(a) Prior to commencement of proceedings. For provisions relating to the authority of an immigration officer to cancel a notice to appear prior to the vesting of jurisdiction with the immigration judge, see 8 CFR 239.2(a) and (b).
(b) Ordering termination or dismissal. After commencement of proceedings, an immigration judge or Board member shall have authority to resolve or dispose of a case through an order of dismissal or an order of termination. An immigration judge or Board member may enter an order of dismissal in cases where DHS moves for dismissal pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section. A motion to dismiss removal proceedings for a reason other than those authorized by paragraph (c) of this section shall be deemed a motion to terminate and adjudicated pursuant to 8 CFR 1003.1(m), pertaining to cases before the Board, or 8 CFR 1003.18(d), pertaining to cases before the immigration court, as applicable.
(c) Motion to dismiss. After commencement of proceedings pursuant to 8 CFR 1003.14, government counsel or an officer enumerated in 8 CFR 239.1(a) may move for dismissal of the matter on the grounds set out under 8 CFR 239.2(a). Dismissal of the matter shall be without prejudice to the alien or the Department of Homeland Security.
(d) Motion for remand. After commencement of the hearing, government counsel or an officer enumerated in 8 CFR 239.1(a) may move for remand of the matter to the Department of Homeland Security on the ground that the foreign relations of the United States are involved and require further consideration. Remand of the matter shall be without prejudice to the alien or the Department of Homeland Security.
(e) Warrant of arrest. When a notice to appear is canceled or proceedings are terminated under this section any outstanding warrant of arrest is canceled.
(f) [Reserved]
[62 FR 10366, Mar. 6, 1997. Duplicated from part 239 at 68 FR 9838, Feb. 28, 2003, as amended at 69 FR 44907, July 28, 2004; 89 FR 46794, May 29, 2024]
Notes of Decisions
Hernandez De Anderson v. Gonzales, 497 F.3d 927 (9th Cir. 2007).
· cites it 20× “She contends, first, that the BIA erred in holding that she failed to meet the requirements for termination of her removal proceedings under 8 C.F.R. § 1239.2 (f). Second, she contends that the BIA's holding *930 that she was ineligible to apply for suspension of deportation…”
Acosta Hidalgo, 24 I. & N. Dec. 103 (BIA 2007).
· cites it 10× “Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals (1) Because the Board of Immigration Appeals and the Immigration Judges lack jurisdiction to adjudicate applications for naturalization, removal proceedings may only be terminated pursuant…”
Shewchun v. Holder, 658 F.3d 557 (6th Cir. 2011).
· cites it 13× “Although Shewchun raised a number of substantive issues on appeal to the BIA, he presents only one of those issues to us: whether the IJ and the BIA erred in rejecting his claim that his removal proceedings should be terminated based on his prima facie eligibility for…”
Barnes v. Holder, 625 F.3d 801 (4th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 9× “Barnes challenges the BIA’s conclusion that an IJ can only terminate removal proceedings pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1239.2 (f) based on the pendency of a naturalization application if the alien presents an affirmative communication from the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”)…”
Julio Benedicto v. Merrick Garland, 12 F.4th 1049 (9th Cir. 2021).
· cites it 3× “ceedings should have been terminated because Benedicto was not able to obtain further information that might have helped him, the panel explained that the IJ’s safeguards enabled Benedicto to present sufficient relevant information, and that the potential further information…”
Gonzalez v. Sec'y of Dep't of HomeLand Sec., 678 F.3d 254 (3rd Cir. 2012).
· cites it 2× “7 ), which “permit[s] the alien to proceed to a final hearing on a pending application or petition for naturalization when the alien has established prima facie eligibility for naturalization and the matter involves exceptionally appealing or humanitarian factors.”
Cristian Guzman v. Attorney Gen. United States, 770 F.3d 1077 (3rd Cir. 2014).
· cites it 5× “In the alternative, Petitioner argues that the BIA wrongly affirmed the IJ’s decision not to terminate removal proceedings to allow him to make a prima facie case of eligibility for naturalization pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1239.2 (f), based on the fact that he did not have an…”
Yith v. Nielsen, 343 F. Supp. 3d 938 (E.D. Cal. 2018).
· cites it 6× “14 and 8 C.F.R. § 1239.2 ). Therefore, Plaintiffs argue that is it not possible for USCIS to adjudicate Plaintiffs' naturalization applications within 30 days, as Defendants submit, while removal proceedings are still pending.”
Saba-Bakare v. Chertoff, 507 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 2007).
· cites it 3× “Under 8 C.F.R. § 1239.2 (f), when an alien establishes prima facie eligibility for naturalization and presents exceptionally appealing or humanitarian factors, an immigration judge may terminate removal proceedings to permit the alien to proceed to a final hearing on a pending…”
Dalal Zayed v. United States of Am., 368 F.3d 902 (6th Cir. 2004).
· cites it 2× “” See 8 C.F.R. § 1239.2 (f). Under a 1975 decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals, prima facie eligibility can be established by “a declaration of a court.”
Perriello v. Napolitano, 579 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2009).
· cites it 3× “Perriello argues for termination of his removal proceedings pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1239.2 (f) 1 and a *137 waiver of inadmissibility pursuant to former Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 212(c).”
Javier Chavez Gonzalez v. Merrick Garland, 16 F.4th 131 (4th Cir. 2021).
· cites it 3× “2(c); terminating removal proceedings to permit the noncitizen to proceed to a final hearing on a pending naturalization application, see 8 C.F.R. § 1239.2 (f); and terminating removal proceedings where DHS has failed to sustain the charges of removability, see 8 C.”
— 8 C.F.R. § 1239.2(b) — 1 case
— 8 C.F.R. § 1239.2(f) — 1 case
Cristian Guzman v. Attorney Gen. United States, 770 F.3d 1077 (3rd Cir. 2014).
“In the alternative, Petitioner argues that the BIA wrongly affirmed the IJ’s decision not to terminate removal proceedings to allow him to make a prima facie case of eligibility for naturalization pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1239.2 (f), based on the fact that he did not have an…”
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.