8 U.S.C. § 1105

Liaison with internal security officers; data exchange

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 8 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) In general

The Commissioner and the Administrator shall have authority to maintain direct and continuous liaison with the Directors of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency and with other internal security officers of the Government for the purpose of obtaining and exchanging information for use in enforcing the provisions of this chapter in the interest of the internal and border security of the United States. The Commissioner and the Administrator shall maintain direct and continuous liaison with each other with a view to a coordinated, uniform, and efficient administration of this chapter, and all other immigration and nationality laws.

(b) Access to National Crime Information Center files(1) The Attorney General and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall provide the Department of State and the Service access to the criminal history record information contained in the National Crime Information Center’s Interstate Identification Index (NCIC-III), Wanted Persons File, and to any other files maintained by the National Crime Information Center that may be mutually agreed upon by the Attorney General and the agency receiving the access, for the purpose of determining whether or not a visa applicant or applicant for admission has a criminal history record indexed in any such file.(2) Such access shall be provided by means of extracts of the records for placement in the automated visa lookout or other appropriate database, and shall be provided without any fee or charge.(3) The Federal Bureau of Investigation shall provide periodic updates of the extracts at intervals mutually agreed upon with the agency receiving the access. Upon receipt of such updated extracts, the receiving agency shall make corresponding updates to its database and destroy previously provided extracts.(4) Access to an extract does not entitle the Department of State to obtain the full content of the corresponding automated criminal history record. To obtain the full content of a criminal history record, the Department of State shall submit the applicant’s fingerprints and any appropriate fingerprint processing fee authorized by law to the Criminal Justice Information Services Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.(c) Reconsideration upon development of more cost effective means of sharing information

The provision of the extracts described in subsection (b) may be reconsidered by the Attorney General and the receiving agency upon the development and deployment of a more cost-effective and efficient means of sharing the information.

(d) RegulationsFor purposes of administering this section, the Department of State shall, prior to receiving access to NCIC data but not later than 4 months after October 26, 2001, promulgate final regulations—(1) to implement procedures for the taking of fingerprints; and(2) to establish the conditions for the use of the information received from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in order—(A) to limit the redissemination of such information;(B) to ensure that such information is used solely to determine whether or not to issue a visa to an alien or to admit an alien to the United States;(C) to ensure the security, confidentiality, and destruction of such information; and(D) to protect any privacy rights of individuals who are subjects of such information.(June 27, 1952, ch. 477, title I, § 105, 66 Stat. 175; Pub. L. 95–105, title I, § 109(b)(2), Aug. 17, 1977, 91 Stat. 847; Pub. L. 103–236, title I, § 162(h)(3), Apr. 30, 1994, 108 Stat. 408; Pub. L. 107–56, title IV, § 403(a), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 343.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (a), was in the original, “this Act”, meaning act June 27, 1952, ch. 477, 66 Stat. 163, known as the Immigration and Nationality Act, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1101 of this title and Tables.

Amendments

2001—Pub. L. 107–56 inserted “; data exchange” after “security officers” in section catchline, designated existing provisions as subsec. (a), inserted “and border” before “security of the United States”, and added subsecs. (b) to (d).

1994—Pub. L. 103–236 substituted “Administrator” for “Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs” in two places.

1977—Pub. L. 95–105 substituted “Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs” for “administrator” in two places.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1994 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 103–236 applicable with respect to officials, offices, and bureaus of Department of State when executive orders, regulations, or departmental directives implementing the amendments by sections 161 and 162 of Pub. L. 103–236 become effective, or 90 days after Apr. 30, 1994, whichever comes earlier, see section 161(b) of Pub. L. 103–236, as amended, set out as a note under section 2651a of Title 22, Foreign Relations and Intercourse.

Statutory Construction

Pub. L. 107–56, title IV, § 403(d), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 345, provided that: “Nothing in this section [enacting section 1379 of this title, amending this section, and enacting provisions set out as a note under this section], or in any other law, shall be construed to limit the authority of the Attorney General or the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to provide access to the criminal history record information contained in the National Crime Information Center’s (NCIC) Interstate Identification Index (NCIC-III), or to any other information maintained by the NCIC, to any Federal agency or officer authorized to enforce or administer the immigration laws of the United States, for the purpose of such enforcement or administration, upon terms that are consistent with the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact Act of 1998 (subtitle A of title II of Public Law 105–251; 42 U.S.C. 14611–16) [now 34 U.S.C. 40311–16] and section 552a of title 5, United States Code.”

Abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service and Transfer of Functions

For abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service, transfer of functions, and treatment of related references, see note set out under section 1551 of this title.

Reporting Requirement

Pub. L. 107–56, title IV, § 403(b), Oct. 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 344, provided that: “Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act [Oct. 26, 2001], the Attorney General and the Secretary of State jointly shall report to Congress on the implementation of the amendments made by this section [amending this section].”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 196 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1955–2022 · leading case: Hugo Castillo-Perez v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 212 F.3d 518 (9th Cir. 2000).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hugo Castillo-Perez v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 212 F.3d 518 (9th Cir. 2000). · cites it 3× “See INA § 106(a), 8 U.S.C. § 1105 (a) (repealed 1996). In 1996, Congress passed IIRIRA, which substantially restricted the scope of judicial review.”

Riley v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 310 F.3d 1253 (10th Cir. 2002). · cites it 2× “§ 1252 (g), INA § 242(g), nor 8 U.S.C. § 1105 (a) “indicate[s] a congressional intent to repeal habeas jurisdiction.”

Saidou Dia v. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen. of the United States, 353 F.3d 228 (3rd Cir. 2003). “233 , 239 (1998) (concluding that the standard currently set forth in § 1252(b)(4)(B) is "simply a new way of saying the same thing Congress wrote in former INA § 106 [ 8 U.S.C. § 1105 (a)(a)(4) ]”); see also Pamela Goldberg, Analytical Approaches in Search of Consistent…”

Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233 (2010). “See 8 U. S. C. §1105 (a)(6) (1994 ed.). 2 This provision conferred the authority to rescind a deportation order “upon a motion to reopen filed within 180 days after the date of the order of deportation if the alien demonstrates that the failure to appear was because of…”

Mauro Antonio Cano-Merida v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 311 F.3d 960 (9th Cir. 2002). “We have jurisdiction over Cano's petition pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1105 (a)(2), as amended by Section 309(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act.”

Neama El Sayed Ramadan Gaser Hesham El Gendy v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney Gen., 479 F.3d 646 (9th Cir. 2007). “651 (codified as amended at 8 U.S.C. § 1105 (a) (repealed 1996)). However, in 1996 Congress altered this scheme of review, enacting the Antiterrorist and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”).”

Esther Josephine Bunuan Agbuya v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 241 F.3d 1224 (9th Cir. 2001). · cites it 2× “8 U.S.C. § 1105 (a)(4); INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.”

People v. Antonio-Antimo, 29 P.3d 298 (Colo. 2000). “See 8 U.S.C. § 1105 (1999). This authority is exclusive to the executive branch of the federal government; neither *303 federal 4 nor state courts have authority or jurisdiction over immigration matters, including the authority to order a person deported.”

Yuri Harchenko, Oleksandr Harchenko, & Tetiana Harchenko v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv. John Ashcroft, Attorney Gen., 379 F.3d 405 (6th Cir. 2004). “INA § 106(a) (formerly codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1105 (a)). Section 106 was repealed by the IIRIRA and replaced with a new judicial review provision codified at 8 U.”

Mario Ernesto Navas v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 217 F.3d 646 (9th Cir. 2000). “Rather, the BIA agreed with the IJ’s conclusion that the murder of Navas’s aunt by three military personnel was not politically motivated, and that the murderers’ interest in finding Navas “relate[dj to his ability to identify them, not to a desire to harm him on account of one…”

Lois M. Grant, on Behalf of Herself & All Other Similarly Situated Persons v. Donna E. Shalala, Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 989 F.2d 1332 (3rd Cir. 1993). · cites it 2× “8 U.S.C. § 1105 (a). Moreover, the INA provided that, in reviewing a denial of SAW status, the court of appeals is restricted to the administrative record and that “the findings of fact contained in such a record [are] conclusive unless the applicant can establish abuse of…”

Amado Miranda, an Individual Esperanza Miranda, an Individual v. Janet Reno, Attorney Gen. of the United States of Am. Does 1-100, 238 F.3d 1156 (9th Cir. 2001). “Specifically, IIRIRA repealed the provision pursuant to which most deportation orders (the pre-IIRIRA analog of removal orders) were subject to direct review by federal appellate courts, see 8 U.S.C. § 1105 (a) (repealed 1996), and purported to deprive federal courts of…”

Show all 196 citing cases →

— 8 U.S.C. § 1105(a) — 3 cases

Jamal Ahmad Hazime v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 17 F.3d 136 (6th Cir. 1994).

Monique Preux v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., & John L. Todd, Dist. Dir., 484 F.2d 396 (10th Cir. 1973).

United States v. Igbonwa, 120 F.3d 437 (3rd Cir. 1997).

— 8 U.S.C. § 1105(a)(4) — 1 case

Cruz-Diaz v. INS (4th Cir. 1996).

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.