(a) In deciding an asylum application, which includes an application for withholding of removal under 241(b)(3) of the Act and protection under §§ 1208.16 through 1208.18, or in deciding whether the alien has a credible fear of persecution or torture pursuant to § 1208.30, or a reasonable fear of persecution or torture pursuant to § 1208.31, an immigration judge may rely on material provided by the Department of State, other Department of Justice offices, the Department of Homeland Security, or other U.S. Government agencies, and may rely on foreign government and non-governmental sources if those sources are determined by the judge to be credible and the material is probative. On his or her own authority, an immigration judge may submit relevant evidence into the record, if the source is credible and the evidence is probative, and may consider it in deciding an asylum application, which includes an application for withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the Act and protection under §§ 1208.16 through 1208.18, provided that a copy of the evidence has been provided to both parties and both parties have had an opportunity to comment on or object to the evidence prior to the issuance of the immigration judge's decision.
(b) Nothing in this part shall be construed to entitle the applicant to conduct discovery directed toward the records, officers, agents, or employees of the Service, the Department of Justice, or the Department of State. Persons may continue to seek documents available through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request pursuant to 28 CFR part 16.
[62 FR 10337, Mar. 6, 1997, as amended at 64 FR 8488, Feb. 19, 1999; 65 FR 76133, Dec. 6, 2000; 85 FR 81751, Dec. 16, 2020]
Notes of Decisions
Yan Chen v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney Gen., 1, 417 F.3d 268 (2d Cir. 2005).
“(quoting 8 C.F.R. § 1208.12 ). The court then found that *274 the country reports corroborate Muka-musoni’s account of persons in her father’s position joining the Hutu rebels in Zaire and their subsequent deaths in the Kibeho camp.”
Mukamusoni v. Ashcroft, 390 F.3d 110 (1st Cir. 2004).
“In reviewing an applicant’s claim of credible fear of persecution, current regulations state that “the asylum officer may rely on material provided by the Department of State .”
H.H. v. Garland, 52 F.4th 8 (1st Cir. 2022).
“8 C.F.R. § 1208.12 (a)(1).19 These arguments encompassed two distinct theories.”
Gatore v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 286 F. Supp. 3d 25 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
“2005) (citing 8 C.F.R. § 1208.12 (2005) ). Moreover, the defendant's argument fails to address the "effect of this litigation," which is a component of the public benefit analysis.”
Jarno v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 365 F. Supp. 2d 733 (E.D. Va. 2005).
“See 8 C.F.R. 1208.12. In this case, Defendant did not provide Plaintiff with the documents he requested under FOIA by the deadline set by the Immigration Court for submission of evidence or even by August 12, 2004, the date that the Immigration Court hearing began.”
Sy v. Mukasey, 278 F. App'x 473 (6th Cir. 2008).
“” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.12 (a). Here, sources include an international organization, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs; and BBC News.”
M-k (BIA 2026).
“8 C.F.R. § 1208.12 (b) (2020); see also Matter of Benitez, 19 I&N Dec.”
Chun Lin Yang v. Mukasey, 305 F. App'x 232 (5th Cir. 2008).
“See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.12 . Because the adverse credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence, we affirm the BIA’s denial of the Yangs’ asylum claim.”
Jaupi v. Gonzales, 190 F. App'x 437 (6th Cir. 2006).
· cites it 2× “An applicant must demonstrate that she will suffer persecution “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in particular social group, or political opinion” upon removal to her native country, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.12 (b)(2)(i)(A), and that “she is unable or unwilling to…”
Gatore v. United States Dep't of Homeland Sec. (D.D.C. 2017).
“2005) (citing 8 C.F.R. § 1208.12 (2005)). Moreover, the defendant’s argument fails to address the “effect of this litigation,” which is a component of the public benefit analysis.”
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.