The Attorney General may, in his or her discretion, permit any alien applicant for admission to withdraw his or her application for admission in lieu of removal proceedings under section 240 of the Act or expedited removal under section 235(b)(1) of the Act. The alien's decision to withdraw his or her application for admission must be made voluntarily, but nothing in this section shall be construed as to give an alien the right to withdraw his or her application for admission. Permission to withdraw an application for admission should not normally be granted unless the alien intends and is able to depart the United States immediately. An alien permitted to withdraw his or her application for admission shall normally remain in carrier or Service custody pending departure, unless the district director determines that parole of the alien is warranted in accordance with § 212.5(b) of this chapter.
[62 FR 10358, Mar. 6, 1997; 62 FR 15363, Apr. 1, 1997; 65 FR 82256, Dec. 28, 2000]
Notes of Decisions
AL Otro Lado, Inc. v. Nielsen (2018)
casd · cites it 10×
“]" 8 C.F.R. § 235.4 . B. Factual Synopsis The Plaintiffs are six individuals, Plaintiffs Abigail Doe, Beatrice Doe, Carolina Doe, Dinora Doe, Ingrid Doe, and Jose Doe (collectively, the "Individual Plaintiffs"), and organizational Plaintiff Al Otro Lado, Inc.”
AVILEZ (2005)
bia · cites it 2×
“Section 235(a)(4) of the Act; 8 C.F.R. § 235.4 (2005). An arriving alien without documents to enter who is not allowed to withdraw his or her application for admission is ordered removed without further hearing or review.”
Valadez-Munoz v. Holder (2010)
ca9
“§ 1225 (a)(4); 8 C.F.R. §§ 235.4 ,1235.4. That Valadez was given the option and exercised it in writing cannot be doubted.”
United States v. Alvaro Sanchez-Aguilar (2013)
ca9 · cites it 2×
“§ 1225 (a)(4); 8 C.F.R. § 235.4 . In the context of removal proceedings for aliens who have already been admitted into the United States, we have held that due process requires the immigration judge to inform such aliens of potentially available avenues of relief.”
Klapholz v. Esperdy (1961)
nysd
“6); but it is equally true that it failed to stamp his visa “Admitted” which is the regulated method of marking visas of persons admitted; these stamped visas are then filed to be a permanent record of admission (8 C.F.R. 235.4 and § 240(a), Act of 1952, 8 U.”
United States v. Mario Barragan-Camarillo (2011)
ca9
“2004); 8 C.F.R. § 235.4 , and Barragan-Camarillo has not made a “ ‘plausible showing that the facts presented would cause the Attorney General to exercise discretion in his favor,’ ” Barajas-Alvarado, 655 F.”
United States v. Jose Meraz-Olivera (2012)
ca9
“An alien does not have the right to withdraw his application for admission, 8 C.F.R. § 235.4 ; here the immigration officer exercised his discretion to proceed with expedited removal.”
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.