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. § 1003.40

Local operating procedures

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

An Immigration Court having administrative control over Records of Proceedings may establish local operating procedures, provided that:

(a) Such operating procedure(s) shall not be inconsistent with any provision of this chapter;

(b) A majority of the judges of the local Immigration Court shall concur in writing therein; and

(c) The Chief Immigration Judge has approved the proposed operating procedure(s) in writing.

[52 FR 2936, Jan. 29, 1987. Redesignated at 57 FR 11571, Apr. 6, 1992, as amended at 60 FR 34090, June 30, 1995]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2006–2025 · leading case: Natasa Djedovic v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney Gen. of the United States, 441 F.3d 547 (7th Cir. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Natasa Djedovic v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney Gen. of the United States, 441 F.3d 547 (7th Cir. 2006). “8 C.F.R. § 1003.40 . The Immigration Court’s branch in Chicago, where this hearing occurred, requires motions to precede the hearing by at least 14 days.”
Am. Immigr. Council v. Exec. Off. for Immigr. Review (D.D.C. 2025). · cites it 2× “” 2 8 C.F.R. § 1003.40 . These provisions demonstrate that responsive records are likely to exist within individual immigration courts rather than within OCIJ alone.”
Djedovic, Natasa v. Gonzales, Alberto (7th Cir. 2006). “8 C.F.R. §1003.40 . The No. 05-1754 5 Immigration Court’s branch in Chicago, where this hearing occurred, requires motions to precede the hearing by at least 14 days.”
Delgado v. Mukasey, 269 F. App'x 738 (9th Cir. 2008). “See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.40 (authoxizing immigration courts to establish local operating px'ocedures).”
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.