8 C.F.R. § 1003.39
Finality of decision
Except when certified to the Board, the decision of the Immigration Judge becomes final upon waiver of appeal or upon expiration of the time to appeal if no appeal is taken whichever occurs first.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 82
cases (22 in the last 5 years), 2004–2026 · leading case: George Garcia v. Loretta E. Lynch, 786 F.3d 789 (9th Cir. 2015).
George Garcia v. Loretta E. Lynch, 786 F.3d 789 (9th Cir. 2015). “Judge Berzon wrote that the regulation governing finality upon which the BIA relied, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.39 , is flatly inconsistent with the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.”
Yuzi Cui v. Merrick Garland, 13 F.4th 991 (9th Cir. 2021). “§ 1101 (a)(47)(B); see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.39 . Because in absentia removal orders may not be appealed to the BIA without first filing a motion to reopen the order before the IJ within 180 days of the order, 8 U.”
Jona Kipkorir Biwot v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney Gen., 403 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 2005). “”); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.39 (“[T]he decision of the [IJ] becomes final upon waiver of appeal .”
Nazir Ahmad Popal v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney Gen. of the United States Bureau of Immigr. & Customs Enf't, 416 F.3d 249 (3rd Cir. 2005). “” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.39 (emphasis added). On March 17, 2004, Popal's attorney wrote to the IJ noting his "acquiescence in a removal order,” and requesting a "final agency action.”
Alvear-Velez v. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 672 (7th Cir. 2008). “See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.39 . On June 14, 1999, Mr.”
Armendarez, 24 I. & N. Dec. 646 (BIA 2008). “In all other cases, the Immigration Judge’s decision would either have become “final,” see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.39 (2008), meaning that the alien would no longer be one who “is the subject of” removal proceedings, or the Immigration Judge would have lost authority over the motion…”
Misternovo Bamaca-Cifuentes v. Attorney Gen. United States, 870 F.3d 108 (3rd Cir. 2017). “Though this is plainly wrong, it does not change the fact that the 90 days had elapsed well before Petitioners filed their motion to reopen.”
Chupina v. Holder, 570 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2009). “”); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1003.39 (“Except when certified to the [BIA], the decision of the Immigration Judge becomes final upon waiver of appeal or upon the expiration of the time to appeal [to the BIA] if no appeal is taken whichever [sic] occurs first.”
United States v. Villavicencio-Burruel, 608 F.3d 556 (9th Cir. 2010). “See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.39 (“Exeept when certified to the Board, the decision of the Immigration Judge becomes final upon waiver of appeal or upon expiration of the time to appeal if no appeal is taken[,] whichever occurs first.”
Ali v. Mukasey, 525 F.3d 171 (2d Cir. 2008). “It refers to the language of [ 8 C.F.R. § 1003.39 ], which provides for finality of the Immigration Judge’s decision upon waiver of the right to appeal (or upon the expiration of the time in which to appeal, if no appeal is taken).”
Sosa-Valenzuela v. Holder, Jr., 692 F.3d 1103 (10th Cir. 2012). “Although a “decision of the Immigration Judge becomes final upon waiver of appeal or upon expiration of the time to appeal if no appeal is taken whichever occurs first,” 8 CFR § 1003.39 , the regulations also provide that parties may ask for reconsideration of decisions by the…”
Alali-Amin v. Mukasey, 523 F.3d 1039 (9th Cir. 2008). “The BIA held that, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.39 (relating to the finality of decisions of immigration judges), the January 31, 2000, decision of the IJ became final upon the expiration of the ninety-day period in which petitioner was entitled to appeal the decision.”
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.