(a) Appeal from decision of an immigration judge. For all appeals not summarily dismissed, the record shall be forwarded to the Board as promptly as possible upon receipt of the appeal.
(b) Appeal from decision of a DHS officer. If an appeal is taken from a decision of a DHS officer, the record of proceeding shall be forwarded to the Board by the DHS officer promptly upon receipt of the briefs of the parties, or upon expiration of the time allowed for the submission of such briefs. A DHS officer need not forward such an appeal to the Board, but may reopen and reconsider any decision made by the officer if the new decision will grant the benefit that has been requested in the appeal. The new decision must be served on the appealing party within 45 days of receipt of any briefs or upon expiration of the time allowed for the submission of any briefs. If the new decision is not served within these time limits or the appealing party does not agree that the new decision disposes of the matter, the record of proceeding shall be immediately forwarded to the Board.
[89 FR 46791, May 29, 2024, as amended at 91 FR 5278, Feb. 6, 2026]
Notes of Decisions
Ever Serrano-Alberto v. Attorney Gen. United States, 859 F.3d 208 (3rd Cir. 2017).
“See generally 8 C.F.R. § 1003.5 (a) (requiring that the record from the Immigration Court be forwarded to the BIA on appeal and directing the expeditious transcription of all relevant proceedings); Executive Office of Immigration Review, Immigration Court Practice Manual at 68…”
Fatjon Sterkaj Amemona Sokoli-Sterkaj v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney Gen., 439 F.3d 273 (6th Cir. 2006).
“§ 1229a(b)(4)(C), amended by PL 109-162; 8 C.F.R. § 1003.5 ; 8 C.F.R. § 1240.9 . Due process demands a reasonably accurate and complete transcript to allow for meaningful appellate review and to allow the alien to mount a challenge to the proceedings conducted before the IJ.”
Shewchun v. Holder, 658 F.3d 557 (6th Cir. 2011).
· cites it 2× “He correctly points out the general rule set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.5 (a) that “[w]here transcription of an oral decision is required, the immigration judge shall review the transcript and approve the decision within 14 days of receipt” of the petitioner’s appeal.”
Johns v. Holder, 678 F.3d 404 (6th Cir. 2012).
“According to Johns, this delay violated 8 C.F.R. § 1003.5 (a), which requires the immigration judge to review and finalize a decision within fourteen days of receiving a request from the Board.”
Amadou Soumare v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., 343 F. App'x 75 (6th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 2× “”); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.5 (a) (providing that, when there is an appeal, the IJ shall forward the record to the BIA upon request); 8 C.”
Dobroslav Bulatovic v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., 351 F. App'x 978 (6th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 3× “the unapproved, unsigned, unedited transcript of oral decision, despite the obligation of the [IJ] to approve the transcript of oral decision within 14 days [as required by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.5 ].” Counsel maintained that the BIA was effectively “engaging in a secret decision…”
Tima v. Gonzales, 156 F. App'x 717 (5th Cir. 2005).
“8 C.F.R. § 1003.5 provides that the record of the proceedings before the IJ "shall be forwarded to the [BIA] upon the request or the order of the [BIA].”
Mario Cuzco-Mora v. Eric Holder, Jr., 592 F. App'x 437 (6th Cir. 2014).
“” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.5 . Under current procedure, an immigration judge issues an oral decision, and, where a transcript is required, “the immigration judge shall review the transcript and approve the decision within 14 days of receipt.”
King v. McAleenan (E.D. Mich. 2020).
· cites it 2× “) Plaintiff filed an action with this Court on November 22, 2019, claiming that defendants had failed to “promptly” forward Plaintiff’s I-130 petition to the BIA or approve the petition within a 45-day period pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.5 (b). (Dkt. 1, PgID 1.) On December 16,…”
Jumaev v. Garland (10th Cir. 2022).
“” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.5 (a). 5 We have reviewed the CHS transcript, which was filed under seal in this court pursuant to an order granting the parties’ joint motion.”
— 8 C.F.R. § 1003.5(a) — 2 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.