8 C.F.R. § 1003.6

Stay of execution of decision

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

(a) Except as provided under § 236.1 of this chapter, § 1003.19(i), and paragraph (b) of this section, the decision in any proceeding under this chapter from which an appeal to the Board may be taken shall not be executed during the time allowed for the filing of an appeal unless a waiver of the right to appeal is filed, nor shall such decision be executed while an appeal is pending or while a case is before the Board by way of certification.

(b) The provisions of paragraph (a) of this section shall not apply to an order of an Immigration Judge under § 1003.23 or § 242.22 of 8 CFR chapter I denying a motion to reopen or reconsider or to stay deportation, except where such order expressly grants a stay or where the motion was filed pursuant to the provisions of § 1003.23(b)(4)(iii). The Board may, in its discretion, stay deportation while an appeal is pending from any such order if no stay has been granted by the Immigration Judge or a Service officer.

(c) The following procedures shall be applicable with respect to custody appeals in which DHS has invoked an automatic stay pursuant to 8 CFR 1003.19(i)(2).

(1) The stay shall lapse if DHS fails to file a notice of appeal with the Board within ten business days of the issuance of the order of the immigration judge. DHS should identify the appeal as an automatic stay case. To preserve the automatic stay, the attorney for DHS shall file with the notice of appeal a certification by a senior legal official that—

(i) The official has approved the filing of the notice of appeal according to review procedures established by DHS; and

(ii) The official is satisfied that the contentions justifying the continued detention of the alien have evidentiary support, and the legal arguments are warranted by existing law or by a non-frivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing precedent or the establishment of new precedent.

(2) The immigration judge shall prepare a written decision explaining the custody determination within five business days after the immigration judge is advised that DHS has filed a notice of appeal, or, with the approval of the Board in exigent circumstances, as soon as practicable thereafter (not to exceed five additional business days). The immigration court shall prepare and submit the record of proceedings without delay.

(3) The Board will track the progress of each custody appeal which is subject to an automatic stay in order to avoid unnecessary delays in completing the record for decision. Each order issued by the Board should identify the appeal as an automatic stay case. The Board shall notify the parties in a timely manner of the date the automatic stay is scheduled to expire.

(4) If the Board has not acted on the custody appeal, the automatic stay shall lapse 90 days after the filing of the notice of appeal. However, if the Board grants a motion by the alien for an enlargement of the briefing schedule provided in § 1003.3(c), the Board's order shall also toll the 90-day period of the automatic stay for the same number of days.

(5) DHS may seek a discretionary stay pursuant to 8 CFR 1003.19(i)(1) to stay the immigration judge's order in the event the Board does not issue a decision on the custody appeal within the period of the automatic stay. DHS may submit a motion for discretionary stay at any time after the filing of its notice of appeal of the custody decision, and at a reasonable time before the expiration of the period of the automatic stay, and the motion may incorporate by reference the arguments presented in its brief in support of the need for continued detention of the alien during the pendency of the removal proceedings. If DHS has submitted such a motion and the Board is unable to resolve the custody appeal within the period of the automatic stay, the Board will issue an order granting or denying a motion for discretionary stay pending its decision on the custody appeal. The Board shall issue guidance to ensure prompt adjudication of motions for discretionary stays. If the Board fails to adjudicate a previously-filed stay motion by the end of the 90-day period, the stay will remain in effect (but not more than 30 days) during the time it takes for the Board to decide whether or not to grant a discretionary stay.

(d) If the Board authorizes an alien's release (on bond or otherwise), denies a motion for discretionary stay, or fails to act on such a motion before the automatic stay period expires, the alien's release shall be automatically stayed for five business days. If, within that five-day period, the Secretary of Homeland Security or other designated official refers the custody case to the Attorney General pursuant to 8 CFR 1003.1(h)(1), the alien's release shall continue to be stayed pending the Attorney General's consideration of the case. The automatic stay will expire 15 business days after the case is referred to the Attorney General. DHS may submit a motion and proposed order for a discretionary stay in connection with referring the case to the Attorney General. For purposes of this paragraph and 8 CFR 1003.1(h)(1), decisions of the Board shall include those cases where the Board fails to act on a motion for discretionary stay. The Attorney General may order a discretionary stay pending the disposition of any custody case by the Attorney General or by the Board.

[61 FR 18907, Apr. 29, 1996; 61 FR 21065, May 9, 1996, as amended at 63 FR 27448, May 19, 1998; 71 FR 57884, Oct. 2, 2006; 91 FR 5278, Feb. 6, 2026]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 62 cases (39 in the last 5 years), 2003–2026 · leading case: Jesus Lopez Silva v. United States, 866 F.3d 938 (8th Cir. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Jesus Lopez Silva v. United States, 866 F.3d 938 (8th Cir. 2017). · cites it 6× “8 C.F.R. § 1003.6 (a). Despite the stay of the removal order, the government removed Lopez Silva to Mexico on July 17, 2013.”

Dada v. Mukasey, 554 U.S. 1 (2008). · cites it 2× “shall become final upon the earlier of (i) a determination by the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming such order; or (ii) the expiration of the period in which the alien is permitted to seek review of such order by the Board of Immigration Appeals"); § 1229c(b)(1) (Attorney…”

A-m, 23 I. & N. Dec. 737 (BIA 2005). “8 C.F.R. § 1003.6 (a) (2004). These provisions assure that the respondent’s decision whether to appeal an Immigration Judge’s decision will not be adversely affected by the potential loss of the opportunity to voluntarily depart in the event of an unsuccessful appeal.”

Baez-Sanchez v. Kolitwenzew, 360 F. Supp. 3d 808 (C.D. Ill. 2018). · cites it 3× “The parties informed the Court that the BIA has clarified that Baez-Sanchez's removal is stayed pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.6 (a), but that the parties still dispute which statute governs Baez-Sanchez's detention.”

W.G.A. v. Sessions, 900 F.3d 957 (7th Cir. 2018). “See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.6 (a) (staying execution of immigration decisions while appeal is pending).”

Hamama v. Adducci, 261 F. Supp. 3d 820 (E.D. Mich. 2017). · cites it 2× “” Further, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.6 , the regulation addressing stays pending a decision by the BIA, states that removal will not be automatically stayed pending the appeal of an immigration judge’s denial of a motion to reopen, unless the motion was filed based on an order of removal…”

Diaz-garcia, 25 I. & N. Dec. 794 (BIA 2012). · cites it 3× “Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals (1) The unlawful removal of an alien during the pendency of a direct appeal from a deportation or removal order in violation of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.6 (a) (2012) does not deprive the Board of…”

Monsalvo Velazquez v. Bondi, 604 U.S. 712 (2025). “See 8 CFR §1003.6 (2019); Dada, 554 U. S., at 10 .”

Chedad v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 57 (1st Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.6 (a). Because thirty days had already expired by the time Chedad filed the appeal, thirty days of voluntary departure time remained at the time of the BIA's decision.”

Cardenas Abreu, 24 I. & N. Dec. 795 (BIA 2009). “When to such an interval is added the time for resolution of an alien’s appeal of right to the Board, during which no alien may be removed, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.6 (2008), the percentage of aliens with direct appeals remaining would be small indeed.”

F.L. v. Thompson, 293 F. Supp. 2d 86 (D.D.C. 2003). “8 CFR § 1003.6 . 5 . In other words, the statute provides a three-step process for an applicant to obtain a SIJ visa.”

Uritsky v. Ridge, 286 F. Supp. 2d 842 (E.D. Mich. 2003). “By operation of federal regulations, the government’s notices of appeal automatically stayed the Immigration Judge’s orders terminating the removal proceedings and setting a bond.”

Show all 62 citing cases →

— 8 C.F.R. § 1003.6(c) — 15 cases

Leal-Hernandez v. Noem (D. Maryland 2025).

Cortes Fernandez v. Lyons (D. Neb. 2025).

Palma Perez v. Berg (D. Neb. 2025).

Ozuna Carlon v. Kramer (D. Neb. 2025).

Sheehan (N.D. Iowa 2025).

— 8 C.F.R. § 1003.6(c)(5) — 1 case

Puerto-Hernandez (W.D. Mich. 2025).

— 8 C.F.R. § 1003.6(d) — 1 case

Puerto-Hernandez (W.D. Mich. 2025).

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.