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 E—Proceedings To Determine Deportability of Aliens in the United States: Hearing and Appeal (for Proceedings Commenced Prior to April 1, 1997)

8 C.F.R. § 1240.46

Evidence

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

(a) Sufficiency. A determination of deportability shall not be valid unless it is found by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence that the facts alleged as grounds for deportation are true.

(b) Use of prior statements. The immigration judge may receive in evidence any oral or written statement that is material and relevant to any issue in the case previously made by the respondent or any other person during any investigation, examination, hearing, or trial.

(c) Testimony. Testimony of witnesses appearing at the hearing shall be under oath or affirmation administered by the immigration judge.

(d) Depositions. The immigration judge may order the taking of depositions pursuant to § 1003.35 of this chapter.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 2005–2015 · leading case: Mondaca-Vega v. Holder, 808 F.3d 413 (9th Cir. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mondaca-Vega v. Holder, 808 F.3d 413 (9th Cir. 2015). · cites it 4× “8 C.F.R. § 1240.46 (a). 14 MONDACA-VEGA V.”
Johnson v. Whitehead, 647 F.3d 120 (4th Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “" 8 C.F.R. § 1240.46 . In fact, Johnson goes further, arguing that the 1998 immigration judge declared him a citizen.”
Marc Hilaire Joseph v. Attorney Gen. of the United States Dep't of Homeland Securtiy, 421 F.3d 224 (3rd Cir. 2005). “However, the IJ admitted the reports into evidence citing 8 C.F.R. § 1240.46 . 8 The IJ ruled that the strict rules of evidence are not applicable in deportation proceedings, and that Joseph’s due process rights were not infringed because the reports offered by the government…”
Augusto Alfredo Arnesen Cortez v. U.S. Attorney Gen., 446 F. App'x 166 (11th Cir. 2011). “” 8 C.F.R. § 1240.46 (b). “Uncontradicted hearsay evidence is admissible in deportation proceedings if it is probative and its use is not fundamentally unfair so as to deprive petitioner of due process.”
Alain H. Galvez-Escobar v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 135 F. App'x 287 (11th Cir. 2005). “” See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.46 (b). “Uncontradicted hearsay evidence is admissible in deportation proceedings if it is probative and its use is not ‘fundamentally unfair so as to deprive petitioner of due process.”
Murdock v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 131 F. App'x 360 (3rd Cir. 2005). “In addition, Murdock argues that the Immigration Judge erred in finding that he improperly invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege.”
Tomas Alejandro Mancinas-Hernandez v. US Attorney Gen., 533 F. App'x 874 (11th Cir. 2013). “” 8 C.F.R. § 1240.46 (b). Under the rules governing immigration court procedure, “[f]or individual calendar hearings involving non-detained aliens, filings must be submitted at least fifteen (15) days in advance of the hearing.”
Aguilar-Treminio v. Gonzales, 227 F. App'x 547 (9th Cir. 2007). “”) Aguilar-Treminio’s contention that the IJ violated due process by failing to directly question her regarding why her application was not timely filed, by cutting off her testimony after the IJ had rendered her decision, and by not advising her that she may be eligible for…”
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.