8 C.F.R. § 212.3

Application for the exercise of discretion under section 212(c)

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

(a) Jurisdiction. An application for the exercise of discretion under section 212(c) of the Act must be submitted on the form designated by USCIS with the fee prescribed in 8 CFR 106.2 and in accordance with the form instructions. If the application is made in the course of proceedings under sections 235, 236, or 242 of the Act, the application shall be made to the Immigration Court.

(b) Filing of application. The application may be filed prior to, at the time of, or at any time after the applicant's departure from or arrival into the United States. All material facts and/or circumstances which the applicant knows or believes apply to the grounds of excludability or deportability must be described. The applicant must also submit all available documentation relating to such grounds.

(c) Decision of the District Director. A district director may grant or deny an application for advance permission to return to an unrelinquished domicile under section 212(c) of the Act, in the exercise of discretion, unless otherwise prohibited by paragraph (f) of this section. The applicant shall be notified of the decision and, if the application is denied, of the reason(s) for denial. No appeal shall lie from denial of the application, but the application may be renewed before an Immigration Judge as provided in paragraph (e) of this section.

(d) Validity. Once an application is approved, that approval is valid indefinitely. However, the approval covers only those specific grounds of excludability or deportability that were described in the application. An application who failed to describe any other grounds of excludability or deportability, or failed to disclose material facts existing at the time of the approval of the application, remains excludable or deportable under the previously unidentified grounds. If at a later date, the applicant becomes subject to exclusion or deportation based upon these previously unidentified grounds or upon new ground(s), a new application must be filed.

(e) Filing or renewal of applications before an Immigration Judge. (1) An application for the exercise of discretion under section 212(c) of the Act may be renewed or submitted in proceedings before an Immigration Judge under sections 235, 236, or 242 of the Act, and under this chapter. Such application shall be adjudicated by the Immigration Judge, without regard to whether the applicant previously has made application to the district director.

(2) The Immigration Judge may grant or deny an application for advance permission to return to an unrelinquished domicile under section 212(c) of the Act, in the exercise of discretion, unless otherwise prohibited by paragraph (f) of this section.

(3) An alien otherwise entitled to appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals may appeal the denial by the Immigration Judge of this application in accordance with the provisions of § 3.36 of this chapter.

(f) Limitations on discretion to grant an application under section 212(c) of the Act. An application for advance permission to enter under section 212 of the Act shall be denied if:

(1) The alien has not been lawfully admitted for permanent residence;

(2) The alien has not maintained lawful domicile in the United States, as either a lawful permanent resident or a lawful temporary resident pursuant to section 245A or section 210 of the Act, for at least seven consecutive years immediately preceding the filing of the application;

(3) The alien is subject to exclusion from the United States under paragraphs (3)(A), (3)(B), (3)(C), or (3)(E) of section 212(a) of the Act;

(4) The alien has been convicted of an aggravated felony, as defined by section 101(a)(43) of the Act, and has served a term of imprisonment of at least five years for such conviction; or

(5) The alien applies for relief under section 212(c) within five years of the barring act as enumerated in one or more sections of section 242B(e) (1) through (4) of the Act.

(g) Relief for certain aliens who were in deportation proceedings before April 24, 1996. Section 440(d) of Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) shall not apply to any applicant for relief under this section whose deportation proceedings were commenced before the Immigration Court before April 24, 1996.

[56 FR 50034, Oct. 3, 1991, as amended at 60 FR 34090, June 30, 1995; 61 FR 59825, Nov. 25, 1996; 66 FR 6446, Jan. 22, 2001; 74 FR 26938, June 5, 2009; 76 FR 53787, Aug. 29, 2011; 85 FR 46922, Aug. 3, 2020]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 50 cases, 1972–2013 · leading case: Ponce De Leon, 21 I. & N. Dec. 154 (BIA 1996).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ponce De Leon, 21 I. & N. Dec. 154 (BIA 1996). · cites it 34× “In 1991, the Attorney General promulgated 8 C.F.R. § 212.3 (f)(2) (1991). The regulation states in part: (f) Limitations on discretion to grant an application under section 212(c) of the Act.”

Nevio Restrepo v. Edward McElroy Interim Field Off. Dir. for the Bureau of Immigr. & Customs Enf't, New York, 369 F.3d 627 (2d Cir. 2004). · cites it 5× “8 C.F.R. § 212.3 (b). . The government points out that this particular reliance argument is new on appeal, although it does not seem to claim that the contention was forfeited.”

United States v. Marco Gonzalez-Valerio, AKA Marcos Valerio, AKA Marcos Gonzalez Valerio, AKA Marcos Gonzalez-Valerio, 342 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2003). · cites it 3× “Indeed, as the government explains, the procedure for seeking § 212(c) rebef required a separate petition, see 8 C.F.R. § 212.3 (a), and required the appbcant to disclose any information which could serve as a bar to rebef, see 8 C.”

Cazares, 21 I. & N. Dec. 188 (BIA 1996). · cites it 11× “INS, supra, the Board is bound by the provisions of 8 C.F.R. § 212.3 (f)(2) (1995), which in relevant part specify that relief under section 212(c) shall be denied if an alien “has not maintained lawful perma- nent resident status in the United States for at least seven…”

Jawdat Elia v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney Gen., 431 F.3d 268 (6th Cir. 2005). · cites it 3× “3009 ; 8 C.F.R. § 212.3 (f)(2) (2004) (barring § 212(c) relief for aliens who have not met these requirements).”

Janusz Romuald Molenda v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 998 F.2d 291 (5th Cir. 1993). · cites it 6× “He contends that these previous convictions were “forgiven” because section 212(c) relief was granted.”

White v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 75 F.3d 213 (5th Cir. 1996). · cites it 3× “” 8 C.F.R. § 212.3 (f)(2) (promulgated in 1991 as interim final rule).”

Oyenike Alaka v. Attorney Gen. of the United States Sec'y of Dep't of Homeland Sec., 456 F.3d 88 (3rd Cir. 2006). “§ 1229b(a)(l) (to be eligible for cancellation, alien must be “lawfully admitted for permanent residence for not less than 5 years”) and 8 C.F.R. § 212.3 (f)(2) (to be considered for § 212(c) relief alien must have “maintained lawful *103 domicile in the United States .”

De Johnson v. Holder, 564 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2009). “See 8 C.F.R. § 212.3 (b). The equitable factors determining whether discretionary relief should be granted included duration of residency in the United States, proof of rehabilitation, and the recency of the criminal conviction.”

Duhaney v. Attorney Gen. of United States, 621 F.3d 340 (3rd Cir. 2010). “” 8 C.F.R. § 212.3 (d). The sole charge in the 1986 OTSC was based on his 1985 controlled substance conviction, mak *353 ing him deportable under former INA section 242(a)(ll), 8 U.”

Wallace v. Reno, 24 F. Supp. 2d 104 (D. Mass. 1998). · cites it 3× “8 C.F.R. § 212.3 (e)(1) (“An application for the exercise of discretion under section § 212(c) may be .”

United States v. Richard Copeland, Also Known as Jamal Owen, 376 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 2004). “17 (a) (removed'1998), and thereafter hold such a -hearing, if requested, 8 C.F.R. § 212.3 (e)(1). And we have said, “[W]hen a regulation is promulgated to protect a fundamental right derived from .”

Show all 50 citing cases →

— 8 C.F.R. § 212.3(a) — 1 case

Baez v. INS (1st Cir. 1994).

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.