8 C.F.R. § 103.1

[Reserved]

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

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 76 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1961–2025 · leading case: John Doe, on Behalf of Themselves & All Others Similarly Situated v. United States, 463 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

John Doe, on Behalf of Themselves & All Others Similarly Situated v. United States, 463 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2006). · cites it 4× “In that briefing, they argue that the Appendix 1 list is non-exclusive because, in a 1988 memorandum, the Assistant Attorney General for Administration (“AAGA”) authorized the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) Commissioner to extend AUO pay coverage from the…”

Reno v. Catholic Soc. Servs., Inc., 509 U.S. 43 (1993). · cites it 2× “See 8 CFR §§ 103.1 (f)(1)(xxvii), 245a.2(p) (1992).”

R-s-j, 22 I. & N. Dec. 863 (BIA 1999). · cites it 8× “” 8 C.F.R. § 103.1 (j) (1999). Among those powers and duties are those set forth in per- tinent part in section 235(a) of the Act, 8 U.”

United States v. Gonzales & Gonzales Bonds & Ins. Agency, Inc., 728 F. Supp. 2d 1077 (N.D. Cal. 2010). · cites it 6× “A ( 8 C.F.R. § 103.1 , as in effect on February 28, 2003).”

Xue Lu v. Powell, 621 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “" 8 C.F.R. § 103.1 (g)(3)(ii) (2000). "An asylum officer may grant asylum in the exercise of discretion to an applicant who qualifies as a refugee.”

United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. 891 (1975). · cites it 2× “The Border Patrol agents have the power to apprehend illegal aliens since by regulation the Attorney General has designated Border Patrol agents to be immigration officers and authorized them to exercise powers and duties as such officers [ 8 C. F. R. § 103.1 (i)]; immigration…”

Julio E. Roman v. John Ashcroft, 340 F.3d 314 (6th Cir. 2004). “; see 8 C.F.R. § 103.1 (g)(2)(h), amended by 68 Fed.”

Richardson v. Reno, 162 F.3d 1338 (11th Cir. 1998). · cites it 2× “The proceedings before the immigration judge on Richardson's release request were not recorded or transcribed. On November 24, 1997, the immigration judge signed a form bond order with blanks to check for granting or denying release.”

Boguslaw Fornalik v. Brian Perryman, Dist. Dir. of the Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 223 F.3d 523 (7th Cir. 2000). · cites it 2× “Compare 8 C.F.R. § 103.1 (f)(3)(v) (Service Centers) with 8 C.”

Wazirali Moosa, Also Known as Wazir Ali Haider Ali Moosa Zebunisa Wazirali Moosa v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 171 F.3d 994 (5th Cir. 1999). “8 C.F.R. §§ 103.1 (0(2); 245a.2(u)(2) and 245a.”

United States v. Mendez, 514 F.3d 1035 (10th Cir. 2008). “§§ 1101 , 1103, 1304; 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.1 , 264.1. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, the absence of a public record or the nonoccurrence of a matter for which a record is regularly made is not excluded by the rule against hearsay.”

Haitian Refugee Ctr., Inc. v. Nelson, 694 F. Supp. 864 (S.D. Fla. 1988). · cites it 2× “8 C.F.R. § 103.1 (n)(2). District directors may now deny all ineligible applications at the LO level, 53 Fed.”

Immigr. & Naturalization Serv. v. Stanisic, 395 U.S. 62 (1969). · cites it 2× “9c (1967); 8 CFR § 103.1 (f). [4] Section 252 (a), 66 Stat.”

Castracani v. Chertoff, 377 F. Supp. 2d 71 (D.D.C. 2005). “The Homeland Security Act of 2002 abolished the Department of Justice’s Immigration and Naturalization Service and transferred its functions to BCIS.”

United States of Am.,plaintiff-Appellee v. Alejandro Ramirez-Cortez, AKA Martin Ramirez-Cortez, AKA Julio Ceasar Martinez, 213 F.3d 1149 (9th Cir. 2000). “at 1075 (citing 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.1 (f)(3)(iii)(E), 103.1(g)(3)(iii)(B)), and concluded that “[bjecause the INS is the Attorney General’s agent for immigration matters and specifically for processing applications for permission to reapply for admission into the United States, the…”

United States v. Jose Guadalupe Blanco-Gallegos, 188 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 1999). “See 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.1 (f)(3)(iii)(E), 103.1(g)(3)(iii)(B).”

Falodun, 27 I. & N. Dec. 52 (BIA 2017). · cites it 2× “8 C.F.R. § 103.1 (f)(3)(iii)(Q) (2002). The Secretary of Homeland Security now possesses this delegated authority, which has since been reserved.”

Rodrigo Martinez-Montoya v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 904 F.2d 1018 (5th Cir. 1990). “8 C.F.R. section 103.1(f)(2)(xxvii). The LAU is the sole body within the AAU possessing jurisdiction to hear appeals from the administrative denial of an application for legalization under the provisions of the IRCA.”

Antonia Tavares Dodig v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 9 F.3d 1418 (9th Cir. 1993). · cites it 2× “The petition for “immediate relative” preference is filed “with the Attorney General.” 8 U.S.C. § 1154 (a)(1).”

H-a, 22 I. & N. Dec. 728 (BIA 2002). “Whether an alien qualified for third-preference sta- tus was solely within the exclusive jurisdiction of the district director, and an appeal from a denial was solely before the Service’s Regional Commissioner under 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.1 (m)(2) and (n) (1978), and specifi- cally…”

Marie Pierre v. United States, 547 F.2d 1281 (5th Cir. 1977). “8 C.F.R. § 103.1 (1974) provides: Delegations of authority.”

United States v. Istvan Martus, AKA Jozsef Sztojka, 138 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 1998). “8 C.F.R. § 103.1 (Delegations of Authority), and even if there was an implicit or constructive delegation of such authority, no express consent to reapplication for admission could be found where a deported alien reenters without informing the INS officials of his prior…”

Rahman, 20 I. & N. Dec. 480 (BIA 1992). “259 (BIA 1982); 8 C.F.R. § 103.1 (n)(I) (1992). Thereafter, the presiding immigration judge should not order a change of venue without a proper finding of good cause, as we have observed above.”

Aurelio, 19 I. & N. Dec. 458 (BIA 1987). “See generally Matter of Umale, 16 I&N Dec. 682 (BIA 1979). Conse- quently, as counsel for the applicants notes in his brief on appeal, it is well established that immigration judges have no jurisdiction to decide visa petitions, a matter which is solely within the author- ity of…”

Daniel M. Koden v. United States Dep't of Just., Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 564 F.2d 228 (7th Cir. 1977). “1 , who, in turn, has delegated certain of his powers to Regional Commissioners, 8 C.F.R. § 103.1 (m). The Attorney General has also established the Board of Immigration Appeals “subject to the general supervision of the Deputy Attorney General” to hear appeals from various…”

ANA Int'l, Inc. v. Way, 242 F. Supp. 2d 906 (D. Or. 2002). “See 8 C.F.R. § 103.1 (f)(3)(iii). Before the AAU ruled on the appeal, Plaintiffs filed an action in this Court, CV-01-818-BR, in which they sought declaratory and injunctive relief from the INS’s decision to revoke the 1-140 petition.”

Spencer Enter., Inc. v. United States, 229 F. Supp. 2d 1025 (E.D. Cal. 2001). “Appellate jurisdiction over petitions for immigrant investor status is delegated to the Associate Commissioner for Examinations, see 8 C.F.R. § 103.1 (f)(3)(iii)(B), who exercises this authority by supervising the Director of Administrative Appeal, § 103.”

The Blackwell Coll. of Bus. v. The Attorney Gen. of the United States, 454 F.2d 928 (D.C. Cir. 1972). “We are referred to the provisions of 8 C.F.R. § 103.1 (e) (10) which in turn make reference to 8 C.”

Russell Bufalino v. Robert F. Kennedy, Attorney Gen. of the United States, 322 F.2d 1016 (D.C. Cir. 1963). · cites it 2× “8 C.F.R. 103.1 (Supp.1961) and 8 C.F.R. 249.”

Vrettakos, 14 I. & N. Dec. 593 (BIA 1974). · cites it 2× “The appellate trial attorney cited the regulations providing for seeking advance permission initially from the District Director, pursuant to 8 CFR 2122(d), with an appeal lying to the Regional Commissioner under 8 CFR 103.1(e)(7). In connection with its appeal from the immigra-…”

Sanchez, 21 I. & N. Dec. 444 (BIA 1996). “See 8 C.F.R. § 103.1 (g)(2)(ii) (1995). Thus, the Service has not established that 460 Interim Decision #3283 the concept of plenary power can be exercised at the district director level, and there is a scarcity of evidence before us that the practice in issue today results from…”

United States v. Guiseppe Barbera, 514 F.2d 294 (2d Cir. 1975). “8 C.F.R. § 103.1 (i); 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(18).”

Bull v. United States, 63 Fed. Cl. 580 (Fed. Cl. 2005). “16(b)(7) and make a conforming change to the definition of an "immigration officer” set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 103.1 (b) (2004). Overtime Compensation and Premium Pay for Customs Officers, 69 Fed.”

United States v. Baca, 368 F. Supp. 398 (S.D. Cal. 1973). “The Border Patrol agents have the power to apprehend illegal aliens since by regulation the Attorney General has designated Border Patrol agents to be immigration officers and authorized them to exercise powers and duties as such officers [ 8 C.”

Ng, 17 I. & N. Dec. 63 (BIA 1979). “2(f); 8 C.F.R. 103.1(m)(7). The regulations explicitly preclude an alien in deportation proceedings from applying to the immigration judge for advance permission to reapply.”

Hamdan v. Chertoff, 626 F. Supp. 2d 1119 (D.N.M. 2007). “8 C.F.R. § 103.1 .” Castracani v. Chertoff, 377 F.”

Delgado v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 473 F. Supp. 1343 (S.D.N.Y. 1979). “8 C.F.R. §§ 103.1 (n), 204.1(a). 2 . The following is the complete text of the District Director’s opinion: Section 203(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act provides for the granting of preference status to qualified immigrants who are brothers and sisters of citizens of…”

Navarro-Aispura v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 842 F. Supp. 1225 (N.D. Cal. 1993). “8 C.F.R. § 103.1 (n)(l). A district director may also commence deportation proceedings against an alien by filing an order to show cause.”

Nagem v. United States, 480 F. Supp. 2d 877 (N.D. Tex. 2007). “§§ 1421 and 1427 and 8 C.F.R. §§ 103.1 (g)(2)(h), 310.2, and 316.”

El-Omrani v. Dir., United States Info. Agency, 638 F. Supp. 430 (W.D. Pa. 1986). “8 C.F.R. § 103.1 (f) & (n). In reviewing the application and plaintiff’s circumstances in the instant case the INS determined that compliance with the foreign residence requirement would impose exceptional hardship on the plaintiff’s spouse, who is a United States citizen, and…”

Haitian Refugee Ctr., Inc. v. Nelson, 872 F.2d 1555 (11th Cir. 1989).

Pollgreen v. Morris, 911 F.2d 527 (11th Cir. 1990).

Maggiore Bakery, Inc. v. Esperdy, 238 F. Supp. 374 (S.D.N.Y. 1964).

Cheung v. Hagerty, 192 F. Supp. 452 (D.R.I. 1961). · cites it 3×

Mohammad Ali Ghaelian v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 717 F.2d 950 (6th Cir. 1983).

Da Silva, 17 I. & N. Dec. 288 (BIA 1979). “The application was denied by the Officer-in-Charge, Rome, Italy, and appealed to the District Director, Rome, Italy, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 103.1(n). The District Director upheld the decision of the Officer-in- Charge and dismissed the appeal.”

Helena Hilda Butterfield v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv. of the United States, 409 F.2d 170 (D.C. Cir. 1969).

Kotte, 16 I. & N. Dec. 449 (BIA 1978). “8 C.F.R. 103.1(m)(2) and (n) places the determination of whether or not an alien possesses the qualifications for third-preference status solely within the jurisdiction of the appropriate District Director and Regional Commissioner_ 8 C F.”

Ardesheer P. Kavasji v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 675 F.2d 236 (7th Cir. 1982). · cites it 2× “ion Law Judge dated May 15, 1980, the motion to terminate the proceedings submitted by Kavasji’s counsel was denied on the ground that under relevant regulations of the Immigration and Naturalization Service there is no jurisdiction for the Immigration Law Judge to review the…”

Chong v. Dir., United States Info. Agency, 821 F.2d 171 (3rd Cir. 1987).

Unification Church v. Attorney Gen. for the United States, 581 F.2d 870 (D.C. Cir. 1978). · cites it 2×

Halabi, 15 I. & N. Dec. 105 (BIA 1974). “See 8 CFR 103.1(f); 8 CFR 214.2(0(5); 8 CFR 214.”

Haddam v. Reno, 54 F. Supp. 2d 602 (E.D. Va. 1999).

Ficalora, 11 I. & N. Dec. 592 (BIA 1966). “8 CFR 103.1(e) (2) and (f) places the determination of -whether or not an alien possesses the qualifiCations for sixth preference statm`solely within the jurisdiction of the appropriate District Director and Regional Commissioner.”

Alicia Carino & Leonor Carino v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 460 F.2d 1341 (7th Cir. 1972). “It does not confer jurisdiction on this Court to review the District Director’s failure to revalidate petitioners’ expired third-preference visa petitions, over which the special inquiry officer and the Board of Immigration Appeals had no jurisdiction.”

Rafeedie v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 880 F.2d 506 (D.C. Cir. 1989).

Efthimois Narlidis v. Omer G. Sewell, 524 F.2d 371 (9th Cir. 1975).

Local 512, Warehouse & Off. Workers' Union v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 795 F.2d 705 (9th Cir. 1986).

Ching, 15 I. & N. Dec. 772 (BIA 1976). · cites it 2× “(2) Under 8 CFR 103.1(m)(2) and (n), determination of sixth-preference eligibility is vented solely w.”

Mombo, 15 I. & N. Dec. 1 (BIA 1974). · cites it 2× “…for a waiver under section 212(e) Is now specifically vested in the Regional Commissioner. 8 CFR 212.7(c); 8 CFR 103.1(e)(9). 3”

Singh-Bhathal v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 170 F.3d 943 (9th Cir. 1999). · cites it 2×

Dina v. Attorney Gen. of United States, 616 F. Supp. 718 (N.D.N.Y. 1985).

Li, 13 I. & N. Dec. 629 (BIA 1970).

Agarwal, 13 I. & N. Dec. 171 (BIA 1969). “The jurisdiction to do that lies with the District Director under 8 CFR 103.1(f), and the administrative appeal from the District Director's decision lies with the Regional Com- missioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service under the provisions of 8 CFR 108.”

Doe v. United States (Fed. Cir. 2006). · cites it 2×

Omran v. Garland (S.D.N.Y. 2023). “§1427 ; 8 CFR. §§103.1(g)(2)(ii), and 316.2. Bustamante v.”

Santamaria Orellana v. Baker (D. Maryland 2025). “tant Secretary of ICE, the Director of Immigration Interior Enforcement, any Regional or District Director for Interior Enforcement, and any deportation officer, detention enforcement officer, detention officer, special agent, investigative assistant, intelligence agent,…”

Lefson v. Esperdy, 211 F. Supp. 769 (S.D.N.Y. 1962).

Richardson v. INS, 162 F.3d 1338 (11th Cir. 1998). · cites it 2×

Chaudhry v. Napolitano, 749 F. Supp. 2d 1184 (E.D. Wash. 2010).

Willis-Gomez v. Meissner, 879 F. Supp. 1120 (W.D. Okla. 1995).

Revelo, 16 I. & N. Dec. 685 (BIA 1979). “8 C.F. R. 103.1(n) grants the District Director the power to adjudicate the visa petition.”

Navarro-Aispura v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 842 F. Supp. 392 (N.D. Cal. 1993).

Wong Kai Yuk, 14 I. & N. Dec. 504 (BIA 1973).

— 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(e) — 2 cases

— 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(e)(7) — 1 case

Vrettakos, 14 I. & N. Dec. 593 (BIA 1974). “The appellate trial attorney cited the regulations providing for seeking advance permission initially from the District Director, pursuant to 8 CFR 2122(d), with an appeal lying to the Regional Commissioner under 8 CFR 103.1(e)(7). In connection with its appeal from the immigra-…”

— 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(e)(9) — 1 case

Mombo, 15 I. & N. Dec. 1 (BIA 1974). “…for a waiver under section 212(e) Is now specifically vested in the Regional Commissioner. 8 CFR 212.7(c); 8 CFR 103.1(e)(9). 3”

— 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(f) — 5 cases

United States v. Gonzales & Gonzales Bonds & Ins. Agency, Inc., 728 F. Supp. 2d 1077 (N.D. Cal. 2010). “A ( 8 C.F.R. § 103.1 , as in effect on February 28, 2003).”

Halabi, 15 I. & N. Dec. 105 (BIA 1974). “See 8 CFR 103.1(f); 8 CFR 214.2(0(5); 8 CFR 214.”

Mombo, 15 I. & N. Dec. 1 (BIA 1974). “…for a waiver under section 212(e) Is now specifically vested in the Regional Commissioner. 8 CFR 212.7(c); 8 CFR 103.1(e)(9). 3”

— 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(f)(2) — 1 case

— 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(f)(3)(iii)(A) — 1 case

United States v. Gonzales & Gonzales Bonds & Ins. Agency, Inc., 728 F. Supp. 2d 1077 (N.D. Cal. 2010). “A ( 8 C.F.R. § 103.1 , as in effect on February 28, 2003).”

— 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(g)(2)(ii) — 1 case

Omran v. Garland (S.D.N.Y. 2023). “§1427 ; 8 CFR. §§103.1(g)(2)(ii), and 316.2. Bustamante v.”

— 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(j) — 1 case

— 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(m)(2) — 2 cases

Ching, 15 I. & N. Dec. 772 (BIA 1976). “(2) Under 8 CFR 103.1(m)(2) and (n), determination of sixth-preference eligibility is vented solely w.”

— 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(m)(7) — 1 case

— 8 C.F.R. § 103.1(n) — 3 cases

Ardesheer P. Kavasji v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 675 F.2d 236 (7th Cir. 1982). “ion Law Judge dated May 15, 1980, the motion to terminate the proceedings submitted by Kavasji’s counsel was denied on the ground that under relevant regulations of the Immigration and Naturalization Service there is no jurisdiction for the Immigration Law Judge to review the…”

Revelo, 16 I. & N. Dec. 685 (BIA 1979). “8 C.F. R. 103.1(n) grants the District Director the power to adjudicate the visa petition.”

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.