8 C.F.R. § 208.14

Approval, denial, referral, or dismissal of application

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

(a) By an immigration judge. Unless otherwise prohibited in § 208.13(c), an immigration judge may grant or deny asylum in the exercise of discretion to an applicant who qualifies as a refugee under section 101(a)(42) of the Act.

(b) Approval by an asylum officer. In any case within the jurisdiction of USCIS, unless otherwise prohibited in § 208.13(c), an asylum officer, subject to review within USCIS, may grant, in the exercise of his or her discretion, asylum to an applicant who qualifies as a refugee under section 101(a)(42) of the Act, and whose identity has been checked pursuant to section 208(d)(5)(A)(i) of the Act.

(c) Denial, referral, or dismissal by an asylum officer. If the asylum officer, subject to review within USCIS, does not grant asylum to an applicant after an interview conducted in accordance with § 208.9, or if, as provided in § 208.10, the applicant is deemed to have waived the applicant's right to an interview or an adjudication by an asylum officer, the asylum officer shall deny, refer, or dismiss the application as follows:

(1) Inadmissible or deportable aliens. Except for applicants described in paragraph (c)(4)(ii) of this section who have not already been subject to proceedings in accordance with § 235.3(b) of this chapter, in the case of an applicant who appears to be inadmissible or deportable under section 212(a) or 237(a) of the Act, the asylum officer shall refer the application to an immigration judge, together with the appropriate charging document, for adjudication in removal proceedings (or, where charging documents may not be issued, shall dismiss the application).

(2) Alien in valid status. In the case of an applicant who is maintaining valid immigrant, nonimmigrant, or Temporary Protected Status at the time the application is decided, the asylum officer shall deny the application for asylum.

(3) Alien with valid parole. If an applicant has been paroled into the United States and the parole has not expired or been terminated by the Service, the asylum officer shall deny the application for asylum.

(4) Alien paroled into the United States whose parole has expired or is terminated—(i) Alien paroled prior to April 1, 1997, or with advance authorization for parole. In the case of an applicant who was paroled into the United States prior to April 1, 1997, or who, prior to departure from the United States, had received an advance authorization for parole, the asylum officer shall refer the application, together with the appropriate charging documents, to an immigration judge for adjudication in removal proceedings if the parole has expired, the Service has terminated parole, or the Service is terminating parole through issuance of the charging documents, pursuant to § 212.5(d)(2)(i) of this chapter.

(ii) Alien paroled on or after April 1, 1997, without advance authorization for parole. In the case of an applicant who is an arriving alien or is otherwise subject to removal under § 235.3(b) of this chapter, and was paroled into the United States on or after April 1, 1997, without advance authorization for parole prior to departure from the United States, the asylum officer will take the following actions, if the parole has expired or been terminated:

(A) Inadmissible under section 212(a)(6)(C) or 212(a)(7) of the Act. If the applicant appears inadmissible to the United States under section 212(a)(6)(C) or 212(a)(7) of the Act and the asylum officer does not intend to lodge any additional charges of inadmissibility, the asylum officer shall proceed in accordance with § 235.3(b) of this chapter. If such applicant is found to have a credible fear of persecution or torture based on information elicited from the asylum interview, an asylum officer may refer the applicant directly to an immigration judge in removal proceedings under section 240 of the Act, without conducting a separate credible fear interview pursuant to § 208.30. If such applicant is not found to have a credible fear based on information elicited at the asylum interview, an asylum officer will conduct a credible fear interview and the applicant will be subject to the credible fear process specified at § 208.30(b).

(B) Inadmissible on other grounds. In the case of an applicant who was paroled into the United States on or after April 1, 1997, and will be charged as inadmissible to the United States under provisions of the Act other than, or in addition to, sections 212(a)(6)(C) or 212(a)(7), the asylum officer shall refer the application to an immigration judge for adjudication in removal proceedings.

(d) Applicability of § 103.2(b) of this chapter. No application for asylum or withholding of deportation shall be subject to denial pursuant to § 103.2(b) of this chapter.

(e) Duration. If the applicant is granted asylum, the grant will be effective for an indefinite period, subject to termination as provided in § 208.24.

(f) Effect of denial of principal's application on separate applications by dependents. The denial of an asylum application filed by a principal applicant for asylum shall also result in the denial of asylum status to any dependents of that principal applicant who are included in that same application. Such denial shall not preclude a grant of asylum for an otherwise eligible dependent who has filed a separate asylum application, nor shall such denial result in an otherwise eligible dependent becoming ineligible to apply for asylum due to the provisions of section 208(a)(2)(C) of the Act.

(g) Applicants granted lawful permanent residence status. If an asylum applicant is granted adjustment of status to lawful permanent resident, the Service may provide written notice to the applicant that his or her asylum application will be presumed abandoned and dismissed without prejudice, unless the applicant submits a written request within 30 days of the notice, that the asylum application be adjudicated. If an applicant does not respond within 30 days of the date the written notice was sent or served, the Service may presume the asylum application abandoned and dismiss it without prejudice.

[62 FR 10337, Mar. 6, 1997, as amended at 63 FR 12986, Mar. 17, 1998; 64 FR 27875, May 21, 1999; 65 FR 76134, Dec. 6, 2000; 76 FR 53784, Aug. 29, 2011; 87 FR 18217, Mar. 29, 2022]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 129 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Xue Lu v. Powell, 621 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. 2010).
Xue Lu v. Powell, 621 F.3d 944 (9th Cir. 2010). · cites it 8× “See 8 C.F.R. § 208.14 (b). If the asylum officer did not decide to grant the request, Lu's case would be referred to a hearing before an immigration judge.”
Begija Ahmetovic, Also Known as Begi Ahonetajic, Also Known as Begi Ahmetovic v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 62 F.3d 48 (2d Cir. 1995). · cites it 5× “WINTER, Circuit Judge: Begija Ahmetovic, who now prefers to be known as Begije Mati, petitions for review of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), which held that Mati is ineligible for political asylum under 8 C.F.R. § 208.14 (c)(1) (1994) or withholding of…”
Andriasian v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 180 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 1999). · cites it 3× “62,284-01, 62,301 (1994) (codified at 8 C.F.R. § 208.14 (e) (1995)); 62 Fed.Reg.”
Arjun Dhakal v. Jefferson Sessions III, 895 F.3d 532 (7th Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “8 C.F.R. § 208.14 (e). An asylee may petition for his spouse and children to obtain similar relief.”
Dao Vang v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 146 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 1998). · cites it 4× “The immigration judge found that because Vang had firmly resettled in France prior to entering the United States, he was ineligible for asylum under 8 C.F.R. § 208.14 (d). The immigration judge also denied Vang’s application for withholding of deportation, but he granted Vang…”
Ayo Martins v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 972 F.2d 657 (5th Cir. 1992). · cites it 6× “Without reaching whether the convictions were “aggravated felonies” under the new statute, the IJ found that Martins was convicted of at least one “particularly serious crime” 4 and that this, in and of itself, was suffi *659 cient to pretermit Martins’ application under 8…”
Mohamed Abdille v. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen. of the United States, 242 F.3d 477 (3rd Cir. 2001). “See 8 C.F.R. § 208.14 (c)(2) (1991); see also 8 C.”
Elhadj Amadou Tandia v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney Gen., 437 F.3d 245 (2d Cir. 2006). · cites it 5× “The earlier of the two regulations, formerly codified at 8 C.F.R. § 208.14 (e), was enacted pursuant to 8 U.”
R-s-j, 22 I. & N. Dec. 863 (BIA 1999). · cites it 8× “See 8 C.F.R. § 208.14 (1999); 8 C.F.R. § 208.”
Ran Choeum v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 129 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 1997). · cites it 3× “[t]he alien, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime in the United States, constitutes a danger to the community_” 8 C.F.R. § 208.14 (d)(1). 12 This regulation was promulgated pursuant to then-current Section 208(a) of the INA, 8 U.”
E. Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Barr, 385 F. Supp. 3d 922 (N.D. Cal. 2019). · cites it 3× “The 1990 regulations also amended the firm resettlement definition to permit an applicant to rebut a showing of a firm offer by establishing "[t]hat his entry into that nation was a necessary consequence of his flight from persecution, that he remained in that nation only as…”
Thanh Huu Nguyen v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 991 F.2d 621 (10th Cir. 1993). · cites it 3× “e IJ erred in (1) concluding that petitioner’s two crimes of shooting with an intent to kill and possession of a stolen vehicle do not arise out of a “single scheme of criminal misconduct” within the meaning of § 1251(a)(4); (2) denying petitioner’s applications for asylum and…”
— 8 C.F.R. § 208.14(a)(2) — 1 case
Helabi v. U.S. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 22 F. App'x 178 (4th Cir. 2001).
— 8 C.F.R. § 208.14(b) — 1 case
R-s-j, 22 I. & N. Dec. 863 (BIA 1999). “See 8 C.F.R. § 208.14 (1999); 8 C.F.R. § 208.”
— 8 C.F.R. § 208.14(c) — 2 cases
Elhadj Amadou Tandia v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney Gen., 437 F.3d 245 (2d Cir. 2006). “The earlier of the two regulations, formerly codified at 8 C.F.R. § 208.14 (e), was enacted pursuant to 8 U.”
Choeum v. INS (1st Cir. 1997).
— 8 C.F.R. § 208.14(c)(1) — 1 case
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.