(a) Contents. The decision of the immigration judge may be oral or written. The decision of the immigration judge shall include a finding as to inadmissibility or deportability. The formal enumeration of findings is not required. The decision shall also contain reasons for granting or denying the request. The decision shall be concluded with the order of the immigration judge.
(b) Summary decision. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section, in any case where inadmissibility or deportability is determined on the pleadings pursuant to § 1240.10(b) and the respondent does not make an application under § 1240.11, the alien is statutorily ineligible for relief, or the respondent applies for voluntary departure only and the immigration judge grants the application, the immigration judge may enter a summary decision or, if voluntary departure is granted, a summary decision with an alternate order of removal.
(c) Order of the immigration judge. The order of the immigration judge shall direct the respondent's removal from the United States, or the termination of the proceedings, or other such disposition of the case as may be appropriate. The immigration judge is authorized to issue orders in the alternative or in combination as he or she may deem necessary.
(d) Removal. When a respondent is ordered removed from the United States, the immigration judge shall identify a country, or countries in the alternative, to which the alien's removal may in the first instance be made, pursuant to the provisions of section 241(b) of the Act. In the event that the Department of Homeland Security is unable to remove the alien to the specified or alternative country or countries, the order of the immigration judge does not limit the authority of the Department of Homeland Security to remove the alien to any other country as permitted by section 241(b) of the Act.
[62 FR 10367, Mar. 6, 1997. Redesignated in part and duplicated in part from part 240 at 68 FR 9838, 9840, Feb. 28, 2003; 70 FR 674, Jan. 5, 2005]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
35
cases (
15 in the last 5 years), 2004–2026 · leading case:
Ud Din v. Garland
Ud Din v. Garland (2023)
ca2 · cites it 2×
“That regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 1240.12 (c), specifically authorizes IJs “to issue orders in the alternative or in combination.”
Puc-Ruiz v. Holder (2010)
ca8 · cites it 2×
“In its January 13, 2009 decision, the BIA acknowledged that the IJ’s oral decision and memorandum did not meet the substantive requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 1240.12 (a), which demands that the IJ’s decision must include a finding on removability, reasons for the finding, and a…”
Brissett v. Decker (2018)
ilsd
“) At the January 30, 2018, hearing, Brissett denied DHS' charges of removability and moved to terminate the removal proceedings pursuant to 8 C.F.R. Section 1240.12(c). (Petition ¶¶ 5 n.”
I-S- & C-S (2008)
bia · cites it 2×
“The regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 1240.12 (c) (2007) provides that the Immigration Judge’s order will direct the alien’s removal from the United States, the termination of the proceedings, or some other appropriate disposition of the case.”
Javier Chavez Gonzalez v. Merrick Garland (2021)
ca4
“2 (f); and terminating removal proceedings where DHS has failed to sustain the charges of removability, see 8 C.F.R. § 1240.12 (c). But Attorney General Sessions noted that “in every other case, the removal hearing shall be completed as promptly as possible.”
X-M-C (2010)
bia
“See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.12 (c) (2010). The Immigration Judge is not required to have fully ruled on the merits of the claim in order for the frivolousness finding to be effective.”
SOSA VENTURA (2010)
bia
“See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.12 (2010). However, any such removal order could not be executed during the period in which the respondent’s TPS status is valid.”
Romero v. Evans (2017)
vaed
“2, 2006), and that the government has the ability to deport an alien in withholding-only proceedings to a country not specified in the removal order, see 8 C.F.R. § 1240.12 (d). At the same time, petitioners are correct that DHS could not immediately remove petitioners to a…”
Leslie Camick v. Jefferson B. Sessions, III (2018)
ca8
“" 8 C.F.R. § 1240.12 (a). To establish a basis for a final decision, the Attorney General's regulations set forth preconditions that must be satisfied before the IJ may enter a pre-conclusion voluntary departure order: (1) the voluntary departure request must be made prior to or…”
— 8 C.F.R. § 1240.12(c) — 1 case
Brissett v. Decker (2018)
ilsd
“) At the January 30, 2018, hearing, Brissett denied DHS' charges of removability and moved to terminate the removal proceedings pursuant to 8 C.F.R. Section 1240.12(c). (Petition ¶¶ 5 n.”
— 8 C.F.R. § 1240.12(d) — 2 cases
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.