C.F.R. » Title 8 » CHAPTER I—DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY › SUBCHAPTER B—IMMIGRATION REGULATIONS › PART 236—APPREHENSION AND DETENTION OF INADMISSIBLE AND DEPORTABLE ALIENS; REMOVAL OF ALIENS ORDERED REMOVED › Subpart A—Detention of Aliens Prior to Order of Removal

8 C.F.R. § 236.5

Fingerprints and photographs

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

Every alien 14 years of age or older against whom proceedings based on deportability under section 237 of the Act are commenced under this part by service of a notice to appear shall be fingerprinted and photographed. Such fingerprints and photographs shall be made available to Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies upon request to the district director or chief patrol agent having jurisdiction over the alien's record. Any such alien, regardless of his or her age, shall be photographed and/or fingerprinted if required by any immigration officer authorized to issue a notice to appear. Every alien 14 years of age or older who is found to be inadmissible to the United States and ordered removed by an immigration judge shall be fingerprinted, unless during the preceding year he or she has been fingerprinted at an American consular office.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1961–2019 · leading case: Hernandez v. United States, 939 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hernandez v. United States, 939 F.3d 191 (2d Cir. 2019). “ʺ); 8 C.F.R. § 236.5 (same). 21 would have easier access to interview and obtain records from an individual detained in criminal custody.”
Nazario Castaneda-Gonzalez v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 564 F.2d 417 (D.C. Cir. 1977). “8 C.F.R. § 236.5 (1976); see id. §§ 3.1-.”
Cruz, 16 I. & N. Dec. 463 (BIA 1977). · cites it 2× “(3) 8 CFR 236.5(c) requires that the applicant shall be notified in writing when an appeal is taken by the District Director from an adverse order of the immigration judge in an exclusion case.”
S- & B-c, 9 I. & N. Dec. 436 (BIA 1961). “When an applicant for admission is ordered admitted and the district director takes an appeal, the district director noti- fies the applicant in writing of the grounds of the appeal and the applicant is allt,yed tiro daya to make his representations (8 CFR 236.5(c); District Di-…”
Rafeedie v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 688 F. Supp. 729 (D.D.C. 1988). “8 C.F.R. § 236.5 . And, the order of the immigration judge is appealable to the Board of Immigration Appeals.”
Joe Borden v. Edwin Meese, Alan Nelson & Louis M. Richard, 803 F.2d 1530 (11th Cir. 1986). “8 C.F.R. § 236.5 (a-c) (1985). An appeal from either type of decision lies in the BIA.”
United States v. Aragon-Ruiz, 551 F. Supp. 2d 904 (D. Minnesota 2008). “Special Agent Bena-dum also stated that pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 236.5 , every person over fourteen years of age who is taken into ICE custody is fingerprinted, and that the purpose is to ensure that every person is who they say they are.”
Itzcovitz v. Selective Serv. Local Bd. No. 6, Ny, 301 F. Supp. 168 (S.D.N.Y. 1969). “8 C.F.R. § 236.5 ). 10 Congress *185 has circumscribed the role of the courts in this process, as noted, by restricting the right of judicial review to final orders of exclusion in cases where the alien has exhausted every internal, administrative avenue.”
Borden v. Meese, 622 F. Supp. 1133 (N.D. Ga. 1985). · cites it 2× “According to 8 C.F.R. § 236.5 (a), “The decision of the immigration judge may be oral or written.”
Shamoun v. Dist. Dir., Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 967 F. Supp. 1051 (N.D. Ill. 1997). · cites it 7× “After a hearing before an immigration judge on October 11, 1994, the immigration judge found Shamoun to be excludable under both the above-cited narcotics provisions of the exclusion statute and under the INS regulation for the exclusion of aliens, 8 C.F.R. § 236.5 (c). Id. at 2…”
Elias Favela v. United States Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 420 F.2d 575 (9th Cir. 1969). “A departmental regulation, 8 C.F.R. 236.5(a), gave petitioner the right to appeal the May 2nd order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.”
Hernandez v. United States (2d Cir. 2019). “ʺ); 8 C.F.R. § 236.5 (same). 21 would have easier access to interview and obtain records from an individual detained in criminal custody.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— 8 C.F.R. § 236.5(a) — 1 case
Elias Favela v. United States Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 420 F.2d 575 (9th Cir. 1969). “A departmental regulation, 8 C.F.R. 236.5(a), gave petitioner the right to appeal the May 2nd order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.”
— 8 C.F.R. § 236.5(c) — 2 cases
Cruz, 16 I. & N. Dec. 463 (BIA 1977). “(3) 8 CFR 236.5(c) requires that the applicant shall be notified in writing when an appeal is taken by the District Director from an adverse order of the immigration judge in an exclusion case.”
S- & B-c, 9 I. & N. Dec. 436 (BIA 1961). “When an applicant for admission is ordered admitted and the district director takes an appeal, the district director noti- fies the applicant in writing of the grounds of the appeal and the applicant is allt,yed tiro daya to make his representations (8 CFR 236.5(c); District Di-…”
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.