C.F.R. » Title 8 » CHAPTER I—DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY › SUBCHAPTER B—IMMIGRATION REGULATIONS › PART 208—PROCEDURES FOR ASYLUM AND WITHHOLDING OF REMOVAL › Subpart A—Asylum and Withholding of Removal

8 C.F.R. § 208.10

Failure to appear at an interview before an asylum officer or failure to follow requirements for fingerprint processing

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

Failure to appear for a scheduled interview without prior authorization may result in dismissal of the application or waiver of the right to an interview. Failure to comply with fingerprint processing requirements without good cause may result in dismissal of the application or waiver of the right to an adjudication by an asylum officer. Failure to appear shall be excused if the notice of the interview or fingerprint appointment was not mailed to the applicant's current address and such address had been provided to the USCIS by the applicant prior to the date of mailing in accordance with section 265 of the Act and regulations promulgated thereunder, unless the asylum officer determines that the applicant received reasonable notice of the interview or fingerprinting appointment. Failure to appear at the interview or fingerprint appointment will be excused if the applicant demonstrates that such failure was the result of exceptional circumstances.

[87 FR 57798, Sept. 22, 2022]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 46 cases, 1980–2018 · leading case: Rene Carvajal-Munoz v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 743 F.2d 562 (7th Cir. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rene Carvajal-Munoz v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 743 F.2d 562 (7th Cir. 1984). · cites it 6× “See 8 C.F.R. § 208.10 (e) (1984). Thereafter, the applicant is interviewed annually to determine continuing eligibility for asylum or adjustment of status, which may include becoming a permanent resident.”
Jose Antonio Barraza Rivera v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 913 F.2d 1443 (9th Cir. 1990). · cites it 2× “State Department Advisory Opinion Barraza contends that, by denying his motions for remand of his application to the BHRHA and for discovery of the basis of the opinion letter, the immigration judge violated his right to “inspect, explain, and rebut” the advisory opinion under 8…”
Lyndon Erickson McLeod v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 802 F.2d 89 (3rd Cir. 1986). · cites it 2× “8 C.F.R. § 208.10 (b). The decision as to whether to seek a second advisory opinion from the BHRHA is within the discretion of the immigration judge.”
Nemrod Jose Arauz, A/K/A Arauz-Acuna v. Perry Rivkind, Dist. Dir., U.S. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., Dist. Vi, 845 F.2d 271 (11th Cir. 1988). · cites it 3× “” 8 C.F.R. § 208.10 (c). 7 Notwithstanding the plain language of § 208.”
Exilus, 18 I. & N. Dec. 276 (BIA 1982). · cites it 3× “See 8 C.F.R. 208.10(b); Matter of Saban, 18 l&N Dec.”
Mamadou Diallo v. John D. Ashcroft, 381 F.3d 687 (7th Cir. 2004). “See 8 C.F.R. § 208.10 ; 8 C.F.R. § 208.9 (g).”
Vaso & Djela Perkovic v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 33 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 1994). “Ordering that the petitioners be granted asylum for a period of one year under 8 C.F.R. § 208.10 (e) (1987), the immigration judge did not address the Perkovics’ application for withholding of deportation.”
Eliseo Jacinto Chavarria v. United States Dep't of Just., Bd. of Immigr. Appeals, 722 F.2d 666 (11th Cir. 1984). · cites it 3× “The application was referred to the Department of State as required by 8 C.F.R. § 208.10 (b). 2 *668 Pursuant to 8 C.”
Jose Salvador Reyes-Arias v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 866 F.2d 500 (D.C. Cir. 1989). · cites it 2× “Reyes-Arias was transferred to Miami, where he filed a request for asylum, Form 1-589, see 8 CFR § 208.10 (a) (1983), alleging, among other things: “I had a gun put to my head while I was driving a bus by the guerrillas.”
Jose M. Sarvia-Quintanilla v. United States Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 767 F.2d 1387 (9th Cir. 1985). “” 8 C.F.R. § 208.10 (b) (1985). In this case, no such change of circumstances has occurred.”
Rodriguez-palma, 17 I. & N. Dec. 465 (BIA 1980). · cites it 2× “See 8 C.F.R. 208.10 (June 1, 1980). (3) In determining whether a crime is a "serious nonpolitical crime" for purposes of eli- gibility for section 243(h) relief, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Handbook on Procedures and Criteriafor Determining…”
Chelvadurai Sivaainkaran v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 972 F.2d 161 (7th Cir. 1992). “…to seek an advisory opinion from the State Department’s Bureau of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs (BHRHA). 8 C.F.R. § 208.10 .”
Show all 46 citing cases →
— 8 C.F.R. § 208.10(b) — 3 cases
Exilus, 18 I. & N. Dec. 276 (BIA 1982). “See 8 C.F.R. 208.10(b); Matter of Saban, 18 l&N Dec.”
Saban, 18 I. & N. Dec. 70 (BIA 1981).
Matelot, 18 I. & N. Dec. 334 (BIA 1982).
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.