If it appears to a district director that a person residing in his or her district was not in fact eligible for the adjustment of status made in his or her case, or it appears to an asylum office director that a person granted adjustment of status by an asylum officer pursuant to 8 CFR 240.70 was not in fact eligible for adjustment of status, a proceeding shall be commenced by the personal service upon such person of a notice of intent to rescind, which shall inform him or her of the allegations upon which it is intended to rescind the adjustment of his or her status. In such a proceeding the person shall be known as the respondent. The notice shall also inform the respondent that he or she may submit, within thirty days from the date of service of the notice, an answer in writing under oath setting forth reasons why such rescission shall not be made, and that he or she may, within such period, request a hearing before an immigration judge in support of, or in lieu of, his or her written answer. The respondent shall further be informed that he or she may have the assistance of or be represented by counsel or representative of his or her choice qualified under part 292 of this chapter, at no expense to the Government, in the preparation of his or her answer or in connection with his or her hearing, and that he or she may present such evidence in his or her behalf as may be relevant to the rescission.
[62 FR 10385, Mar. 6, 1997, as amended at 64 FR 27881, May 21, 1999]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
33
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1966–2026 · leading case:
Sharkey v. Quarantillo, 541 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 2008).
Sharkey v. Quarantillo, 541 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 2008).
· cites it 4× “8 C.F.R. § 246.1 (emphasis added) (implementing 8 U.”
Estrada v. Holder, 604 F.3d 402 (7th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 3× “Rodriguez-Esteban only prohibits the IJ and the BIA from reviewing a decision to rescind status when an alien has been properly notified according to the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 246.1 . Because Cueto Estrada claims he never received notice of the INS’s intent to rescind his…”
United States v. Joe Hernandez-Arias, 757 F.3d 874 (9th Cir. 2014).
· cites it 2× “1987) (noting that rescission of status is appropriate when the alien was never eligible for the adjustment granted); see also 8 C.F.R. § 246.1 (describing rescission procedure).”
Ali v. Reno, 829 F. Supp. 1415 (S.D.N.Y. 1993).
· cites it 5× “” 8 C.F.R. § 246.1 (emphasis added). Regulation 246.”
Adams v. Holder, 692 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2012).
“Among the procedures for rescission adopted by the Attorney General are written notice, see 8 C.F.R. § 246.1 ; a hearing before an IJ, see id.”
Joseph Shoo Hwan Kim v. Edwin Meese, Iii, Attorney Gen. of the United States, 810 F.2d 1494 (9th Cir. 1987).
· cites it 2× “When these terms are examined in the context of the INS’s procedures for adjustment of status, however, they give some support to the government’s position that the INS interprets section 246 to permit rescission of adjustment of status when it appears that the alien was not…”
Agarwal v. Napolitano, 663 F. Supp. 2d 528 (W.D. Tex. 2009).
· cites it 3× “See 8 C.F.R. § 246.1 (“If it appears to a district director that a person residing in his or her district was not in fact eligible for the adjustment of status made in his or her case [then the listed procedures are to be followed].”
Zbigniew Szczesny v. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen. of the United States, 358 F.3d 464 (7th Cir. 2004).
“Szczesny filed a motion to terminate the deportation proceedings, claiming that he should not be deported because he never received notice of the district director’s intent to rescind his status as required by INS regulations, and because the notice that the agency purportedly…”
Masri, 22 I. & N. Dec. 1145 (BIA 1999).
· cites it 2× “1 Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 246.1 (1996), the respondent timely requested a hearing from the Service’s findings before an Immigration Judge.”
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.