8 C.F.R. § 244.2

Eligibility

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

Except as provided in §§ 244.3 and 244.4, an alien may in the discretion of the director be granted Temporary Protected Status if the alien establishes that he or she:

(a) Is a national, as defined in section 101(a)(21) of the Act, of a foreign state designated under section 244(b) of the Act;

(b) Has been continuously physically present in the United States since the effective date of the most recent designation of that foreign state;

(c) Has continuously resided in the United States since such date as the Attorney General may designate;

(d) Is admissible as an immigrant except as provided under § 244.3;

(e) Is not ineligible under § 244.4; and

(f)(1) Registers for Temporary Protected Status during the initial registration period announced by public notice in the Federal Register, or

(2) During any subsequent extension of such designation if at the time of the initial registration period:

(i) The applicant is a nonimmigrant or has been granted voluntary departure status or any relief from removal;

(ii) The applicant has an application for change of status, adjustment of status, asylum, voluntary departure, or any relief from removal which is pending or subject to further review or appeal;

(iii) The applicant is a parolee or has a pending request for reparole; or

(iv) The applicant is a spouse or child of an alien currently eligible to be a TPS registrant.

(3) Eligibility for late initial registration in a currently designated foreign state shall also continue until January 15, 1999, for any applicant who would have been eligible to apply previously if paragraph (f)(2) of this section as revised had been in effect before November 16, 1998.

(g) Has filed an application for late registration with the appropriate Service director within a 60-day period immediately following the expiration or termination of conditions described in paragraph (f)(2) of this section.

[63 FR 63595, Nov. 16, 1998]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 90 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1954–2026 · leading case: Mejia Rodriguez v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 562 F.3d 1137 (11th Cir. 2009).
Mejia Rodriguez v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 562 F.3d 1137 (11th Cir. 2009). · cites it 4× “§ 1254a(a)(l)(A); 8 C.F.R. § 244.2 . However, simply because the Secretary has the ultimate discretionary authority to grant an immigration benefit does not mean that every determination made by USCIS regarding an alien’s application for that benefit is discretionary, and hence…”
Maribel Delrio-Mocci v. Connolly Props. Inc, 672 F.3d 241 (3rd Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “§ 1229b(b) (providing relief from deportation to certain persons otherwise subject to removal); 8 C.F.R. § 244.2 (granting certain aliens temporary protected status); 8 C.”
Jesus Ramirez v. Linda Dougherty, 852 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “See 8 C.F.R. §§ 244.2 , 244.7, 244.10(b). To maintain TPS, aliens must periodically re-register.”
Cristina Galeas Castaneda v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 23 F.3d 1576 (10th Cir. 1994). · cites it 2× “1, “[a]uthority to reinstate or extend the time within which to depart voluntarily specified initially by an immigration judge or the Board is within the sole jurisdiction of the district director," 8 C.F.R. § 244.2 (emphasis added). There is no administrative appeal from the…”
Faddoul v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 37 F.3d 185 (5th Cir. 1994). · cites it 2× “” 8 C.F.R. § 244.2 . 11 Nevertheless, the Seventh Circuit echoed the same concerns raised in Umanzor-Alvarado that “[djeportable aliens should not be faced with the choice between enjoying the voluntary departure privilege and securing judicial review of Board determinations.”
Beatrice Theresa Jaa v. United States Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 779 F.2d 569 (9th Cir. 1986). · cites it 3× “At the hearing, she argued: (1) she did not receive written notice that her application for time extension had been denied (Form 1-210) before receiving notice of the deportation order (Form 1-166), in violation of 8 C.F.R. § 244.2 ; (2) she did not receive proper 72 hours’…”
Mariusz Kaczmarczyk v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 933 F.2d 588 (7th Cir. 1991). · cites it 2× “8 C.F.R. § 244.2 . Section 244.2 vests the district director with “sole jurisdiction” to reinstate or extend a grant of voluntary departure, except under certain circumstances not relevant here, and further provides that “no appeal may be taken” from the district director’s…”
Yasmin Lalani, Khairunissa Lalani & Nurudeen Lalani v. Brian R. Perryman, Acting Dist. Dir. of the Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 105 F.3d 334 (7th Cir. 1997). · cites it 3× “On November 28, 1995, pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 244.2 , they requested an extension of voluntary departure from Brian Perryman, the Acting District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).”
Arie SHAAR; Helina Shaar; Shay Moshe Shaar, Petitioners, v. Immigr. & NATURALIZATION Serv., Respondent, 141 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 1998). · cites it 2× “See 8 C.F.R. § 244.2 (1995); see also Williams v.”
Saccoh v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 24 F. Supp. 2d 406 (E.D. Pa. 1998). · cites it 7× “Plaintiffs Amanita Saccoh and Sulaiman Saccoh seek judicial review of an administrative decision by the District Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”), denying Amanita Saceoh’s request for an extension of voluntary departure under 8 C.F.R. § 244.2 .…”
Rene Adan Contreras-Aragon v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 852 F.2d 1088 (9th Cir. 1988). · cites it 2× “24,982 (1987) (amending 8 C.F.R. § 244.2 ). Questioned about this at oral argument, petitioner’s counsel admitted freely that it is still not too late: The Court: Can’t you go to the district director? Counsel: Yes, you can, and— The Court: [inaudible] go to the district…”
Digna Ballenilla-Gonzalez v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 546 F.2d 515 (2d Cir. 1976). · cites it 2× “They did not seek from the Board an extension of her departure date, see 8 C.F.R. § 244.2 . Nor did they follow the procedure of filing a petition for review within the 30-day period fixed by the Board for voluntary departure and requesting us for a stay of the Board’s order…”
— 8 C.F.R. § 244.2(f)(2)(h) — 1 case
Darwin Rittinhouse v. Attorney Gen. United States, 591 F. App'x 104 (3rd Cir. 2014).
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.