limitation may be excused if the motion requests reopening to apply for asylum and “is based on changed country conditions arising in the country of nationality…”
Jose Galvan-Avila v. United States, 714 F. App'x 693 (9th Cir. 2017). “See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.28 . 2. In Case No. 13-56205, Galvan-Avila appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.”
Moses Otiato v. Jefferson Sessions III, 710 F. App'x 137 (4th Cir. 2018). “See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.28 (b) (2017). We therefore deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board.”
Lin v. Attorney Gen. of United States, 381 F. App'x 200 (3rd Cir. 2010). “See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.28 (b)(1). Upon review, the BIA affirmed the IJ’s decision denying Lin’s applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the CAT, and denied her motion for reconsideration.”
Onwuamaegbu v. Holder, 324 F. App'x 13 (1st Cir. 2009). “” See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.28 (b)(3). That order was appealed to the BIA, which found the motion to reopen was properly denied because of petitioner’s failure to meet that condition for reopening.”
Lin Lee v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 447 F. App'x 353 (3rd Cir. 2011). “On June 22, 2009, she filed a motion to reopen removal proceedings in Immigration Court, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.28 (b)(1), for the purpose of submitting another application for asylum.”
Rashid Yaqoob v. Attorney Gen. United States, 533 F. App'x 136 (3rd Cir. 2013). “See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.28 (b)(4)(i). Yaqoob appealed the IJ’s decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), 1 and also filed a motion to remand seeking consideration of two new expert statements, several news articles, an affidavit from his former attorney, and a new I-589…”
Samuel Duku v. Eric Holder, Jr., 589 F. App'x 158 (4th Cir. 2015). “See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.28 (b)(1) (2014). We therefore deny the petition for review in part for the reasons stated by the Board.”
Khan, Farhan v. Gonzales, Alberto R., 187 F. App'x 624 (7th Cir. 2006). “” Finally, the BIA held that Khan had missed the 90-day limitations period for seeking an adjustment of status based on his marriage to a United States citizen, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.28 (b)(3), and that because he was informed of the consequences of failing to appear he was not…”
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.