C.F.R. » Title 8 » CHAPTER I—DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY › SUBCHAPTER B—IMMIGRATION REGULATIONS › PART 287—FIELD OFFICERS; POWERS AND DUTIES

8 C.F.R. § 287.6

Proof of official records

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

(a) Domestic. In any proceeding under this chapter, an official record or entry therein, when admissible for any purpose, shall be evidenced by an official publication thereof, or by a copy attested by the official having legal custody of the record or by an authorized deputy.

(b) Foreign: Countries not Signatories to Convention. (1) In any proceeding under this chapter, an official record or entry therein, when admissible for any purpose, shall be evidenced by an official publication thereof, or by a copy attested by an officer so authorized. This attested copy in turn may but need not be certified by any authorized foreign officer both as to the genuineness of the signature of the attesting officer and as to his/her official position. The signature and official position of this certifying foreign officer may then likewise be certified by any other foreign officer so authorized, thereby creating a chain of certificates.

(2) The attested copy, with the additional foreign certificates if any, must be certified by an officer in the Foreign Service of the United States, stationed in the foreign country where the record is kept. This officer must certify the genuineness of the signature and the official position either of (i) the attesting officer; or (ii) any foreign officer whose certification of genuineness of signature and official position relates directly to the attestation or is in a chain of certificates of genuineness of signature and official position relating to the attestation.

(c) Foreign: Countries Signatory to Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legislation for Foreign Public Document. (1) In any proceeding under this chapter, a public document or entry therein, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication, or by a copy properly certified under the Convention. To be properly certified, the copy must be accompanied by a certificate in the form dictated by the Convention. This certificate must be signed by a foreign officer so authorized by the signatory country, and it must certify (i) the authenticity of the signature of the person signing the document; (ii) the capacity in which that person acted, and (iii) where appropriate, the identity of the seal or stamp which the document bears.

(2) No certification is needed from an officer in the Foreign Service of public documents.

(3) In accordance with the Convention, the following are deemed to be public documents:

(i) Documents emanating from an authority or an official connected with the courts of tribunals of the state, including those emanating from a public prosecutor, a clerk of a court or a process server;

(ii) Administrative documents;

(iii) Notarial acts; and

(iv) Official certificates which are placed on documents signed by persons in their private capacity, such as official certificates recording the registration of a document or the fact that it was in existence on a certain date, and official and notarial authentication of signatures.

(4) In accordance with the Convention, the following are deemed not to be public documents, and thus are subject to the more stringent requirements of § 287.6(b) above:

(i) Documents executed by diplomatic or consular agents; and

(ii) Administrative documents dealing directly with commercial or customs operations.

(d) Canada. In any proceedings under this chapter, an official record or entry therein, issued by a Canadian governmental entity within the geographical boundaries of Canada, when admissible for any purpose, shall be evidenced by a certified copy of the original record attested by the official having legal custody of the record or by an authorized deputy.

[50 FR 37834, Sept. 18, 1985, as amended at 54 FR 39337, Sept. 26, 1989; 54 FR 48851, Nov. 28, 1989]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 316 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1969–2025 · leading case: Ellyana Sukwanputra Yulius Sukwanputra v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney Gen. United States of Am., 434 F.3d 627 (3rd Cir. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ellyana Sukwanputra Yulius Sukwanputra v. Alberto Gonzales, Attorney Gen. United States of Am., 434 F.3d 627 (3rd Cir. 2006). · cites it 8× “The IJ reasoned that the documents were not *631 certified as required under 8 C.F.R. § 287.6 . On October 28, 2002, the IJ issued a decision denying the application for asylum, withholding of removal, and CAT protection.”
Igor Leia v. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen. of the United States, 393 F.3d 427 (3rd Cir. 2005). · cites it 9× “Leia argues, inter alia, that the BIA abused its discretion in affirming the IJ’s refusal to admit the documentary evidence that he proffered following remand of the case because it had not been authenticated in the manner required by 8 C.F.R. § 287.6 , the primary factor…”
Vatyan v. Mukasey, 508 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir. 2007). · cites it 9× “The government objected to the documents as not properly certified under the authentication standards for foreign public documents set forth by 8 C.F.R. § 287.6 (c), and thus inadmissible.”
Xiu Ling Zhang v. Alberto Gonzales 1 , Attorney Gen. of the United States of Am., 405 F.3d 150 (3rd Cir. 2005). · cites it 6× “After Zhang’s counsel furnished these documents during the July 13 preliminary hearing, the government’s lawyer asked if Zhang’s counsel intended to comply with 8 C.F.R. § 287.6 5 and “have any documents authenticated by the U.”
Qin Wen Zheng v. Gonzales, 500 F.3d 143 (2d Cir. 2007). · cites it 3× “2001) (noting that “[t]he procedure specified in 8 C.F.R. § 287.6 provides one, but not the exclusive, method” of authentication (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).”
Shunfu Li v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 2008). · cites it 3× “Further, because we cannot confidently predict that the agency would reach the same decision absent these errors, we grant Li’s petition, vacate the challenged agency decision, and remand the case to the BIA for further proceedings.”
Xue Deng Jiang v. Gonzales, 474 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2007). · cites it 7× “The IJ excluded the two documents on the ground that neither was properly authenticated in accordance with 8 C.F.R. § 287.6 (b). After hearing the evidence, the IJ noted that the petitioner had embellished his trial testimony by adding important information that was inexplicably…”
Tassi v. Holder, 660 F.3d 710 (4th Cir. 2011). · cites it 5× “” Furthermore, the arrest warrant was not authenticated pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 287.6 (establishing procedures in immigration proceedings for authenticating, inter alia, official records of foreign countries); • Two dates on the March 12, 2002 Convocation had possibly been…”
Cao He Lin, A/K/A Je Ling Chao v. United States Dep't of Just. & Attorney Gen. Gonzales, 428 F.3d 391 (2d Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “We assume that the IJ was referring to 8 C.F.R. § 287.6 , a regulation that provides for (1) the authentication of certain foreign official records by both the home country and the United States Foreign Service, and (2) the authentication of other documents by the home country…”
Gui Cun Liu Xiu Ding Liu v. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen. of United States of Am., 372 F.3d 529 (3rd Cir. 2004). · cites it 4× “Specifically, the Lius allege that the BIA erred in (1) affirming the opinion of the Immigration Judge (IJ) without opinion, in violation of their Due Process rights, (2) improperly finding that the Lius’ testimony was not credible, (3) rejecting documentary evidence for failure…”
Smith v. Garland, 103 F.4th 663 (9th Cir. 2024). · cites it 7× “Smith argued that an amendment to 8 C.F.R. § 287.6 (a) made mandatory a requirement that domestic official records be authenticated “by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the official having legal custody of the record .”
Yu Zhao v. Gonzales, 404 F.3d 295 (5th Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “The government objected, arguing that the documents did not conform to 8 C.F.R. § 287.6 (2003), the regulation governing proof of official foreign records.”
Show all 316 citing cases →
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.