Within 30 days following the service of the Notice of Intention to Fine (which period the district director or the Associate Commissioner for Examinations, or the Director for the National Fines Office may extend for an additional period of 30 days upon good cause being shown), any person upon whom a notice under this part has been served may file with the district director or the Associate Commissioner for Examinations, or the Director for the National Fines Office a written defense, in duplicate, under oath setting forth the reasons why a fine should not be imposed, or if imposed, why it should be mitigated or remitted if permitted by the Immigration and Nationality Act, and stating whether a personal appearance is desired. Documentary evidence shall be submitted in support of such defense and a brief may be submitted in support of any argument made. If a personal interview is requested, the evidence in opposition to the imposition of the fine and in support of the request for mitigation or remission may be presented at such interview. An interview shall be conducted if requested by the party as provided hereinabove or, if directed at any time by the Board, the Commissioner, or the district director or the Associate Commissioner for Examinations, or the Director for the National Fines Office.
[22 FR 9807, Dec. 6, 1957, as amended at 54 FR 18649, May 2, 1989]
Notes of Decisions
Bimini Superfast Operations LLC v. Winkowski, 994 F. Supp. 2d 106 (D.D.C. 2014).
“Specifically, Defendants cite to 8 C.F.R. § 280.12 , which states that within thirty days of receiving a Notice of Intention to Fine, any person upon whom such a notice has been served “may file” a “written defense setting forth the reasons why a fine should not be imposed,” and…”
Pollgreen v. Morris, 911 F.2d 527 (11th Cir. 1990).
“8 C.F.R. § 280.12 , § 280.13. This officer is required to prepare a report summarizing the evidence and containing his findings and recommendation.”
Air Espana v. Brien, 165 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 1999).
“” 8 C.F.R. § 280.12 . The carrier also may request a personal interview and may submit a brief if it wishes.”
Swiss Air \flight Sr 168\"", 15 I. & N. Dec. 372 (BIA 1975).
· cites it 2× “In Matter of Swissair "Flight #164," supra, the carrier made no request for a personal interview pursuant to 8 CFR 280.12, and no specific request for an opportunity to cross-examine the immigration inspector was presented to the district director.”
Swiss Air Flight 164, 15 I. & N. Dec. 111 (BIA 1974).
“In the present case, the carrier never requested a personal interview as provided under 8 CFR 280.12, nor did any of the affidavits submitted by the carrier challenge the truth of the information given in Form 1-160.”
Ss. Ryndam, 10 I. & N. Dec. 240 (BIA 1963).
· cites it 4× “However, the important consideration in this case is that 8 CFR 280.12 specifically provides: "* * * the 243 Interim Decision #1278 evidence in opposition to the imposition of the fine and in support of the request for mitigation or remission may be presented at such interview.”
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.