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. § 1003.47

Identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations relating to applications for immigration relief, protection, or restriction on removal

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

(a) In general. The procedures of this section are applicable to any application for immigration relief, protection, or restriction on removal that is subject to the conduct of identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations as described in paragraph (b) of this section, in order to ensure that DHS has completed the appropriate identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations before the adjudication of the application.

(b) Covered applications. The requirements of this section apply to the granting of any form of immigration relief in immigration proceedings which permits the alien to reside in the United States, including but not limited to the following forms of relief, protection, or restriction on removal to the extent they are within the authority of an immigration judge or the Board to grant:

(1) Asylum under section 208 of the Act.

(2) Adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident under sections 209 or 245 of the Act, or any other provision of law.

(3) Waiver of inadmissibility or deportability under sections 209(c), 212, or 237 of the Act, or any provision of law.

(4) Permanent resident status on a conditional basis or removal of the conditional basis of permanent resident status under sections 216 or 216A of the Act, or any other provision of law.

(5) Cancellation of removal or suspension of deportation under section 240A or former section 244 of the Act, or any other provision of law.

(6) Relief from removal under former section 212(c) of the Act.

(7) Withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the Act or under the Convention Against Torture.

(8) Registry under section 249 of the Act.

(9) Conditional grants relating to the above, such as for applications seeking asylum pursuant to section 207(a)(5) of the Act or cancellation of removal in light of section 240A(e) of the Act.

(c) Completion of applications for immigration relief, protection, or restriction on removal. Failure to file necessary documentation and comply with the requirements to provide biometrics and other biographical information in conformity with the applicable regulations, the instructions to the applications, the biometrics notice, and instructions provided by DHS, within the time allowed by the immigration judge's order, constitutes abandonment of the application and the immigration judge may enter an appropriate order dismissing the application unless the applicant demonstrates that such failure was the result of good cause. Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the provisions in 8 CFR 1208.4 regarding the timely filing of asylum applications or the determination of a respondent's compliance with any other deadline for initial filing of an application, including the consequences of filing under the Child Status Protection Act.

(d) Biometrics and other biographical information. At any hearing at which a respondent expresses an intention to file or files an application for relief for which identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations are required under this section, unless DHS advises the immigration judge that such information is unnecessary in the particular case, DHS shall notify the respondent of the need to provide biometrics and other biographical information and shall provide a biometrics notice and instructions to the respondent for such procedures. The immigration judge shall specify for the record when the respondent receives the biometrics notice and instructions and the consequences for failing to comply with the requirements of this section. Whenever required by DHS, the applicant shall make arrangements with an office of DHS to provide biometrics and other biographical information (including for any other person covered by the same application who is required to provide biometrics and other biographical information) before or as soon as practicable after the filing of the application for relief in the immigration proceedings. Failure to provide biometrics or other biographical information of the applicant or any other covered individual within the time allowed will constitute abandonment of the application or of the other covered individual's participation unless the applicant demonstrates that such failure was the result of good cause. DHS is responsible for obtaining biometrics and other biographical information with respect to any alien in detention.

(e) Conduct of investigations or examinations. DHS shall endeavor to initiate all relevant identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations concerning the alien or beneficiaries promptly, to complete those investigations or examinations as promptly as is practicable (considering, among other things, increased demands placed upon such investigations), and to advise the immigration judge of the results in a timely manner, on or before the date of a scheduled hearing on any application for immigration relief filed in the proceedings. The immigration judges, in scheduling hearings, shall allow a period of time for DHS to undertake the necessary identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations prior to the date that an application is scheduled for hearing and disposition, with a view to minimizing the number of cases in which hearings must be continued.

(f) Continuance for completion of investigations or examinations. If DHS has not reported on the completion and results of all relevant identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations for an applicant and his or her beneficiaries by the date that the application is scheduled for hearing and disposition, after the time allowed by the immigration judge pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section, the immigration judge may continue proceedings for the purpose of completing the investigations or examinations, or hear the case on the merits. DHS shall attempt to give reasonable notice to the immigration judge of the fact that all relevant identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations have not been completed and the amount of time DHS anticipates is required to complete those investigations or examinations.

(g) Adjudication after completion of investigations or examinations. In no case shall an immigration judge grant an application for immigration relief that is subject to the conduct of identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations under this section until after DHS has reported to the immigration judge that the appropriate investigations or examinations have been completed and are current as provided in this section and DHS has reported any relevant information from the investigations or examinations to the immigration judge.

(h) Adjudication upon remand from the Board. In any case remanded pursuant to 8 CFR 1003.1(d)(6), the immigration judge shall consider the results of the identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations subject to the provisions of this section. If new information is presented, the immigration judge may hold a further hearing if necessary to consider any legal or factual issues, including issues relating to credibility, if relevant. The immigration judge shall then enter an order granting or denying the immigration relief sought.

(i) Procedures when immigration relief granted. At the time that the immigration judge or the Board grants any relief under this section that would entitle the respondent to a new document evidencing such relief, the decision granting such relief shall include advice that the respondent will need to contact an appropriate office of DHS. Information concerning DHS locations and local procedures for document preparation shall be routinely provided to EOIR and updated by DHS. Upon respondent's presentation of a final order from the immigration judge or the Board granting such relief and submission of any biometric and other information necessary, DHS shall prepare such documents in keeping with section 264 of the Act and regulations thereunder and other relevant law.

(j) Voluntary departure. The procedures of this section do not apply to the granting of voluntary departure prior to the conclusion of proceedings pursuant to 8 CFR 1240.26(b) or at the conclusion of proceedings pursuant to 8 CFR 1240.26(c). If DHS seeks a continuance in order to complete pending identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations, the immigration judge may grant additional time in the exercise of discretion, and the 30-day period for the immigration judge to grant voluntary departure, as provided in § 1240.26(b)(1)(ii), shall be extended accordingly.

(k) Custody hearings. The foregoing provisions of this section do not apply to proceedings seeking the redetermination of conditions of custody of an alien during the pendency of immigration proceedings under section 236 of the Act. In scheduling an initial custody redetermination hearing, the immigration judge shall, to the extent practicable consistent with the expedited nature of such cases, take account of the brief initial period of time needed for DHS to conduct the automated portions of its identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations with respect to aliens detained in connection with immigration proceedings. If at the time of the custody hearing DHS seeks a brief continuance in an appropriate case based on unresolved identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations, the immigration judge in the exercise of discretion may grant one or more continuances for a limited period of time which is reasonable under the circumstances.

[70 FR 4753, Jan. 31, 2005]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 115 cases (18 in the last 5 years), 2005–2026 · leading case: M-d, 24 I. & N. Dec. 138 (BIA 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
M-d, 24 I. & N. Dec. 138 (BIA 2007). · cites it 8× “OSUNA, Acting Chairman: This case was last before us on April 28, 2005, when we sustained the respondent’s appeal in part, determined that she was entitled to withholding of removal, and remanded the record for the appropriate background checks and entry of an order in…”
Isabel Gonzalez-Veliz v. Merrick Garland, 996 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2021). · cites it 6× “GARLAND SUMMARY ** Immigration The panel denied Isabel Gonzalez-Veliz’s petition for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing her appeal from an order of an Immigration Judge deeming her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and Convention…”
Qi Cui v. Mukasey, 538 F.3d 1289 (9th Cir. 2008). · cites it 4× “See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47 (effective April 1, 2005).”
Katherin Mejia-Velasquez v. Merrick Garland, 26 F.4th 193 (4th Cir. 2022). · cites it 11× “Because Mejia-Velasquez failed to produce biometrics (such as her photograph, fingerprints, and signature) in support of her application, after having been warned of the consequences of failing to do so, the immigration judge (“IJ”) deemed her application abandoned pursuant to 8…”
Cyrille Kouambo v. William Barr, 943 F.3d 205 (4th Cir. 2019). · cites it 5× “4 and further proceedings, if necessary, and for the entry of an order as provided by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47 (h).” J.A. 7. Because neither party had appealed the IJ’s decision to grant withholding of removal, the BIA expressly declined to address that issue in its opinion.”
Ogunfuye v. Holder, 610 F.3d 303 (5th Cir. 2010). · cites it 4× “On appeal, Ogunfuye argues that the IJ did not give her proper notice that she needed to submit biometrics as required by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47 (d). She asserts that the lack of notice resulted in the dismissal of her applications for relief in violation of her due process rights.”
Vakker v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 519 F.3d 143 (3rd Cir. 2008). · cites it 4× “” Ordinarily, when the BIA remands removal proceedings to the IJ pursuant to 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.47 (h), the “final order” in the removal proceedings is the IJ’s order following remand.”
Alcantara-perez, 23 I. & N. Dec. 882 (BIA 2006). · cites it 5× “31, 2005) (to be codified at 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.47 (a), (b)). Accordingly, if the appropriate background checks have not been conducted in a case pending before the Board, we are not “able to issue a final decision granting any application for relief that is subject to the…”
Vahora v. Holder, 641 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “" The BIA remanded the case to the IJ for the DHS to complete its investigation and examination and for entry of an order as provided by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47 (h). On April 10, 2008, the IJ entered a summary of the oral decision which reflected that Vahora's asylum application was…”
Katherine Ponce-Osorio v. Jeh Johnson, Sec'y, 824 F.3d 502 (5th Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “But observing that Ponce-Osorio appeared to be eligible for withholding of removal, the BIA remanded to the IJ “for the purpose of allowing [DHS] the opportunity to complete or update identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations, and further proceedings,…”
Juarez v. Holder, 599 F.3d 560 (7th Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “§ 1158(d)(5)(A)(i) (requiring the Attorney General to check the identity of all asylum applicants against relevant Justice and State Department databases to determine whether there are grounds for inadmissibility or ineligibility); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47 (requiring applicants to…”
Marin-Rodriguez v. Holder, 612 F.3d 591 (7th Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “8 C.F.R. § 1003.47 (d). At a hearing in mid-2006, Marin-Rodriguez was told to submit fingerprints and warned that, if he did not, his application would be denied.”
Show all 115 citing cases →
— 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47(c) — 1 case
Katherin Mejia-Velasquez v. Merrick Garland, 26 F.4th 193 (4th Cir. 2022). “Because Mejia-Velasquez failed to produce biometrics (such as her photograph, fingerprints, and signature) in support of her application, after having been warned of the consequences of failing to do so, the immigration judge (“IJ”) deemed her application abandoned pursuant to 8…”
— 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47(d) — 1 case
Katherin Mejia-Velasquez v. Merrick Garland, 26 F.4th 193 (4th Cir. 2022). “Because Mejia-Velasquez failed to produce biometrics (such as her photograph, fingerprints, and signature) in support of her application, after having been warned of the consequences of failing to do so, the immigration judge (“IJ”) deemed her application abandoned pursuant to 8…”
— 8 C.F.R. § 1003.47(h) — 1 case
Junming Li v. Holder, 656 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2011).
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.