(a) Certification of other than special agricultural worker and legalization cases—(1) General. The Commissioner or the Commissioner's delegate may direct that any case or class of cases be certified to another Service official for decision. In addition, regional commissioners, regional service center directors, district directors, officers in charge in districts 33 (Bangkok, Thailand), 35 (Mexico City, Mexico), and 37 (Rome, Italy), and the Director, National Fines Office, may certify their decisions to the appropriate appellate authority (as designated in this chapter) when the case involves an unusually complex or novel issue of law or fact.
(2) Notice to affected party. When a case is certified to a Service officer, the official certifying the case shall notify the affected party using a Notice of Certification (Form I-290C). The affected party may submit a brief to the officer to whom the case is certified within 30 days after service of the notice. If the affected party does not wish to submit a brief, the affected party may waive the 30-day period.
(3) Favorable action. The Service officer to whom a case is certified may suspend the 30-day period for submission of a brief if that officer takes action favorable to the affected party.
(4) Initial decision. A case within the appellate jurisdiction of the Associate Commissioner, Examinations, or for which there is no appeal procedure may be certified only after an initial decision is made.
(5) Certification to AAU. A case described in paragraph (a)(4) of this section may be certified to the AAU.
(6) Appeal to Board. In a case within the Board's appellate jurisdiction, an unfavorable decision of the Service official to whom the case is certified (whether made initially or upon review) is the decision which may be appealed to the Board under § 3.1(b) of this chapter.
(7) Other applicable provisions. The provisions of § 103.3(a)(2)(x) of this part also apply to decisions on certified cases. The provisions of § 103.3(b) of this part also apply to requests for oral argument regarding certified cases considered by the AAU.
(b) Certification of denials of special agricultural worker and legalization applications. The Regional Processing Facility director or the district director may, in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, certify a decision to the Associate Commissioner, Examinations (Administrative Appeals Unit) (the appellate authority designated in § 103.1(f)(2)) of this part, when the case involves an unusually complex or novel question of law or fact.
[52 FR 661, Jan. 8, 1987, as amended at 53 FR 43985, Oct. 31, 1988; 55 FR 20770, May 21, 1990]
Notes of Decisions
RCM Tech., Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 614 F. Supp. 2d 39 (D.D.C. 2009).
· cites it 2× “Denials of visa applications may be appealed to the Administrative Appeals Office, 8 C.F.R. § 103.4 (a), and the AAO currently has a backlog of *45 appeals that would delay a decision for a year or more.”
H-g-g, 27 I. & N. Dec. 617 (BIA 2019).
“See 8 C.F.R. § 103.4 (a)(1). On certification, the Applicant submits a brief as well as one from amicus curiae.”
Da Silva, 17 I. & N. Dec. 288 (BIA 1979).
· cites it 2× “and - - certified to the Commissioner for decision under 8 C.F.R. 103.4. The application will be granted.”
Charan Dass Taneja v. William French Smith Robert Neptune, 795 F.2d 355 (4th Cir. 1986).
“See 8 C.F.R. § 103.4 . The INS contacted TELE-SEC regarding the visa petition, and TELE-SEC responded on July 30,1984 that it no longer wished to sponsor Taneja and that Taneja had not been in contact with TELE-SEC for three years.”
Alonzo, 17 I. & N. Dec. 292 (BIA 1979).
“ON BEHALF OF APPLICANTS: Raymond Campos, Esquire Vivero & Campos 304 South Broadway Suite 310 Los Angeles, California 90013 This is before the Commissioner on certification pursuant to 8 C.F.R. 103.4. On March 16, 1978, the District Director, in an appellate deci- sion, upheld…”
Redeemed Christian Church of God v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., 387 F. Supp. 3d 734 (S.D. Tex. 2016).
“The regulations require religious employers to provide specific information with the I-360 Petition to show the alien's eligibility for classification as a special immigrant religious worker. The regulation states: (m) Religious workers.”
Penner, 18 I. & N. Dec. 49 (BIA 1982).
“Foster, Esquire 1130 Pennzoil Place - South Tower Houston, Texas 7'7002 This proceeding is before me under certification as provided by 8 C.F.R. 103.4. The Regional Commissioner dismissed an appeal from the District Director's decision in which he held that the beneficiaries did…”
Colley, 18 I. & N. Dec. 117 (BIA 1981).
“Scherer Montgomery, McCracken, Walker, and Rhoads Three Parkway Philadelphia 19105 This matter is before me on certification from the Regional Commis- sioner in accordance with 8 CFR 103.4. The District Director found the beneficiaries eligible as intracompany.”
Lee, 17 I. & N. Dec. 275 (BIA 1978).
“20006 This matter is before the Commissioner on certification as provided by 8 C.F.R. 103.4, for review of the Regional Commissioner's decision to dismiss the appeal from the District Director's order denying an application for permission to reapply for admission into the United…”
Damioli, 17 I. & N. Dec. 303 (BIA 1980).
“ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: Stanley Mailman, Esquire 1290 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10019 This matter is before the Commissioner on certification, as provided by 8 C.F.R. 103.4, for review of the Regional Commissioner's order sustaining the District Director's…”
Nassiri, 12 I. & N. Dec. 756 (BIA 1968).
“Discussion : The decision of the District Director on February 20, 1968, denying the subject's application for a waiver of the two-year foreign residence requirement of section 212(e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, on the ground that exceptional hardship had…”
Avila v. Rivkind, 724 F. Supp. 945 (S.D. Fla. 1989).
“Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 103.4 , the Regional Commissioner certified his decision to the INS Commissioner, who affirmed the decision that same day.”
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.