8 C.F.R. § 241.1
Final order of removal
An order of removal becomes final in accordance with 8 CFR 1241.1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: Rafael Guerrero-Sanchez v. Warden York Cnty. Prison, 905 F.3d 208 (3rd Cir. 2018).
Rafael Guerrero-Sanchez v. Warden York Cnty. Prison, 905 F.3d 208 (3rd Cir. 2018). “See 8 C.F.R. § 241.1 . When such an order is subsequently reinstated, as happened here in Guerrero-Sanchez’s case, “it stands to reason that it retains the same administrative finality because section 1231(a)(5) proscribes any challenge that might affect the status of the…”
United States v. Sanchez-Guzman, 744 F. Supp. 997 (E.D. Wash. 1990). “2 In reviewing the file, the Court noted that service had apparently not been made on the INS District Director at Seattle as required by 8 C.F.R. § 241.1 (a). See Appendix. This feature seemed confirmed by the fact that the District Director had not responded to the motion as…”
Prieto-Romero v. Clark, 534 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2008). “See § 1231(a)(l)(B)(i)-(ii); 8 C.F.R. § 241.1 (b). De La Teja does not support the government’s argument that aliens who do have petitions for review pending before the court of appeals may be detained under the authority granted by § 1231(a).”
Carlos Gustavo De La Teja v. United States of Am., John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen., 321 F.3d 1357 (11th Cir. 2003). “8 C.F.R. § 241.1 (2002) (emphasis added).”
United States v. Eziquio Calderon-Medina, United States of Am. v. Evaristo Rangel-Gonzales, 591 F.2d 529 (9th Cir. 1979). “Rangel-Gonzales also alleged violations of 8 C.F.R. § 241.1 (1978) 2 and 8 C.F.R. § 242.”
Nadereh Abedi-Tajrishi v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 752 F.2d 441 (9th Cir. 1985). “The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed. On appeal, Abedi-Tajrishi argues that the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) is estopped from deporting her because it engaged in affirmative misconduct in denying her applications for extension of stay.”
Luis Toro-Romero v. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen., 382 F.3d 930 (9th Cir. 2004). “Therefore, the sole ground for the final order of removal is Toro-Romero’s false representation at the border. 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (a)(4T)(B)(i) (stating that an “order of deportation” becomes final upon “a determination by the Board of Immigration Appeals affirming such order”); 8…”
LeClerc v. Webb, 419 F.3d 405 (5th Cir. 2005). “Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 241.1 (a)(3): At the time of admission or extension of stay, every nonimmigrant alien must also agree to depart the United States at the expiration of his or her authorized period of admission or extension of stay, or upon abandonment of his or her…”
Giuseppe Giambanco v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 531 F.2d 141 (3rd Cir. 1976). “He is purchasing a pizzeria — with full knowledge of the fact that he is in the United States illegally and that he has been prosecuted and convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States for originally having entered into a fraudulent marriage in order to stay on in the…”
Carl Dorelien v. U.S. Attorney Gen., John Ashcroft, Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 317 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 2003). “8 C.F.R. § 241.1 (a) (2002) ("An order of removal made by the immigration judge at the conclusion of proceedings under section 240 of the [Immigration and Naturalization] Act shall become final .”
Singh v. Gonzales, 448 F. Supp. 2d 1214 (W.D. Wash. 2006). “§ 1101 (47); 8 C.F.R. § 241.1 (d). Although the BIA reissued its decision on March 11, 2004, petitioner had already filed a petition for review of the BIA's original decision with the Ninth Circuit within the 30-day deadline required by 8 U.”
Ulysse v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 291 F. Supp. 2d 1318 (M.D. Fla. 2003). “The applicable regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 241.1 , further provides that a removal order becomes final "upon expiration of the time allotted for an appeal if the [alien] does not file an appeal within that time.”
— 8 C.F.R. § 241.1(c) — 1 case
Mehran Fatehi v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 729 F.2d 1086 (6th Cir. 1984).
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.