(a) Written decision. A written decision shall be served upon the respondent and the DHS counsel, together with the notice referred to in § 1003.3 of this chapter. Service by mail is complete upon mailing.
(b) Oral decision. An oral decision shall be stated by the immigration judge in the presence of the respondent and the DHS counsel, if any, at the conclusion of the hearing. A copy of the summary written order shall be furnished at the request of the respondent or the DHS counsel.
(c) Summary decision. When the immigration judge renders a summary decision as provided in § 1240.12(b), he or she shall serve a copy thereof upon the respondent and the DHS counsel at the conclusion of the hearing.
(d) Decision to remove. If the immigration judge decides that the respondent is removable and orders the respondent to be removed, the immigration judge shall advise the respondent of such decision, and of the consequences for failure to depart under the order of removal, including civil and criminal penalties described at sections 274D and 243 of the Act. Unless appeal from the decision is waived, the respondent shall be furnished with Form EOIR-26, Notice of Appeal, and advised of the provisions of § 1240.15.
[62 FR 10367, Mar. 6, 1997. Redesignated in part and duplicated in part from part 240 at 68 FR 9838, 9840, Feb. 28, 2003, as amended at 86 FR 70724, Dec. 13, 2021]
Notes of Decisions
United States v. Niebla-Ayala, 342 F. Supp. 3d 733 (W.D. Tex. 2018).
· cites it 3× “See generally Recording; see *739 8 C.F.R. § 1240.13 (d). Niebla also did not receive instruction on the appeals process.”
United States v. Bonifacio Sanchez, 46 F.4th 211 (4th Cir. 2022).
“10 (a)(3) (2011) (requiring the judge to “[a]scertain” that the noncitizen has received “a copy of appeal rights”); 8 C.F.R. § 1240.13 (d) (2011) (requiring an immigration judge to advise a removable noncitizen of their right to appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals).”
Rosa Ponce-De Ascencio v. Merrick Garland (4th Cir. 2022).
“2 Before the BIA, Ascencio argued the IJ’s failure to issue his June 8 oral decision in her presence violated 8 C.F.R. § 1240.13 (b) and 8 C.F.R. § 1003.”
Rosa Ponce-De Ascencio v. Merrick Garland (4th Cir. 2022).
“2 Before the BIA, Ascencio argued the IJ’s failure to issue his June 8 oral decision in her presence violated 8 C.F.R. § 1240.13 (b) and 8 C.F.R. § 1003.”
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.