C.F.R. » Title 8 » CHAPTER V—EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE › SUBCHAPTER B—IMMIGRATION REGULATIONS › PART 1240—PROCEEDINGS TO DETERMINE REMOVABILITY OF ALIENS IN THE UNITED STATES › Subpart B—Cancellation of Removal

8 C.F.R. § 1240.21

Suspension of deportation and adjustment of status under section 244(a) of the Act (as in effect before April 1, 1997) and cancellation of removal and adjustment of status under section 240A(b) of the Act for certain nonpermanent residents

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Applicability of annual cap on suspension of deportation or cancellation of removal. (1) As used in this section, the term cap means the numerical limitation of 4,000 grants of suspension of deportation or cancellation of removal in any fiscal year (except fiscal year 1998, which has a limitation of 8,000 grants) pursuant to section 240A(e) of the Act.

(2) The provisions of this section apply to grants of suspension of deportation pursuant to section 244(a) of the Act (as in effect before April 1, 1997) or cancellation of removal pursuant to section 240A(b) of the Act that are subject to a numerical limitation in section 240A(e) of the Act for any fiscal year. This section does not apply to grants of suspension of deportation or cancellation of removal to aliens described in section 309(c)(5)(C)(i) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), as amended by section 203(a)(1) of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA), or aliens in deportation proceedings prior to April 1, 1997, who apply for suspension of deportation pursuant to section 244(a)(3) of the Act (as in effect prior to April 1, 1997). The Immigration Court and the Board shall no longer issue conditional grants of suspension of deportation or cancellation of removal as provided in 8 CFR 240.21 (as in effect prior to September 30, 1998).

(b) [Reserved]

(c) Grants of suspension of deportation or cancellation of removal in fiscal years subsequent to fiscal year 1998. On and after October 1, 1998, the Immigration Court and the Board may grant applications for suspension of deportation and adjustment of status under section 244(a) of the Act (as in effect prior to April 1, 1997) or cancellation of removal and adjustment of status under section 240A(b) of the Act that meet the statutory requirements for such relief and warrant a favorable exercise of discretion until the annual numerical limitation has been reached in that fiscal year. The awarding of such relief shall be determined according to the date the order granting such relief becomes final as defined in §§ 1003.1(d)(7) and 1003.39 of this chapter.

(1) Applicability of the annual limitation. When grants are no longer available in a fiscal year, further decisions to grant such relief must be reserved until such time as a grant becomes available under the annual limitation in a subsequent fiscal year.

(2) Aliens applying for additional forms of relief. Whether or not the cap has been reached, the Immigration Court or the Board shall adjudicate concurrently all other forms of relief for which the alien has applied. Applications for suspension of deportation or cancellation of removal shall be denied in the exercise of discretion if the alien is granted asylum or adjustment of status, including pursuant to section 202 of NACARA, while the suspension of deportation or cancellation of removal application is pending. Where an appeal of a decision granting asylum or adjustment is sustained by the Board, a decision to deny as a matter of discretion an application for suspension of deportation or cancellation of removal on this basis shall be reconsidered.

[63 FR 52138, Sept. 30, 1998, as amended at 66 FR 6446, Jan. 22, 2001; 82 FR 57339, Dec. 5, 2017]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 2016–2026 · leading case: Alberto Mendez-Garcia v. Loretta Lynch, 840 F.3d 655 (9th Cir. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Alberto Mendez-Garcia v. Loretta Lynch, 840 F.3d 655 (9th Cir. 2016). · cites it 3× “§ 1229b(e)(1); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1240.21 . Under the cap imposed by § 1229b(e)(1), “the Attorney General may not cancel the removal and adjust the status under this section .”
Rangel-Fuentes v. Garland, 99 F.4th 1191 (10th Cir. 2024). · cites it 2× “of a total of more than 4,000 aliens in any fiscal year”); 8 C.F.R. § 1240.21 (c)(1) (explaining that “[w]hen grants are no longer available in a fiscal year, further decisions to grant such relief must be reserved until such time as a grant becomes available under the annual…”
Alex Zalaya Orellana v. Pamela Bondi, 141 F.4th 560 (4th Cir. 2025). · cites it 4× “Petitioner appealed to the BIA and argued, among other things, that the Executive Office of Immigration Review (“EOIR”) was required by 8 C.F.R. § 1240.21 and its Operating Policies and Procedures Memorandum 17-04: Applications for Cancellation of 5 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1111 Doc: 44…”
Vera Gomez v. McAleenan (N.D. Cal. 2019). · cites it 4× “§ 1229b(e)(1) (placing cap of 4,000 visas per fiscal year 24 for individuals granted cancellation of removal under Section 1229b); 8 C.F.R. § 1240.21 (c)(1). 25 The immigration judge placed Gomez in the “queue” for applicants who qualify for cancellation of 26 removal but for…”
Martinez Flores v. Garland (9th Cir. 2024). · cites it 2× “But due to the yearly statutory cap on grants of cancellation of removal, she reserved her decision until a visa number became available as required by 8 C.F.R. § 1240.21 (c)(1). When Lisette turned twenty-one on September 17, 2020, the IJ still had not received notification…”
Rangel-Fuentes v. Bondi (10th Cir. 2025). · cites it 2× “of a total of more than 4,000 aliens in any fiscal year”); 8 C.F.R. § 1240.21 (c)(1) (explaining that “[w]hen grants are no longer available in a fiscal year, further decisions to grant such relief must be reserved until such time as a grant becomes available under the annual…”
Allan Yanez Barrio v. Matthew Whitaker (9th Cir. 2019). “Yanez Barrio failed to show that the agency violated 8 C.F.R. § 1240.21 (c)(1) (2015) where the IJ reserved her decision at the removal hearing on November 18, 2013, because the annual cap had already been met for that fiscal year, and the IJ waited 18 months to issue her…”
Alfonso Espinoza Lara v. Merrick Garland (9th Cir. 2021). “57,336 (codified at 8 C.F.R. § 1240.21 ), because he did not raise that issue before the agency.”
S.J.T. v. Nelson (N.D. Cal. 2025). “16 8 C.F.R. § 1240.21 (c)(1); Gomez, 2019 WL 5722619 , at *2.”
Yupangui-Yunga v. Bondi (2d Cir. 2025). “§ 1229b(e)(1) (limiting the number of available grants of cancellation- of-removal applications to 4,000 per fiscal year); 8 C.F.R. § 1240.21 (c)(1) (“When grants are no longer available in a fiscal year, further decisions to grant such relief must be reserved until such time as…”
David Camargo Gomez v. Attorney Gen. United States of Am. (3rd Cir. 2026). “§ 1229b(e)(1); 8 C.F.R. § 1240.21 (c). Nor have Petitioners established that they were denied the opportunity to present evidence or suffered prejudice because of the IJ’s statement.”
Ocampo Cambrai v. Mullin (D.D.C. 2026). “1-2 [hereinafter Order]; see also 8 C.F.R. § 1240.21 (c)(1). That could delay final adjudication by several years.”
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.