No person, including any state or local government entity or any privately operated detention facility, that houses, maintains, provides services to, or otherwise holds any detainee on behalf of the Service (whether by contract or otherwise), and no other person who by virtue of any official or contractual relationship with such person obtains information relating to any detainee, shall disclose or otherwise permit to be made public the name of, or other information relating to, such detainee. Such information shall be under the control of the Service and shall be subject to public disclosure only pursuant to the provisions of applicable federal laws, regulations and executive orders. Insofar as any documents or other records contain such information, such documents shall not be public records. This section applies to all persons and information identified or described in it, regardless of when such persons obtained such information, and applies to all requests for public disclosure of such information, including requests that are the subject of proceedings pending as of April 17, 2002.
[67 FR 19511, Apr. 22, 2002]
Notes of Decisions
United States v. California, 314 F. Supp. 3d 1077 (E.D. Cal. 2018).
· cites it 4× “Under 8 C.F.R. § 236.6 , no one-including state or local government entities or any privately operated detention facility-who obtains information relating to any detainee, "shall disclose or otherwise permit to be made public the name of, or other information relating to, such…”
Cnty. of Berks v. PA OOR & ALDEA - The People's Just. Ctr., 204 A.3d 534 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2019).
“The County submitted six records for in camera review rather than the nine initially ordered after the County objected that three of the records would be exempt from disclosure by a federal regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 236.6 , that prohibits state and local government entities from…”
Shih, 20 I. & N. Dec. 697 (BIA 1993).
· cites it 2× “See 8 C.F.R. § 236.6 (1993); cf. 8 C.F.R. § 242.”
Dori Zardui-Quintana v. Louis M. Richard, 768 F.2d 1213 (11th Cir. 1985).
“The immigration judge’s decision as to exclusion is final, 8 C.F.R. § 236.6 (1985), unless the alien or the district director appeals to the BIA.”
Ricketts v. Palm Beach Cnty. Sheriff, 985 So. 2d 591 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).
“[2] The sheriff relies on 8 C.F.R. § 236.6 , which provides as follows: No person, including any state or local government entity or any privately operated detention facility, that houses, maintains, provides services to, or otherwise holds any detainee on behalf of the Service…”
Gallego v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 663 F. Supp. 517 (W.D. Wis. 1987).
“If petitioner made an effective waiver of his right to appeal, it is possible that petitioner would be entitled to judicial review of respondent's determinations under 8 C.F.R. § 236.6 , which provides that an order of an immigration judge “shall be final” except where an appeal…”
Fernandez-Roque v. Smith, 567 F. Supp. 1115 (N.D. Ga. 1983).
“§ 1226 (c); 8 C.F.R. § 236.6 (1982) . Despite the superficial adequacy of such exclusion hearings, one recent commentary has argued that the “procedural safeguards [are] largely illusory.”
Comm'r of Pub. Saf. v. Freedom of Info. Comm'n, 76 A.3d 185 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013).
“3d 636 (2012), our Supreme Court determined that a copy of an NCIC printout was exempt from disclosure under § 1-210 (a) because disclosure was barred by 8 C.F.R. § 236.6 (2007). Although the court did not decide the issue of whether the disclosure of NCIC documents was barred…”
Am. Civil Liberties Union Of Michigan V Calhoun Cnty. (Mich. 2022).
· cites it 11× “243(1)(d) because the records and information sought by the ACLU were not public records subject to disclosure by the CCSO under 8 CFR 236.6 and 81 Fed Reg 72080 (October 19, 2016).”
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.