C.F.R. » Title 8 » CHAPTER V—EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE › SUBCHAPTER B—IMMIGRATION REGULATIONS › PART 1208—PROCEDURES FOR ASYLUM AND WITHHOLDING OF REMOVAL › Subpart A—Asylum and Withholding of Removal

8 C.F.R. § 1208.14

Approval, denial, referral, or dismissal of application

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

(a) By an immigration judge. Unless otherwise prohibited in § 1208.13(c), an immigration judge may grant or deny asylum in the exercise of discretion to an applicant who qualifies as a refugee under section 101(a)(42) of the Act. In no case shall an immigration judge grant asylum without compliance with the requirements of § 1003.47 concerning identity, law enforcement, or security investigations or examinations.

(b) Approval by an asylum officer. In any case within the jurisdiction of USCIS, unless otherwise prohibited in § 1208.13(c), an asylum officer, subject to review within USCIS, may grant, in the exercise of his or her distraction, asylum to an applicant who qualifies as a refugee under section 101(a)(42) of the Act, and whose identity has been checked pursuant to section 208(d)(5)(A)(i) of the Act.

(c) Denial, referral, or dismissal by an asylum officer. If the asylum officer, subject to review within USCIS, does not grant asylum to an applicant after an interview conducted in accordance with 8 CFR 208.9, or if, as provided in 8 CFR 208.10, the applicant is deemed to have waived the applicant's right to an interview or an adjudication by an asylum officer, the asylum officer shall deny, refer, or dismiss the application, as follows:

(1) Inadmissible or deportable aliens. Except for applicants described in paragraph (c)(4)(ii) of this section who have not already been subject to proceedings in accordance with 8 CFR 235.3, in the case of an applicant who appears to be inadmissible or deportable under section 212(a) or 237(a) of the Act, the asylum officer shall refer the application to an immigration judge, together with the appropriate charging document, for adjudication in removal proceedings (or, where charging documents may not be issued, shall dismiss the application).

(2) Alien in valid status. In the case of an applicant who is maintaining valid immigrant, nonimmigrant, or Temporary Protected Status at the time the application is decided, the asylum officer shall deny the application for asylum.

(3) Alien with valid parole. If an applicant has been paroled into the United States and the parole has not expired or been terminated by the Service, the asylum officer shall deny the application for asylum.

(4) Alien paroled into the United States whose parole has expired or is terminated—(i) Alien paroled prior to April 1, 1997, or with advance authorization for parole. In the case of an applicant who was paroled into the United States prior to April 1, 1997, or who, prior to departure from the United States, had received an advance authorization for parole, the asylum officer shall refer the application, together with the appropriate charging documents, to an immigration judge for adjudication in removal proceedings if the parole has expired, the Service has terminated parole, or the Service is terminating parole through issuance of the charging documents, pursuant to § 1212.5(d)(2)(i) of this chapter.

(ii) Alien paroled on or after April 1, 1997, without advance authorization for parole. In the case of an applicant who is an arriving alien or is otherwise subject to removal under § 235.3(b) of chapter I, and was paroled into the United States on or after April 1, 1997, without advance authorization for parole prior to departure from the United States, the asylum officer will take the following actions, if the parole has expired or been terminated:

(A) Inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C) or 212(a)(7) of the Act. If the applicant appears inadmissible to the United States under section 212(a)(6)(C) or 212(a)(7) of the Act and the asylum officer does not intend to lodge any additional charges of inadmissibility, the asylum officer shall proceed in accordance with § 235.3(b) of chapter I. If such applicant is found to have a credible fear of persecution or torture based on information elicited from the asylum interview, an asylum officer may refer the applicant directly to an immigration judge in removal proceedings under section 240 of the Act, without conducting a separate credible fear interview pursuant to § 1208.30. If such applicant is not found to have a credible fear based on information elicited at the asylum interview, an asylum officer will conduct a credible fear interview and the applicant will be subject to the credible fear process specified at § 1208.30(b).

(B) Inadmissible on other grounds. In the case of an applicant who was paroled into the United States on or after April 1, 1997, and will be charged as inadmissible to the United States under provisions of the Act other than, or in addition to, sections 212(a)(6)(C) or 212(a)(7), the asylum officer shall refer the application to an immigration judge for adjudication in removal proceedings.

(d) Applicability of § 103.2(b) of this chapter. No application for asylum or withholding of deportation shall be subject to denial pursuant to § 103.2(b) of this chapter.

(e) Duration. If the applicant is granted asylum, the grant will be effective for an indefinite period, subject to termination as provided in § 1208.24.

(f) Effect of denial of principal's application on separate applications by dependents. The denial of an asylum application filed by a principal applicant for asylum shall also result in the denial of asylum status to any dependents of that principal applicant who are included in that same application. Such denial shall not preclude a grant of asylum for an otherwise eligible dependent who has filed a separate asylum application, nor shall such denial result in an otherwise eligible dependent becoming ineligible to apply for asylum due to the provisions of section 208(a)(2)(C) of the Act.

(g) Applicants granted lawful permanent residence status. If an asylum applicant is granted adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident, the Service may provide written notice to the applicant that his or her asylum application will be presumed abandoned and dismissed without prejudice, unless the applicant submits a written request within 30 days of the notice, that the asylum application be adjudicated. If an applicant does not respond within 30 days of the date the written notice was sent or served, the Service may presume the asylum application abandoned and dismiss it without prejudice.

[62 FR 10337, Mar. 6, 1997, as amended at 63 FR 12986, Mar. 17, 1998; 64 FR 27875, May 21, 1999; 65 FR 76134, Dec. 6, 2000; 70 FR 4754, Jan. 31, 2005; 85 FR 80397, Dec. 11, 2020; 87 FR 18221, Mar. 29, 2022]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2004–2026 · leading case: Ji Ying Chen v. Mukasey, 510 F.3d 797 (8th Cir. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ji Ying Chen v. Mukasey, 510 F.3d 797 (8th Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “The Attorney General’s discretionary decision not to grant asylum (delegated to the IJ, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.14 (a)) is conclusive unless “manifestly contrary to the law and an abuse of discretion.”
Masoud Hosseini v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney Gen., 471 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2006). “See 8 C.F.R. § 1208.14 (a) (giving the IJ authority to “grant or deny asylum in the exercise of discretion to an applicant who qualifies as a refugee”).”
Mei Fun Wong v. Holder, 633 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 2011). “The Statutory Scheme The INA authorizes the Attorney General, in his discretion, to grant asylum to an alien who qualifies as a “refugee,” defined under the INA as one who is “unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the…”
Hanan Haddad v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney Gen., 437 F.3d 515 (6th Cir. 2006). “8 C.F.R. § 1208.14 (f). 7 . There is no guarantee, however, that relief will be granted.”
Guled v. Mukasey, 515 F.3d 872 (8th Cir. 2008). “The Attorney General’s discretionary decision not to grant asylum—delegated to the IJ, 8 C.F.R. § 1208.14 (a)—is conclusive unless “manifestly contrary to the law and an abuse of discretion.”
Mamadou Diallo v. John D. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 687 (7th Cir. 2004). “2 Diallo appeared for his scheduled asylum interview, but because his privately hired interpreter never arrived and Diallo could not participate in the interview, he was deemed to have failed to appear, he was charged with removal, and his asylum application was referred to an…”
S-b, 24 I. & N. Dec. 42 (BIA 2006). “” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.14 (c)(1) (2006). The respondent’s application for asylum contains a 1 Section 208(b)(1)(B)(iii) of the Act provides as follows: Considering the totality of the circumstances, and all relevant factors, a trier of fact may base a credibility determination on the…”
Milana Fisenko v. Loretta Lynch, 826 F.3d 287 (6th Cir. 2016). · cites it 2× “2004); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1208.14 . Thus, evaluating an asylum application “involves a two-step inquiry: (1) whether the applicant qualifies as a ‘refugee’ as defined in 8 U.”
L-k, 23 I. & N. Dec. 677 (BIA 2004). · cites it 2× “§ 1158 (c) (2000); 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.14 (f), 1208.21(c), 1208.”
Alcarez-Rodriguez v. Garland, 89 F.4th 754 (9th Cir. 2023). “8 C.F.R. § 1208.14 (a) (2023). The BIA has traditionally granted a motion to reopen or remand “for the purpose of affording the [noncitizen] an opportunity to apply for any form of discretionary relief” only if the noncitizen either (1) was not afforded the right to apply for…”
A-h, 23 I. & N. Dec. 774 (BIA 2005). “”) (emphasis added); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.14 (a) (2005). Contrary to the BIA’s determination, I conclude that the record presented here makes it appropriate to deny respondent asylum in the exercise of my discretion, even if he would otherwise be eligible for asylum.”
Myron Kukalo v. Eric Holder, Jr., 744 F.3d 395 (6th Cir. 2011). “at 680 (citing 8 C.F.R. § 1208.14 (b), (c); 8 C.F.R. § 1208.”
Show all 31 citing cases →
— 8 C.F.R. § 1208.14(a) — 1 case
Issa Ly v. Eric Holder, Jr., 427 F. App'x 406 (6th Cir. 2011).
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.