(a) Representative capacity. Whenever a person is required by any of the provisions of this chapter to give or be given notice; to serve or be served with any paper other than a warrant of arrest or a subpoena; to make a motion; to file or submit an application or other document; or to perform or waive the performance of any act, such notice, service, motion, filing, submission, performance, or waiver shall be given by or to, served by or upon, made by, or requested of the attorney or representative of record, or the person himself if unrepresented.
(b) Right to representation. Whenever an examination is provided for in this chapter, the person involved shall have the right to be represented by an attorney or representative who shall be permitted to examine or cross-examine such person and witnesses, to introduce evidence, to make objections which shall be stated succinctly and entered on the record, and to submit briefs. Provided, that nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to provide any applicant for admission in either primary or secondary inspection the right to representation, unless the applicant for admission has become the focus of a criminal investigation and has been taken into custody.
[37 FR 11471, June 8, 1972 and 45 FR 81733, Dec. 12, 1980; 46 FR 2025, Jan. 8, 1981; 58 FR 49911, Sept. 24, 1993]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
121
cases (
9 in the last 5 years), 1972–2026 · leading case:
Gonzaga-Ortega v. Holder, 736 F.3d 795 (9th Cir. 2012).
Gonzaga-Ortega v. Holder, 736 F.3d 795 (9th Cir. 2012).
· cites it 8× “” The footnote is: Gonzaga does not argue on appeal that he was, in fact, the focus of a criminal investigation and had been taken into custody at the time of his interrogation, such that he fell outside the exception in 8 C.F.R. § 292.5 and had a right to representation.”
Al Mutarreb v. Holder, 561 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 6× “See 8 C.F.R. § 292.5 (a) (“Whenever a person is required by any of the provisions of this chapter to .”
Oliva-Ramos v. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 694 F.3d 259 (3rd Cir. 2012).
· cites it 3× “8 C.F.R. § 292.5 (b) (right to counsel) In addition to the regulatory violations discussed above, Oliva-Ramos also claims that ICE agents violated 8 C.”
Hamazaspyan v. Holder, 590 F.3d 744 (9th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 2× “See also 8 C.F.R. § 292.5 (same provision regarding DHS).”
Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 427 (2d Cir. 2008).
· cites it 2× “D) Right to Counsel at Examination: 8 C.F.R. § 292.5 (b) Title 8 C.F.R. § 292.”
Gonzaga-Ortega v. Holder, 694 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2012).
· cites it 6× “A right to counsel is provided in 8 C.F.R. § 292.5 (b), but that regulation expressly states that it does not provide a right to representation to any “applicant for admission” in primary or secondary inspection except under circumstances that did not apply here.”
Tameshwar Sewak v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 900 F.2d 667 (3rd Cir. 1990).
· cites it 2× “The INS, however, contends that notice to an alien’s attorney is reasonable notice to the alien, that where an alien is represented by counsel only counsel receives notice of the scheduling of a deportation *673 proceeding, see 8 C.F.R. § 292.5 (a) (1989), that G-28s are often…”
Rivera, 21 I. & N. Dec. 599 (BIA 1996).
· cites it 3× “601 Interim Decision #3296 According to 8 C.F.R. § 292.5 (a) (1996), whenever a person in immigra- tion proceedings is required to be given notice, such notice will be given to the attorney or representative of record, if the person is represented.”
— 8 C.F.R. § 292.5(a) — 8 cases
Castro, 16 I. & N. Dec. 81 (BIA 1976).
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.