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 B—Office of the Chief Immigration Judge

8 C.F.R. § 1003.9

Office of the Chief Immigration Judge

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

(a) Organization. Within the Executive Office for Immigration Review, there shall be an Office of the Chief Immigration Judge (OCIJ), consisting of the Chief Immigration Judge, the immigration judges, and such other staff as the Director deems necessary. The Attorney General shall appoint the Chief Immigration Judge. The Director may designate immigration judges to serve as Deputy and Assistant Chief Immigration Judges as may be necessary to assist the Chief Immigration Judge in the management of the OCIJ.

(b) Powers of the Chief Immigration Judge. Subject to the supervision of the Director, the Chief Immigration Judge shall be responsible for the supervision, direction, and scheduling of the immigration judges in the conduct of the hearings and duties assigned to them. The Chief Immigration Judge shall have the authority to:

(1) Issue operational instructions and policy, including procedural instructions regarding the implementation of new statutory or regulatory authorities;

(2) Provide for appropriate training of the immigration judges and other OCIJ staff on the conduct of their powers and duties;

(3) Direct the conduct of all employees assigned to OCIJ to ensure the efficient disposition of all pending cases, including the power, in his discretion, to set priorities or time frames for the resolution of cases, to direct that the adjudication of certain cases be deferred, to regulate the assignment of immigration judges to cases, and otherwise to manage the docket of matters to be decided by the immigration judges;

(4) Evaluate the performance of the Immigration Courts and other OCIJ activities by making appropriate reports and inspections, and take corrective action where needed;

(5) Adjudicate cases as an immigration judge, including the authorities described in § 1003.10(b); and

(6) Exercise such other authorities as the Director may provide.

(c) Limit on the Authority of the Chief Immigration Judge. The Chief Immigration Judge shall have no authority to direct the result of an adjudication assigned to another immigration judge, provided, however, that nothing in this part shall be construed to limit the authority of the Chief Immigration Judge in paragraph (b) of this section.

(d) Immigration Court. The term Immigration Court shall refer to the local sites of the OCIJ where proceedings are held before immigration judges and where the records of those proceedings are created and maintained.

[72 FR 53677, Sept. 20, 2007, as amended at 89 FR 46792, May 29, 2024]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2008–2025 · leading case: Jacqueline Stevens v. U.S. Attorney General
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jacqueline Stevens v. U.S. Attorney General (2017) ca11 · cites it 2× “” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.9 (b), (c). And an Immigration Judge’s decisions are reviewed on appeal by the BIA: a division of the EOIR separate and apart from the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge and with no direct supervisory authority over Immigration Judges.”
Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Bd. (2010) scotus “, 8 CFR §1003.9 , 34 CFR §81.4 (2009). The Court elsewhere suggests that its rule may be limited to removal statutes that provide for “judicial review of a[n] effort to remove” an official for cause.”
Martin Campos-Luna v. Loretta Lynch (2016) ca6 “It is an Article I court, one responsible for enforcing the immigration laws, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.9 (d); INS v. Abudu, 485 U.”
Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Co. Accounting Oversight Board (2010) scotus “, 8 CFR § 1003.9 , 34 CFR § 81.4 (2009). The Court elsewhere suggests that its rule may be limited to removal statutes that provide for “judicial review of a[n] effort to remove” an official for cause.”
Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Co. Accounting Oversight Board (2010) scotus “, 8 CFR § 1003.9 , 34 CFR §81.4 (2009). The Court elsewhere suggests that its rule may be limited to removal statutes that provide for “judicial review of a[n] effort to remove” an official for cause.”
Demjanjuk v. Mukasey (2008) ca6 · cites it 2× “8 C.F.R. § 1003.9 (2005). Further, in San Pedro , it would have been problematic for U.”
Demjanjuk v. Mukasey (2008) ca6 · cites it 2× “8 C.F.R. § 1003.9 (2005). No. 07-3022 Demjanjuk v.”
E.F. v. Mayor Eric Adams (2024) nysd “Courts have long acknowledged OATH’s status 6 8 C.F.R. § 1003.9 (a), (d). as an independent administrative tribunal.”
American Immigration Council v. Executive Office for Immigration Review (2025) dcd “0 (b); 8 C.F.R. § 1003.9 (b), “[t]he Immigration Court shall be responsible for scheduling cases and providing notice to the government and the alien of the time, place, and date of hearings.”
Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Bd. (2010) scotus “, 8 CFR §1003.9 , 34 CFR §81.4 (2009). The Court elsewhere suggests that its rule may be limited to removal statutes that provide for “judicial review of a[n] effort to remove” an official for cause.”
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.