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 H—Applications for Suspension of Deportation or Special Rule Cancellation of Removal Under Section 203 of Pub. L. 105-100

8 C.F.R. § 1240.66

Eligibility for special rule cancellation of removal

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

(a) Applicable statutory provisions. To establish eligibility for special rule cancellation of removal, the applicant must show he or she is eligible under section 309(f)(1) of IIRIRA, as amended by section 203 of NACARA. The applicant must be described in § 1240.61, must be inadmissible or deportable, must not be subject to any bars to eligibility in sections 240(b)(7), 240A(c), or 240B(d) of the Act, or any other provisions of law, and must not have been convicted of an aggravated felony or be an alien described in section 241(b)(3)(B)(I) of the Act (relating to persecution of others).

(b) General rule. To establish eligibility for special rule cancellation of removal under section 309(f)(1)(A) of IIRIRA, as amended by section 203 of NACARA, the alien must establish that:

(1) The alien is not inadmissible under section 212(a)(2) or (3) or deportable under section 237(a)(2), (3) or (4) of the Act (relating to criminal activity, document fraud, failure to register, and security threats);

(2) The alien has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of 7 years immediately preceding the date the application was filed;

(3) The alien has been a person of good moral character during the required period of continuous physical presence; and

(4) The alien's removal from the United States would result in extreme hardship to the alien, or to the alien's spouse, parent or child who is a United States citizen or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.

(c) Aliens inadmissible or deportable on criminal or certain other grounds. To establish eligibility for special rule cancellation of removal under section 309(f)(1)(B) of IIRIRA, as amended by section 203 of NACARA, the alien must be described in § 1240.61 and establish that:

(1) The alien is inadmissible under section 212(a)(2) of the Act (relating to criminal activity), or deportable under paragraphs (a)(2) (other than section 237(a)(2)(A)(iii), relating to aggravated felony convictions), or (a)(3) of section 237 of the Act (relating to criminal activity, document fraud, and failure to register);

(2) The alien has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 10 years immediately following the commission of an act, or the assumption of a status constituting a ground for removal;

(3) The alien has been a person of good moral character during the required period of continuous physical presence; and

(4) The alien's removal from the United States would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien or to the alien's spouse, parent, or child, who is a United States citizen or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 93 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 2006–2025 · leading case: Manuel Campos-Hernandez v. Jefferson Sessions
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Manuel Campos-Hernandez v. Jefferson Sessions (2018) ca9 · cites it 11× “” NACARA § 203(b); 8 C.F.R. § 1240.66 (c)(2). The BIA concluded that Campos-Hernandez’s 2008 conviction was a ground of removal, and because ten years had not elapsed between 2008 and the decision of the BIA, he was not eligible for cancellation of removal under NACARA.”
Barrios v. Holder (2009) ca9 · cites it 3× “10 This physical presence requirement is set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 1240.66 (b)(2) 11 : “The alien has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of 7 years immediately preceding the date the application was filed.”
Reyes v. Holder (2013) ca2 · cites it 13× “8 C.F.R. § 1240.66 (b)(1) (emphasis added).”
Fermin Monroy v. Loretta E. Lynch (2016) ca9 · cites it 3× “2198’ (amending IIRIRA § 309(f)(1)); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1240.66 (b). 2. Facts and procedural history ■ Monroy is a native and citizen of El Salvador.”
Jose Ramirez v. Jefferson Sessions III (2018) ca4 · cites it 2× “8 C.F.R. § 1240.66 (b)(2)-(4). However, an applicant who is inadmissible or removable for having committed a CIMT must establish at least ten years of continuous presence after becoming inadmissible or removable.”
GARCIA (2007) bia · cites it 4× “See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.66 (a) (2007) (providing that an applicant must show eligibility under section 309(f)(1) of the IIRIRA).”
CASTRO-LOPEZ (2015) bia · cites it 9× “Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review Board of Immigration Appeals The 10 years of continuous physical presence required by 8 C.F.R. § 1240.66 (c)(2) (2015) for aliens seeking special rule cancellation of removal under section 203 of the Nicaraguan…”
Mercado-Zazueta v. Holder (2009) ca9 · cites it 2× “§ 1229b(a) provides for cancellation of removal for a permanent resident who "(1) has been an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence for not less than 5 years, (2) has resided in the United States continuously for 7 years after having been admitted in any status, and…”
Gomez Heredia v. Sessions (2017) ca2 · cites it 2× “For example, 8 C.F.R. § 1240.66 (b)(1) provides that a person may be eligible for "special rule cancellation of removal” if the person is "not inadmissible under [§ 1182(a)(2)] .”
Jean-Baptiste Bado v. US (en banc) (2018) dc · cites it 3× “It might be said in short that immigration-law consequences of criminal conduct have less to do with the seriousness of offenses and more to do with a variety of other congressional policies and objectives with respect to characteristics of the offenders themselves.”
GONZALEZ-RUANO v. Holder (2011) ca1 · cites it 3× “8 C.F.R. § 1240.66 (b)(2)-(4). For certain qualifying aliens, there is a presumption that deportation or removal would result in extreme hardship, 8 C.”
Rene Lemus-Escobar v. Pamela Bondi (2025) ca9 · cites it 2× “As relevant here, a person convicted of a crime of moral turpitude remains eligible for NACARA cancellation of removal if the other three requirements listed above are met (physical presence, good moral character, and hardship).”
Show all 93 citing cases →
— 8 C.F.R. § 1240.66(b)(3) — 1 case
GARCIA (2007) bia “See 8 C.F.R. § 1240.66 (a) (2007) (providing that an applicant must show eligibility under section 309(f)(1) of the IIRIRA).”
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.