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. § 208.2

Jurisdiction

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

(a) Jurisdiction of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). (1) Except as provided in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, USCIS shall have initial jurisdiction over:

(i) An asylum application filed by an alien physically present in the United States or seeking admission at a port-of-entry; and

(ii) Interviews provided in accordance with section 235(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act to further consider the application for asylum of an alien, other than a stowaway or alien physically present in or arriving in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, found to have a credible fear of persecution or torture in accordance with § 208.30(f) and retained by USCIS, or referred to USCIS by an immigration judge pursuant to 8 CFR 1003.42 and 1208.30 after the immigration judge has vacated a negative credible fear determination. Interviews to further consider applications for asylum under this paragraph (a)(1)(ii) are governed by the procedures provided for under § 208.9. Further consideration of an asylum application filed by a stowaway who has received a positive credible fear determination will be under the jurisdiction of an immigration judge pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.

(2) USCIS shall also have initial jurisdiction over credible fear determinations under § 208.30 and reasonable fear determinations under § 208.31.

(b) Jurisdiction of Immigration Court in general. Immigration judges shall have exclusive jurisdiction over asylum applications filed by an alien who has been served a Form I-221, Order to Show Cause; Form I-122, Notice to Applicant for Admission Detained for a Hearing before an Immigration Judge; or Form I-862, Notice to Appear, after the charging document has been filed with the Immigration Court. Immigration judges shall also have jurisdiction over any asylum applications filed prior to April 1, 1997, by alien crewmembers who have remained in the United States longer than authorized, by applicants for admission under the Visa Waiver Pilot Program, and by aliens who have been admitted to the United States under the Visa Waiver Pilot Program. Immigration judges shall also have the authority to review reasonable fear determinations referred to the Immigration Court under § 208.31, and credible fear determinations referred to the Immigration Court under § 208.30.

(c) Certain aliens not entitled to proceedings under section 240 of the Act—(1) Asylum applications and withholding of removal applications only. After Form I-863, Notice of Referral to Immigration Judge, has been filed with the Immigration Court, an immigration judge shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any asylum application filed on or after April 1, 1997, by:

(i) An alien crewmember who:

(A) Is an applicant for a landing permit;

(B) Has been refused permission to land under section 252 of the Act; or

(C) On or after April 1, 1997, was granted permission to land under section 252 of the Act, regardless of whether the alien has remained in the United States longer than authorized;

(ii) An alien stowaway who has been found to have a credible fear of persecution or torture pursuant to the procedures set forth in subpart B of this part;

(iii) An alien who is an applicant for admission pursuant to the Visa Waiver Program under section 217 of the Act, except that if such an alien is an applicant for admission to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, then he or she shall not be eligible for asylum prior to January 1, 2030;

(iv) An alien who was admitted to the United States pursuant to the Visa Waiver Program under section 217 of the Act and has remained longer than authorized or has otherwise violated his or her immigration status, except that if such an alien was admitted to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, then he or she shall not be eligible for asylum in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands prior to January 1, 2030;

(v) An alien who has been ordered removed under § 235(c) of the Act, as described in § 235.8(a) of this chapter (applicable only in the event that the alien is referred for proceedings under this paragraph by the Regional Director pursuant to section 235.8(b)(2)(ii) of this chapter);

(vi) An alien who is an applicant for admission, or has been admitted, as an alien classified under section 101(a)(15)(S) of the Act (applicable only in the event that the alien is referred for proceedings under this paragraph by the district director);

(vii) An alien who is an applicant for admission to Guam or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands pursuant to the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program under section 212(l) of the Act, except that if such an alien is an applicant for admission to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, then he or she shall not be eligible for asylum prior to January 1, 2030;

(viii) An alien who was admitted to Guam or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands pursuant to the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program under section 212(l) of the Act and has remained longer than authorized or has otherwise violated his or her immigration status, except that if such an alien was admitted to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, then he or she shall not be eligible for asylum in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands prior to January 1, 2030; or

(ix) [Reserved]

(2) Withholding of removal applications only. After Form I-863, Notice of Referral to Immigration Judge, has been filed with the Immigration Court, an immigration judge shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any application for withholding of removal filed by:

(i) An alien who is the subject of a reinstated removal order pursuant to section 241(a)(5) of the Act; or

(ii) An alien who has been issued an administrative removal order pursuant to section 238 of the Act as an alien convicted of committing an aggravated felony.

(3) Rules of procedure—(i) General. Except as provided in this section, proceedings falling under the jurisdiction of the immigration judge pursuant to paragraph (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this section shall be conducted in accordance with the same rules of procedure as proceedings conducted under 8 CFR part 240, subpart A. The scope of review in proceedings conducted pursuant to paragraph (c)(1) of this section shall be limited to a determination of whether the alien is eligible for asylum or withholding or deferral of removal, and whether asylum shall be granted in the exercise of discretion. The scope of review in proceedings conducted pursuant to paragraph (c)(2) of this section shall be limited to a determination of whether the alien is eligible for withholding or deferral of removal. During such proceedings, all parties are prohibited from raising or considering any other issues, including but not limited to issues of admissibility, deportability, eligibility for waivers, and eligibility for any other form of relief.

(ii) Notice of hearing procedures and in-absentia decisions. The alien will be provided with notice of the time and place of the proceeding. The request for asylum and withholding of removal submitted by an alien who fails to appear for the hearing shall be denied. The denial of asylum and withholding of removal for failure to appear may be reopened only upon a motion filed with the immigration judge with jurisdiction over the case. Only one motion to reopen may be filed, and it must be filed within 90 days, unless the alien establishes that he or she did not receive notice of the hearing date or was in Federal or State custody on the date directed to appear. The motion must include documentary evidence, which demonstrates that:

(A) The alien did not receive the notice;

(B) The alien was in Federal or State custody and the failure to appear was through no fault of the alien; or

(C) “Exceptional circumstances,” as defined in section 240(e)(1) of the Act, caused the failure to appear.

(iii) Relief. The filing of a motion to reopen shall not stay removal of the alien unless the immigration judge issues an order granting a stay pending disposition of the motion. An alien who fails to appear for a proceeding under this section shall not be eligible for relief under section 240A, 240B, 245, 248, or 249 of the Act for a period of 10 years after the date of the denial, unless the applicant can show exceptional circumstances resulted in his or her failure to appear.

[65 FR 76130, Dec. 6, 2000, as amended at 74 FR 55736, Oct. 28, 2009; 76 FR 53784, Aug. 29, 2011; 85 FR 29310, May 14, 2020; 85 FR 80386, Dec. 11, 2020; 87 FR 18215, Mar. 29, 2022]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 140 cases (42 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: Nreka v. United States Attorney Gen., 408 F.3d 1361 (11th Cir. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Nreka v. United States Attorney Gen., 408 F.3d 1361 (11th Cir. 2005). · cites it 4× “See 8 C.F.R. § 208.2 (c)(3)(i) (asylum-only procedures for VWP applicants).”
Sembiring v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 981 (9th Cir. 2007). · cites it 3× “” 8 C.F.R. § 208.2 (c)(3)(ii). A. Background The evidentiary requirements for an alien to demonstrate that he or she did not receive notice have changed over time.”
Xiao Ji Chen v. United States Dep't of Just., Attorney Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales, 471 F.3d 315 (2d Cir. 2006). “In support of her petition to this Court, petitioner argues that while the hearing was pending, "she was no longer able to submit an asylum application to an asylum office” because 8 C.F.R. § 208.2 (b) confers "exclusive jurisdiction over asylum applications filed by an alien…”
Bao Tai Nian v. Holder, 683 F.3d 1227 (9th Cir. 2012). · cites it 7× “This case involves an “asylum-only” proceeding under 8 C.F.R. § 208.2 (c). “Asylum-only” proceedings apply to certain groups of aliens who are not entitled to full asylum proceedings under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), including alien crew members, stowaways, and…”
Santos Iraheta-Martinez v. Merrick Garland, 12 F.4th 942 (9th Cir. 2021). · cites it 2× “”) (citing 8 C.F.R. § 208.2 (c)(2)–(3)). Before the IJ, Iraheta filed a “motion to preserve his right to apply for asylum,” purporting to “preserve the argument that he remains eligible for asylum even though he is in withholding-only proceedings” and asking that the “record .”
Arjan Shehu v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 482 F.3d 652 (3rd Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “According to agency regulations, these proceedings deal only with petitions “for asylum or withholding or deferral of removal [under the INA or CAT], and whether asylum shall be granted in the exercise of discretion.”
Xiao Ji Chen v. United States Dep't of Just., Attorney Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales, 434 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2006). “According to petitioner, while the hearing was pending, "she was no longer able to submit an asylum application to an asylum office" because 8 C.F.R. § 208.2 (b) confers "exclusive jurisdiction over asylum applications filed by an alien who has been served a .”
Besime Kanacevic v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 448 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2006). “8 C.F.R. § 208.2 (c)(iii) (2006). Unless granted relief in those proceedings, the Visa Waiver applicant can be removed without further proceedings.”
Arjun Dhakal v. Jefferson Sessions III, 895 F.3d 532 (7th Cir. 2018). “8 C.F.R. § 208.2 (a). If the officer determines that the alien has carried the burden of proof to establish eligibility for asylum and that he merits a favorable exercise of discretion, the officer may grant the application.”
Julio Cesar Berroteran-Melendez v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 955 F.2d 1251 (9th Cir. 1992). “See 8 CFR § 208.2 (1990). 2 . Unlike a petition for review, which automatically stays the order of deportation, an administrative motion to reopen filed with the BIA does not provide an automatic stay of deportation.”
Pedro Arturo Salmeron-Salmeron v. Warden Bill Spivey, 926 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2019). “5 The 2013 UAC Memo states that "in those cases in which either [Customs and Border Protection ("CBP") ] or ICE has already made a determination that the applicant is a UAC, and that status determination was still in place on the date the asylum application was filed, Asylum…”
J-a-b- & I-j-v-a, 27 I. & N. Dec. 168 (BIA 2017). · cites it 3× “8 C.F.R. §§ 208.2 (a), 1208.2(a) (2017). However, once the DHS commences removal proceedings 2 We note that the Immigration Judge’s underlying premise in this regard is inaccurate because the DHS may commence removal proceedings against aliens who are in the country illegally…”
Show all 140 citing cases →
— 8 C.F.R. § 208.2(a) — 1 case
Arizona v. Garland (W.D. La. 2024).
— 8 C.F.R. § 208.2(b) — 2 cases
Sibrun, 18 I. & N. Dec. 354 (BIA 1983).
Refugee & Immigrant Ctr. for Educ. & Legal Servs. v. Markwayne Mullin (D.C. Cir. 2026).
— 8 C.F.R. § 208.2(c)(1) — 1 case
Amm (W.D. Tex. 2025).
— 8 C.F.R. § 208.2(c)(3)(f) — 1 case
Nreka v. United States Attorney Gen., 408 F.3d 1361 (11th Cir. 2005). “See 8 C.F.R. § 208.2 (c)(3)(i) (asylum-only procedures for VWP applicants).”
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.