8 C.F.R. § 208.19
Decisions
The decision of an asylum officer to grant or to deny asylum or to refer an asylum application, in accordance with § 208.14(b) or (c), shall be communicated in writing to the applicant. Pursuant to § 208.9(d), an applicant must appear in person to receive and to acknowledge receipt of the decision to grant or deny asylum, or to refer an asylum application unless, in the discretion of the asylum office director, service by mail is appropriate. A letter communicating denial of asylum or referral of the application shall state the basis for denial or referral and include an assessment of the applicant's credibility for denials.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 2011–2017 · leading case: Gosen v. United States Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., 118 F. Supp. 3d 232 (D.D.C. 2015).
Gosen v. United States Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., 118 F. Supp. 3d 232 (D.D.C. 2015). “2014), such a formalistic definition would sidestep the Mezerhanes’ real allegation — that the government violated 8 C.F.R. § 208.19 , which requires it to notify applicants of its final decision, see Schnapp, 67 F.”
Mezerhane De Schnapp v. United States Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., 67 F. Supp. 3d 95 (D.D.C. 2014). “USCIS also relies on 8 C.F.R. § 208.19 , claiming that it stands for the proposition that “a determination to grant or deny becomes a final determination on the date that USCIS signs a decision letter notifying the applicant of USCIS’s decision.”
Udugampola v. Jacobs, 795 F. Supp. 2d 96 (D.D.C. 2011). “On September 15, 1999, the INS revoked and denied the applicant’s wife’s previously approved 1-730 petition for her husband, stating that the applicant was ineligible for derivative asylum, under 8 C.F.R. § 208.19 , for allegedly having “ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise…”
Udugampola v. Jacobs, 70 F. Supp. 3d 33 (D.D.C. 2014). “Four years later, on September 15, 1999, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) issued a Notice of Decision denying the 1-730 petition, 'under 8 C.F.R. § 208.19 , on the grounds that the applicant was ineligible for derivative asylum for allegedly having “ordered,…”
Aiying Zhao v. Jefferson Sessions, 697 F. App'x 552 (9th Cir. 2017). “See 8 C.F.R. § 208.19 (2000). This language incorporates U.”
Udugampola v. Jacobs (D.D.C. 2011). “2 approved I-730 petition for her husband, stating that the applicant was ineligible for derivative asylum, under 8 C.F.R. § 208.19 , for allegedly having “ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any persons on account of race, religion,…”
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.