8 C.F.R. § 1003.31

Filing documents and applications

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

This section applies to the filing of all documents, including motions and applications, before the immigration courts.

(a) Filing parties. DHS and all attorneys and accredited representatives of record for persons appearing before the immigration courts are required to electronically file all documents, including charging documents, with the immigration courts through EOIR's electronic filing application in all cases eligible for electronic filing. Although not required, unrepresented respondents or applicants; reputable individuals and accredited officials who are representatives of record; other authorized individuals; and practitioners filing an EOIR-61, may electronically file documents with the immigration courts through EOIR's electronic filing application in cases eligible for electronic filing. An unrepresented respondent or applicant; reputable individual; accredited official; other authorized individual; or practitioner filing an EOIR-61, who elects to use EOIR's electronic filing application shall be required to register with EOIR as a condition of using that application. If a party not required to file electronically opts to use EOIR's electronic filing application for a case, the individual must electronically file all documents with the immigration courts for that case unless an immigration judge, only upon a motion filed by the individual with good cause shown, grants leave to opt out of using the electronic filing application. Such an individual who has been granted leave to opt out of using EOIR's electronic filing application for a case may not subsequently opt in to use that application for the same case.

(b) Filing requirements. If EOIR's electronic filing application is unavailable due to an unplanned system outage on the last day for filing in a specific case, then the filing deadline will be extended to the first day that the electronic filing application becomes accessible that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. For planned system outages, parties must electronically file documents during system availability within the applicable filing deadline or paper file documents within the applicable filing deadline. EOIR will issue public communications for planned system outages ahead of the scheduled outage. Any planned system outage announced five or fewer business days prior to the start of the outage will be treated as an unplanned outage. In all other situations in cases eligible for electronic filing, an immigration judge retains the discretion to accept paper filings in all cases.

(c) Originals. Parties must make the originals of all filed documents available upon request to the immigration court or the opposing party for review.

(d) Classified information. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, classified information is never allowed to be electronically filed.

(e) Sealed medical documents. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, parties are not permitted to file electronically any sealed medical documents.

(f) Where to file. All documents that are to be considered in a proceeding before an immigration judge must be filed with the immigration court having administrative control over the Record of Proceeding.

(g) Fees. All documents or applications filed with the Immigration Courts requiring the payment of a fee must be accompanied by proof of payment of the filing fee in a manner and form authorized by EOIR, or if applicable, a fee waiver request pursuant to 8 CFR 1103.7(c).

(h) Filing deadlines. The immigration judge may set and extend time limits for the filing of applications and related documents and responses thereto, if any. If an application or document is not filed within the time set by the immigration judge, the opportunity to file that application or document shall be deemed waived.

(i) Filing under seal. DHS may file documents under seal by including a cover sheet identifying the contents of the submission as containing information which is being filed under seal. Documents filed under seal shall only be examined by persons with authorized access to the administrative record.

(j) Signatures. All documents filed with the immigration courts that require a signature must have an original, handwritten ink signature, an encrypted digital signature, or an electronic signature. Electronic filings submitted through EOIR's electronic filing application that require the user's signature may have a conformed signature. This paragraph is subject to the requirements of the application or document being submitted.

[86 FR 70722, Dec. 13, 2021, as amended at 91 FR 35375, June 11, 2026]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 240 cases (54 in the last 5 years), 2003–2026 · leading case: Dedji v. Mukasey, 525 F.3d 187 (2d Cir. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Dedji v. Mukasey, 525 F.3d 187 (2d Cir. 2008). · cites it 5× “We now write to recognize that an IJ has broad discretion to set and extend filing deadlines pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31 . 3 We hold, however, that, in the particular circumstances presented here, the IJ had the discretion to deviate from the filing deadlines in the local…”

Jacqueline Stevens v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 877 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “16 , may present documentary evidence and witness testimony, 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.31 , 1003.34, 1003.35, and are entitled to written notice of the Immigration Judge’s decision which “shall” include reasons for the decision, 8 C.”

Cabrera-Ramos v. Gonzales, 233 F. App'x 449 (6th Cir. 2007). · cites it 10× “Cabrera-Ramos does not dispute that 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31 (c) provides an immigration judge with authority to set time limits for filing applications and to deem the opportunity to file waived when an application is not filed by the deadline.”

Pritam Taggar v. Eric Holder, Jr., 736 F.3d 886 (9th Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “We have not articulated the standard of review applicable to an IJ’s decision to deem applications waived for failing to adhere to deadlines imposed under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31 , which allows the IJ to “set and extend time limits for the filing of applications and related documents…”

Alcarez-Rodriguez v. Garland, 89 F.4th 754 (9th Cir. 2023). · cites it 2× “Indeed, this circuit and others have previously employed the good-cause standard as a check against arbitrary and capricious decisionmaking by IJs with respect to the similar question of extending filing deadlines (as compared to considering an application for relief submitted…”

A-k, 24 I. & N. Dec. 275 (BIA 2007). · cites it 2× “At the time of the respondent’s May 18, 2006, Master Calendar hearing, the Immigration Judge gave him additional time to apply for all forms of relief for which he was eligible and advised him that any application that was not received at the time of the next hearing would be…”

Juarez v. Holder, 599 F.3d 560 (7th Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “In Juarez’s case the BIA explained that under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31 (c), a failure to comply with the deadline for filing an application *564 for immigration relief may be deemed a waiver if no good cause is shown.”

Manuel Admin Chay-Velasquez v. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen. of the United States, 367 F.3d 751 (8th Cir. 2004). “” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31 (c) (2003). Chay-Velasquez could have filed a motion to reopen, accompanied by material evidence not previously available or evidence of changed country conditions, see 8 C.”

Interiano-rosa, 25 I. & N. Dec. 264 (BIA 2010). · cites it 3× “8 C.F.R. § 1003.31 (c) (2010); see also Immigration Court Practice Manual, §§ 3.”

Harbi Mohamad Ismat Hassan v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney Gen., 403 F.3d 429 (6th Cir. 2005). “” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31 (c). In his brief, Hassan concedes that the letter was submitted after the filing deadline, but puts forth the unsupported argument that because the letter is significant, to deny it on the grounds of timeliness is an abuse of discretion.”

Tang v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 578 F.3d 1270 (11th Cir. 2009). “8 C.F.R. § 1003.31 (c). The IJ “may set and extend time limits for the filing of applications and related documents and responses thereto, if any.”

Jose Ventura-Reyes v. Loretta E. Lynch, 797 F.3d 348 (6th Cir. 2015). · cites it 2× “8 C.F.R. § 1003.31 (c). Legal errors in evaluating timeliness typically involve mistakes in establishing dates of past events when such dates form the basis for calculating filing deadlines (such as an asylum applicant’s ambiguous date of entry used in calculating the…”

Show all 240 citing cases →

— 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31(c) — 1 case

Cabrera-Ramos v. Gonzales, 233 F. App'x 449 (6th Cir. 2007). “Cabrera-Ramos does not dispute that 8 C.F.R. § 1003.31 (c) provides an immigration judge with authority to set time limits for filing applications and to deem the opportunity to file waived when an application is not filed by the deadline.”

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.