C.F.R. » Title 8 » CHAPTER V—EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE › SUBCHAPTER B—IMMIGRATION REGULATIONS › PART 1292—REPRESENTATION AND APPEARANCES

8 C.F.R. § 1292.3

Conduct for practitioners and recognized organizations—rules and procedures

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

Practitioners, as defined in § 1003.101(b) of this chapter, and recognized organizations are subject to the imposition of sanctions as provided in 8 CFR part 1003, subpart G, § 1003.101 et seq., and 8 CFR 292.3 (pertaining to practice before DHS).

[81 FR 92367, Dec. 19, 2016]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2004–2021 · leading case: Ramos, 23 I. & N. Dec. 843 (BIA 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ramos, 23 I. & N. Dec. 843 (BIA 2005). · cites it 10× “See 8 C.F.R. § 1292.3 (2004). On November 4, 2004, the Office of General Counsel for the Executive Office 844 Cite as 23 I&N Dec.”
Attorney Grievance v. Tatung, 476 Md. 45 (Md. 2021). “103 (b)(2); see 8 C.F.R. §§ 1292.3 (c)(3)(ii), 1003.102(e).”
Gadda v. Ashcroft, 377 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2004). “103 (b)(2); see 8 C.F.R. §§ 1292.3 (c)(3)(h), 1003.102(e).”
Shah, 24 I. & N. Dec. 282 (BIA 2007). · cites it 8× “Disciplinary Proceedings On November 24, 2004, the DHS initiated disciplinary proceedings against the respondent by filing a Notice of Intent To Discipline with the Board pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1292.3 (e) (2004).2 The DHS alleged that the respondent had violated 8 C.”
Ramos v. United States Dep't of Just., 538 F. Supp. 2d 4 (D.D.C. 2008). · cites it 2× “1 at 2 (citing 8 C.F.R. § 1292.3 (c)(3)). The Board concluded that the plaintiff failed to rebut this presumption.”
Gadda v. Ashcroft, 363 F.3d 861 (9th Cir. 2004). “103(b)(2); see 8 C.F.R. §§ 1292.3 (c)(3)(h), 1003.102(e).”
Ramos v. United States Dep't of Just., 588 F. Supp. 2d 38 (D.D.C. 2008). “1 at 2 (citing 8 C.F.R. § 1292.3 (c)(3)), and the Board concluded that the plaintiff failed to rebut this presumption, AR at 000245-46.”
Christa Bauer v. Eric Holder, Jr., 353 F. App'x 38 (7th Cir. 2009). “See 8 C.F.R. § 1292.3 . The BIA dismissed Bauer’s appeal, ruling that the second affidavit was no better than the first at establishing exceptional circumstances.”
Attorney Grievance v. Tatung (Md. 2021). “103 (b)(2); see 8 C.F.R. §§ 1292.3 (c)(3)(ii), 1003.102(e).”
Christa Bauer v. Eric Holder, Jr. (7th Cir. 2009). “See 8 C.F.R. §1292.3 . The BIA dismissed Bauer’s appeal, ruling that the second affidavit was no better than the first at establishing exceptional circumstances.”
Christa Bauer v. Eric Holder, Jr. (7th Cir. 2009). “See 8 C.F.R. §1292.3 . The BIA dismissed Bauer’s appeal, ruling that the second affidavit was no better than the first at establishing exceptional circumstances.”
Christa Bauer v. Eric Holder, Jr. (7th Cir. 2009). “See 8 C.F.R. §1292.3 . The BIA dismissed Bauer’s appeal, ruling that the second affidavit was no better than the first at establishing exceptional circumstances.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
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.