(a) The immigration judge may request, in his or her discretion, specific comments from the Department of State regarding individual cases or types of claims under consideration, or other information the immigration judge deems appropriate.
(b) With respect to any asylum application, the Department of State may provide, at its discretion, to the Immigration Court:
(1) Detailed country conditions information relevant to eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the Act, and withholding of removal under the Convention Against Torture;
(2) An assessment of the accuracy of the applicant's assertions about conditions in the applicant's country of nationality or habitual residence and the applicant's particular situation;
(3) Information about whether persons who are similarly situated to the applicant are persecuted or tortured in the applicant's country of nationality or habitual residence and the frequency of such persecution or torture; or
(4) Such other information as it deems relevant.
(c) Any comments received pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section shall be made part of the record. Unless the comments are classified under an applicable Executive Order, the applicant shall be provided an opportunity to review and respond to such comments prior to the issuance of any decision to deny the application.
[78 FR 19079, Mar. 29, 2013]
Notes of Decisions
Hongsheng Leng v. Mukasey, 528 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2008).
“Leng, relying on 8 C.F.R. § 1208.11 , also contends that "[t]he IJ committed reversible legal error” by failing to request comments from the Department of State.”
Tchernycheva v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 230 F. App'x 231 (3rd Cir. 2007).
· cites it 2× “They claim, first, that a remand is mandatory because the IJ failed to forward to the State Department a copy of Tchernycheva’s asylum application, as required by 8 C.F.R. § 1208.11 (a). 4 They claim, next, that the IJ made what petitioners describe as an unwarranted “negative…”
Ghilduta v. Mukasey, 263 F. App'x 111 (2d Cir. 2008).
“As an initial matter, we decline to review the Ghildutas’ contention that remand is warranted because the Government and the IJ failed to forward Maria’s asylum application to the Department of State, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1208.11 (a). The Ghildutas failed to raise that…”
ILIC v. Attorney Gen., 276 F. App'x 182 (3rd Cir. 2008).
“2 First, she asserts that this Court must remand the matter because the IJ failed to forward Ilic’s asylum application to the Department of State as required by 8 C.F.R. § 1208.11 (a). However, Ilic never raised this issue before the IJ, or on appeal to the BIA.”
Dhruba Bahadur Shrestha v. Gonzales, 194 F. App'x 58 (2d Cir. 2006).
“We may not review petitioner’s arguments regarding the Government’s failure to comply with 8 C.F.R. § 1208.11 (a) because these arguments have not been exhausted at the administrative level.”
Mayra Garcia v. Eric Holder, Jr., 407 F. App'x 116 (9th Cir. 2010).
“We decline to address petitioner’s unexhausted contention that the IJ did not comply with 8 C.F.R. § 1208.11 by failing to send a copy of the asylum application to the Department of State for review.”
Leng v. Mukasey (2d Cir. 2008).
“2 Leng, relying on 8 C.F.R. § 1208.11 , also contends that “[t]he IJ committed reversible legal error” by failing to request comments from the Department of State.”
Ilic v. Atty Gen USA (3rd Cir. 2008).
“2 First, she asserts that this Court must remand the matter because the IJ failed to forward Ilic’s asylum application to the Department of State as required by 8 C.F.R. § 1208.11 (a). However, Ilic never raised this issue before the IJ, or on appeal to the BIA.”
Luis Erazo v. Eric Holder, Jr. (9th Cir. 2010).
“We decline to address petitioner’s unexhausted contention listed in the table of contents, supported by no argument in the opening brief, that the IJ did not comply with 8 C.F.R. § 1208.11 by failing to send a copy of the asylum application to the Department of State for review.”
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.