8 C.F.R. § 1235.4
Withdrawal of application for admission
The Attorney General may, in his or her discretion, permit any alien applicant for admission to withdraw his or her application for admission in lieu of removal proceedings under section 240 of the Act or expedited removal under section 235(b)(1) of the Act. The alien's decision to withdraw his or her application for admission must be made voluntarily, but nothing in this section shall be construed as to give an alien the right to withdraw his or her application for admission. Permission to withdraw an application for admission should not normally be granted unless the alien intends and is able to depart the United States immediately. An alien permitted to withdraw his or her application for admission shall normally remain in carrier or Service custody pending departure, unless the district director determines that parole of the alien is warranted in accordance with § 1212.5(b) of this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases, 2007–2019 · leading case: United States v. Victor Raya-Vaca, 771 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2014).
United States v. Victor Raya-Vaca, 771 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2014). “1 See 8 C.F.R. § 1235.4 . B. Raya-Vaca’s Expedited Removal Proceedings Raya-Vaea faced expedited removal proceedings because he was present in the United States without admission, had been discovered within 100 miles of the border, and could not establish that he had been…”
United States v. Edwin Flores, 901 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2018). “8 C.F.R. § 1235.4 . To determine whether an alien could have received relief from removal by withdrawing his application, we look first to the factors that the agency must consider in exercising its discretion to grant relief, and second, in light of those factors, and based on…”
Ferdinant Mema v. Alberto R. Gonzales, 474 F.3d 412 (7th Cir. 2007). “8 C.F.R. § 1235.4 . In any case, we need not resolve the issue of waiver or the reach of 8 C.”
United States v. Barajas-Alvarado, 655 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2011). “See 8 C.F.R. § 1235.4 . Prior to IIRIRA, both IJs and immigration officers had the authority to permit an alien to withdraw an application for admission under certain circumstances, an exercise of discretion recognized in the case law, see In re Gutierrez, 19 I.”
United States v. Petra Santos-Pulido, 815 F.3d 443 (8th Cir. 2016). “” Noting 8 C.F.R. § 1235.4 instead (1) gives the Attorney General discretion to “permit any alien applicant for admission to withdraw his or her application for admission in lieu of .”
United States v. Gustavo Garcia-Gonzalez, 791 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 2015). “”); 8 C.F.R. § 1235.4 (providing Attorney General with discretion to allow an “alien applicant for admission to withdraw his or her application for admission in lieu of .”
United States v. Cisneros-Resendiz, 656 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2011). “Immigration officers are guided by a different regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 1235.4 , as well as the Inspector’s Field Manual.”
United States v. Juan Grande, 623 F. App'x 858 (9th Cir. 2015). “at 1089-90; 8 C.F.R. § 1235.4 (stating that the Attorney General may exercise his or her discretion to “permit any alien applicant for admission to withdraw his or her application for admission in lieu of removal proceedings .”
United States v. Silva, 313 F. Supp. 3d 660 (E.D. Va. 2018). “" 8 C.F.R. § 1235.4 . No dispute exists that, had Villarreal been allowed to withdraw his application for admission, the current prosecution for illegal reentry could not be predicated on the events surrounding his November 20, 2014 entry into the United States.”
United States v. Ramirez-Diaz, 359 F. Supp. 3d 994 (D. Or. 2019). “8 C.F.R. § 1235.4 . DISCUSSION In this case, defendant is a long-term resident of the United States who has lived and worked in this country since he was 13.”
United States v. Amalia Mondragon-Carrillo, 517 F. App'x 569 (9th Cir. 2013). “§ 1225 (a)(4); 8 C.F.R. § 1235.4 . Assuming that he was obliged to do so, an issue we do not decide, based on the record of her background at the time and her attempt to enter the United States while smuggling cocaine, it is not plausible that the immigration officer would have…”
Mema, Ferdinant v. Gonzales, Alberto (7th Cir. 2007). “8 C.F.R. § 1235.4 . In any case, we need not resolve the issue of waiver or the reach of 8 C.”
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.