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. § 1003.42

Review of credible fear determinations

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

(a) Referral. Jurisdiction for an immigration judge to review a negative credible fear determination by an asylum officer pursuant to section 235(b)(1)(B) of the Act shall commence with the filing by DHS of Form I-863, Notice of Referral to Immigration Judge, and a complete copy of the record of determination as defined in section 235(b)(1)(B)(iii)(II) of the Act with the immigration court.

(b) Record of proceeding. The immigration court shall create a Record of Proceeding for a review of a negative fear determination. This record shall not be merged with any later proceeding involving the same alien.

(c) Procedures and evidence. The immigration judge may receive into evidence any oral or written statement which is material and relevant to any issue in the review. The testimony of the alien shall be under oath or affirmation administered by the immigration judge. If an interpreter is necessary, one will be provided by the immigration court. The immigration judge shall determine whether the review shall be in person, or through telephonic or video connection (where available). The alien may consult with a person or persons of the alien's choosing prior to the review.

(d) Standard of review. The immigration judge shall make a de novo determination as to whether there is a significant possibility, taking into account the credibility of the statements made by the alien in support of the alien's claim, and such other facts as are known to the immigration judge, that the alien could establish eligibility for asylum under section 208 of the Act, or could establish eligibility for withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3)(B) of the Act, or withholding or deferral of removal under the Convention Against Torture with respect to the country or countries of removal identified pursuant to section 241(b) of the Act. This determination shall, where relevant, include review of the asylum officer's application of any bars to asylum and withholding of removal pursuant to 8 CFR 208.30(e)(5).

(e) Timing. The immigration judge shall conclude the review to the maximum extent practicable within 24 hours, but in no case later than 7 days after the date the supervisory asylum officer has concurred with the asylum officer's negative credible fear determination issued on the Form I-869, Record of Negative Credible Fear Finding and Request for Review.

(f) Decision. (1) The decision of the immigration judge shall be rendered in accordance with the provisions of 8 CFR 1208.30(g)(2). In reviewing the negative fear determination by DHS, the immigration judge shall apply relevant precedent issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals, the Attorney General, the Federal circuit court of appeals having jurisdiction over the immigration court where the Request for Review is filed, and the Supreme Court.

(2) No appeal shall lie from a review of a negative fear determination made by an immigration judge, but the Attorney General, in the Attorney General's sole and unreviewable discretion, may direct that the immigration judge refer a case for the Attorney General's review following the Immigration Judge's review of a negative fear determination.

(3) In any case the Attorney General decides, the Attorney General's decision shall be stated in writing and shall be transmitted to the Board for transmittal and service as provided in 8 CFR 1003.1(f). Such decision by the Attorney General may be designated as precedent as provided in 8 CFR 1003.1(g).

(g) Custody. An immigration judge shall have no authority to review an alien's custody status in the course of a review of a negative fear determination made by DHS.

(h) Asylum cooperative agreement—(1) Applicants for admission, 2002 U.S.-Canada Agreement, which includes the Additional Protocol of 2022. An immigration judge has no jurisdiction to review a determination by an asylum officer that an applicant for admission is not eligible to apply for asylum pursuant to the 2002 U.S.-Canada Agreement, which includes the Additional Protocol of 2022, formed under section 208(a)(2)(A) of the Act and should be returned to Canada to pursue their claims for asylum or other protection under the laws of Canada. See 8 CFR 208.30(e)(6). However, in any case where an asylum officer has found that an applicant for admission qualifies for an exception to that Agreement, which includes the Additional Protocol of 2022, or that the Agreement, which includes the Additional Protocol of 2022, does not apply, an immigration judge does have jurisdiction to review a negative credible fear finding made thereafter by the asylum officer as provided in this section.

(2) Aliens in transit. An immigration judge has no jurisdiction to review any determination by DHS that an alien being removed from Canada in transit through the United States should be returned to Canada to pursue asylum claims under Canadian law, under the terms of the 2002 U.S.-Canada Agreement, which includes the Additional Protocol of 2022.

(3) Applicants for admission. An immigration judge has no jurisdiction to review a determination by an asylum officer that an alien is not eligible to apply for asylum pursuant to a bilateral or multilateral agreement with a third country under section 208(a)(2)(A) of the Act and should be removed to the third country to pursue his or her claims for asylum or other protection under the laws of that country. See 8 CFR 208.30(e)(7). However, if the asylum officer has determined that the alien may not or should not be removed to a third country under section 208(a)(2)(A) of the Act and subsequently makes a negative fear determination, an immigration judge has jurisdiction to review the negative fear finding as provided in this section.

(4) Aliens in transit through the United States from countries other than Canada. An immigration judge has no jurisdiction to review any determination by DHS that an alien being removed from a receiving country in transit through the United States should be returned to pursue asylum claims under the receiving country's law, under the terms of the applicable cooperative agreement. See 8 CFR 208.30(e)(7).

(i) Severability. The provisions of part 1003 are separate and severable from one another. In the event that any provision in part 1003 is stayed, enjoined, not implemented, or otherwise held invalid, the remaining provisions shall nevertheless be implemented as an independent rule and continue in effect.

[62 FR 10335, Mar. 6, 1997, as amended at 64 FR 8487, Feb. 19, 1999; 69 FR 69496, Nov. 29, 2004; 83 FR 55952, Nov. 9, 2018; 84 FR 33844, July 16, 2019; 84 FR 64009, Nov. 19, 2019; 85 FR 80393, Dec. 11, 2020; 87 FR 18220, Mar. 29, 2022; 88 FR 18240, Mar. 28, 2023; 88 FR 31451, May 16, 2023; 89 FR 105401, Dec. 27, 2024; 90 FR 41888, Aug. 28, 2025; 91 FR 5278, Feb. 6, 2026]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 34 cases (14 in the last 5 years), 2004–2026 · leading case: Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam v. Usdhs, 917 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam v. Usdhs, 917 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2019). · cites it 4× “30 (f); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.42 (f). If the asylum officer finds no credible fear of persecution, the noncitizen will be removed.”
Castro v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., 835 F.3d 422 (3rd Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “§ 1225 (b)(1)(B)(iii)(III); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.42 (d). Assuming the IJ concurs in the asylum officer’s negative credible fear determination, “[t]he [IJ]’s decision is final and may not be appealed,” and the alien is referred back to the asylum officer to effect her removal.”
Tomas Bartolome v. Jefferson Sessions, III, 904 F.3d 803 (9th Cir. 2018). “8 C.F.R. § 1003.42 (c), the IJ is not required to do so.”
Vladimir Ivanovich Krasnopivtsev v. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen. of the United States of Am., 382 F.3d 832 (8th Cir. 2004). “8 C.F.R. § 1003.42 (c), (d); see Prokopenko v.”
Yolany Padilla v. Ice, 953 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2020). “§ 1225 (b)(1)(B)(iii)(III); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.42 . If the asylum officer determines at the time of the credible fear interview that the noncitizen has a credible fear of 1 At the time the district court certified the class and the injunction was issued below, the government…”
Dimitri Prokopenko v. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen. of the United States, 372 F.3d 941 (8th Cir. 2004). “” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.42 (2004). It was not inappropriate for the IJ to take note of Proko-penko’s earlier statements to the asylum officer in performing her de novo review of the complete record, as required by the regulation.”
Gerakl Pavlovich Chakhov v. Loretta E. Lynch, 837 F.3d 843 (8th Cir. 2016). “See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.42 (c), (d). The IJ explained that Chakhov only described attacks occurring in 1990 and 1998 in his application and supplemental affidavit, but when he testified before the IJ, he described additional attacks he suffered in 1982 and 1988.”
United States v. Arroyo, 356 F. Supp. 3d 619 (W.D. Tex. 2018). “Further, as the Government points out, the relevant statutes do not use the term "jurisdiction," speak to when or how a removal proceeding before an immigration judge "commences," or recite any "filing" requirement; they are purely the creatures of the regulations.”
W.S.R. v. Sessions, 318 F. Supp. 3d 1116 (E.D. Ill. 2018). “§ 1225 (b)(1)(B)(iii)(III) ; 8 C.F.R. § 1003.42 (e). [redacted]'s interview took place on or before June 29, 2018, so that determination might very well have been reviewed as of July 6, 2018, although delays are not uncommon.”
Castro v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 163 F. Supp. 3d 157 (E.D. Pa. 2016). “§ 1225 (b)(l)(B)(iii)(III); 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.42 (d), 1208.30(g)(2). The alien is entitled to consult with a person of her choosing before the hearing, providing the consultation is “at no expense to the Government” and does not “unreasonably delay the process.”
Mnatsakanyan v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec. (S.D. Cal. 2020). · cites it 6× “§ 1225 (b)(1)(B)(iii)(III); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.42 (d). Generally, if 7 the immigration judge agrees with the asylum officer’s adverse credible fear 8 9 determination, the immigration judge’s decision is final and may not be appealed.”
Anthony Guerrier v. Merrick Garland (9th Cir. 2021). · cites it 2× “(quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1003.42 (c), (d)(1)) (citing 8 U.”
Show all 34 citing cases →
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.