Whenever, in accordance with the provisions of § 1003.1(c), a case is certified to the Board, the alien or other party affected shall be given notice of certification. An immigration judge or DHS officer may certify a case only after an initial decision has been made and before an appeal has been taken. If it is known at the time the initial decision is rendered that the case will be certified, the notice of certification shall be included in such decision and no further notice of certification shall be required. If it is not known until after the initial decision is rendered that the case will be certified, the office of DHS or the Immigration Court having administrative control over the record of proceeding shall cause a Notice of Certification to be served upon the parties. In either case, the notice shall inform the parties that the case is required to be certified to the Board and that they have the right to make representations before the Board, including the making of a request for oral argument and the submission of a brief. If either party desires to submit a brief, it shall be submitted to the office of DHS or the Immigration Court having administrative control over the record of proceeding for transmittal to the Board within the time prescribed in § 1003.3(c). The case shall be certified and forwarded to the Board by the office of DHS or Immigration Court having administrative jurisdiction over the case upon receipt of the brief, or upon the expiration of the time within which the brief may be submitted, or upon receipt of a written waiver of the right to submit a brief. The Board in its discretion may elect to accept for review or not accept for review any such certified case. If the Board declines to accept a certified case for review, the underlying decision shall become final on the date the Board declined to accept the case.
[61 FR 18907, Apr. 29, 1996, as amended at 85 FR 81655, Dec. 16, 2020; 89 FR 46791, May 29, 2024; 90 FR 41888, Aug. 28, 2025]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2006–2025 · leading case:
A-b, 27 I. & N. Dec. 247 (BIA 2018).
A-b, 27 I. & N. Dec. 247 (BIA 2018).
“” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.7 (2017). Here, the Immigration Judge did not issue any “decision” on remand that he could certify to the Board.”
Imad Aboud v. Eric Holder, Jr., 446 F. App'x 25 (9th Cir. 2011).
“” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.7 (2007). Petitioners should have filed their petition for review with us within 30 days of March 10, 2009; they did not, so we do not have jurisdiction.”
Edgar Martinez v. William Barr (9th Cir. 2020).
· cites it 2× “” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.7 . The BIA is authorized to review a certified case “without regard to” the provisions of 8 C.”
Antonio Giovanni Battista v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 180 F. App'x 138 (11th Cir. 2006).
“Specifically, Battista argues that the proceedings deprived him of due process of law because: (1) the IJ did not follow the BIA’s remand order; (2) the IJ did not consider additional evidence and testimony; (3) the IJ did not give him notice of his right to make representations…”
Singh v. Holder, 498 F. App'x 60 (2d Cir. 2012).
“Contrary to Singh’s argument that this constituted a certification, the IJ was not asking the BIA to review a decision of the immigration court, as is contemplated by the certification regulations, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.7 , but merely changed the venue to the proper forum because…”
Singh v. Mukasey, 282 F. App'x 78 (2d Cir. 2008).
“The record contains two IJ decisions dated December 11, 1995, one of which was unsigned and which reopened the proceedings and one of which was a transcript of the IJ’s decision ordering Singh deported in absentia.”
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.