8 C.F.R. § 1240.15
Appeals
Pursuant to 8 CFR part 1003, an appeal shall lie from a decision of an immigration judge to the Board of Immigration Appeals, except that no appeal shall lie from an order of removal entered in absentia. The procedures regarding the filing of a Form EOIR 26, Notice of Appeal, fees, and briefs are set forth in §§ 1003.3, 1003.31, and 1003.38 of this chapter. The filing date is defined as the date of receipt of the Notice of Appeal by the Board of Immigration Appeals. The reasons for the appeal shall be stated in the Notice of Appeal in accordance with the provisions of § 1003.3(b) of this chapter. Failure to do so may constitute a ground for dismissal of the appeal by the Board pursuant to § 1003.1(d)(2) of this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32
cases (22 in the last 5 years), 2005–2026 · leading case: Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. 523 (2021).
Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. 523 (2021). “§§1229a(c)(5)–(7), 1252(b); 8 CFR §1240.15 . Once an alien is ordered removed, DHS must physically remove him from the United States within a 90-day “re- moval period.”
Elida Karaj, Avdyl Karaj, Abli Karaj, & Amir Karaj v. Alberto R. Gonzales, 462 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2006). “See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.15 . While the first step of an appeal — consideration of whether streamlining is appropriate — may result in denying the alien the right to plenary review, it is nevertheless a right to appeal within the meaning of Section 1252(d)(1).”
Singh v. Gonzales, 436 F.3d 484 (5th Cir. 2006). “2003); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1240.15 ("[A]n appeal shall lie from a decision of an immigration judge to the Board of Immigration Appeals, except that no appeal shall lie from an order of removal entered in absentia.”
Sarr v. Gonzales, 474 F.3d 783 (10th Cir. 2007). “§ 1229a(c)(5); 8 C.F.R. § 1240.15 ; 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.1 (b)(3), 1003.”
Nancy Huisha-Huisha v. Alejandro Mayorkas, 27 F.4th 718 (D.C. Cir. 2022). “§§ 1229a, 1252(b); 8 C.F.R. § 1240.15 . And their substantive rights include three types of relief relevant to this case: asylum, withholding of removal, and protections under the Convention Against Torture.”
Poole v. Mukasey, 522 F.3d 259 (2d Cir. 2008). “See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.15 . His appeal was filed on June 7, 2006, two days late.”
United States v. Niebla-Ayala, 342 F. Supp. 3d 733 (W.D. Tex. 2018). “See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.15 . The government has not disputed any of Niebla's claims relating to his horrific experiences in Mexico.”
United States v. Noe Flores-Perez, 1 F.4th 454 (6th Cir. 2021). “at 1619 (explaining that noncitizens facing removal can raise defenses at removal hearings and, if unsuccessful, can appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1240.15 (permitting appeals from immigration judges to the Board of Immigration Appeals except…”
Hanif v. Gantner, 369 F. Supp. 2d 502 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). “§ 1101 (a)(47)(B)(ii) (providing that a removal order becomes final upon “the expiration of the period in which the alien is permitted to seek review of such order by the Board of Immigration Appeals”); 8 C.F.R. § 1240.15 (providing that “[a]n appeal [of a removal order] shall…”
Vicente Castaneda Medina v. Merrick Garland (9th Cir. 2021). “See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.15 . But this case is not about a direct appeal; rather, it is about a wrongly filed motion to reopen.”
M-d-c-v (BIA 2020). “See section 240(c)(5) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 1240.15 (2020). Because the respondent was able to apply for any relief for which she was eligible and has had an opportunity to appeal, she has not been deprived of due process rights in this regard.”
Alex Asuquo Ita v. Attorney Gen. United States of Am. (3rd Cir. 2023). “In support of that argument, he relies entirely on this statement of the Board: “[T]he Immigration Judge found, without clear error, that the respondent did not show by clear probability that he will be tortured.”
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.