(a) Allegations admitted or no answer filed. If a request for personal appearance is not filed and (1) the answer admits the allegations in the notice, or (2) no answer is filed, the district director or the Associate Commissioner for Examinations, or the Director for the National Fines Office shall enter such order in the case as he deems appropriate and no appeal from his decision may be taken.
(b) Answer filed; personal appearance. Upon receipt of an answer asserting a defense to the allegations in the notice without requesting a personal appearance, or if a personal appearance is requested or directed, the case shall be assigned to an immigration officer. The immigration officer shall prepare a report summarizing the evidence and containing his findings and recommendation. The record, including the report and recommendation of the immigration officer, shall be forwarded to the district director or the Associate Commissioner for Examinations, or the Director for the National Fines Office. The district director or the Associate Commissioner for Examinations, or the Director for the National Fines Office shall note on the report of the immigration officer whether he approves or disapproves the recommendation of the immigration officer. The person shall be informed in writing of the decision of the district director or the Associate Commissioner for Examinations, or the Director for the National Fines Office and, if his decision is that a fine shall be imposed or that the requested mitigation or remission shall not be granted, of the reasons for such decision. From the decision of the district director or the Associate Commissioner for Examinations, or the Director for the National Fines Office an appeal may be taken to the Board as provided in 8 CFR part 1003.
[22 FR 9808, Dec. 6, 1957, as amended at 23 FR 9124, Nov. 26, 1958; 54 FR 18649, May 2, 1989; 76 FR 74629, Dec. 1, 2011]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases, 1963–2004 · leading case:
Pollgreen v. Morris, 911 F.2d 527 (11th Cir. 1990).
Pollgreen v. Morris, 911 F.2d 527 (11th Cir. 1990).
· cites it 4× “” 8 C.F.R. § 280.13 . As the First Circuit has cogently noted, “[t]he bare fact that an agency acting in an adjudicatory capacity rules against a private party, unjustifiably, is insufficient, absent the sovereign’s adversary participation, to support a fee award under section…”
Abdul Rahman Hassan v. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen., 388 F.3d 661 (8th Cir. 2004).
“2004) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 280.13 (b)(1)(i)(A) & (B)). Without proof of past persecution, the petitioner must demonstrate that fear of future persecution is subjectively and objectively reasonable; that is, a petitioner must establish with credible evidence that he genuinely…”
United States v. Francisco Armendaris, 790 F.2d 860 (11th Cir. 1986).
“See 8 C.F.R. § 280.13 (a) (1985). When Armendaris failed to pay the fine, the United States brought this collection action in the district court.”
Air Espana v. Brien, 165 F.3d 148 (2d Cir. 1999).
“” 8 C.F.R. § 280.13 (a). If a personal interview is requested or directed, or if an answer is filed disputing the allegations in the notice, the case is assigned to an immigration officer, who is directed to “prepare a report summarizing the evidence and containing his findings…”
Abdul Rahman Hassan v. John Ashcroft (8th Cir. 2004).
“2004) (quoting 8 C.F.R. § 280.13 (b)(1)(i)(A)&(B)). Without proof of past persecution, the petitioner must demonstrate that fear of future persecution is subjectively and objectively reasonable; that is, a petitioner must establish with credible evidence that he genuinely fears…”
Ss. Ryndam, 10 I. & N. Dec. 240 (BIA 1963).
· cites it 2× “Since we were not even furnished the immigration officer's report under 8 CFR 280.13 (b) , we are unable to determine precisely what transpired at the personal interview, and we believe the present record is defective for That reason.”
— 8 C.F.R. § 280.13(b) — 1 case
Ss. Ryndam, 10 I. & N. Dec. 240 (BIA 1963).
“Since we were not even furnished the immigration officer's report under 8 CFR 280.13 (b) , we are unable to determine precisely what transpired at the personal interview, and we believe the present record is defective for That reason.”
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.