Cases from cite.case.law:

UNITED STATES v. NUNEZ,, 375 F. Supp. 3d 232 (E.D.N.Y. 2018)

. . . . § 1003.25(b) because the IJ had not determined whether Reyes Nunez's waiver of rights was voluntary . . . As a general matter, § 1003.25(b) regulates stipulated requests for removal and allows an IJ to enter . . . The IJ's failure to determine the validity of Reyes Nunez's waiver violated § 1003.25(b). . . . Section 1003.25(b) is one such regulation; it requires an IJ to safeguard the fundamental right of due . . . Ohio Mar. 18, 2014) ("Nowhere does § 1003.25(b) state that the immigration judge is required to hold . . .

UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ, a k a, 667 F. App'x 837 (4th Cir. 2016)

. . . . § 1003.25(b) (2016). . . .

WEI ZHANG, v. ATTORNEY GENERAL UNITED STATES, 632 F. App'x 680 (3d Cir. 2015)

. . . . § 1003.25(c). . . .

UNITED STATES v. CORDOVA- SOTO,, 804 F.3d 714 (5th Cir. 2015)

. . . . § 1003.25(b). . . . in the Stipulated Form of Removal was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent as required by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25 . . . to expressly find that her waiver was voluntary, knowing, and intelligent as required by 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25 . . . Section 1003.25(b) provides that an IJ “may enter [a removal] order without a hearing and in the absence . . . for an IJ to follow the regulation, which directs him to make the finding regarding voluntariness. § 1003.25 . . .

UNITED STATES v. SOTO- MATEO,, 799 F.3d 117 (1st Cir. 2015)

. . . . § 1003.25(b). The Stipulation was printed in both English and Spanish. . . . as the IJ “determine[s] that the alien’s waiver is voluntary, knowing, and intelligent.” 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25 . . .

BOURAS, v. H. HOLDER, Jr., 779 F.3d 665 (7th Cir. 2015)

. . . . § 1003.25(c). . . .

UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ, s, 84 F. Supp. 3d 482 (W.D.N.C. 2015)

. . . . § 1003.25(b). Against such backdrop, the court has closely reviewed- the waiver in this case. . . . Immigration Judge must determine that the alien’s waiver is voluntary, knowing, and intelligent. 8 C.F.K § 1003.25 . . .

UNITED STATES v. N. BAPTIST,, 759 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 2014)

. . . . § 1003.25(b), which states: An Immigration Judge may enter an order of deportation, exclusion or removal . . . But 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25(b) contains no requirement that an alien must be represented by counsel or that . . . The statute is now 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25(b). . Even if we were to do so, it would not assist Baptist. . . .

UNITED STATES v. GOMEZ,, 757 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 2014)

. . . . § 1003.25(b) by finding Gomez’s waiver of rights “voluntary, knowing, and intelligent” on the basis . . . Second, the IJ who ordered Gomez removed violated 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25(b) by finding that Gomez’s waiver . . . Here, we conclude that the procedures followed in removing Gomez violated 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25(b) because . . . The government's argument — that the stipulated removal process set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25(b) is . . . (b). . 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25(b) provides in full: An Immigration Judge may enter an order of deportation . . .

ANGOV, v. E. LYNCH,, 788 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2013)

. . . . § 1003.25(c) (“An Immigration Judge may conduct hearings through video conference to the same extent . . .

CORDOVA- SOTO, v. H. HOLDER, Jr., 732 F.3d 789 (7th Cir. 2013)

. . . . § 1003.25(b) (“If the alien is unrepresented, the Immigration Judge must determine that the alien’s . . .

UNITED STATES v. GOMEZ,, 732 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 2013)

. . . . § 1003.25(b) by finding Gomez’s waiver of rights “voluntary, knowing, and intelligent” on the basis . . . Second, the IJ who ordered Gomez removed violated 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25(b) by finding that Gomez’s waiver . . . Here, we conclude that the procedures followed in removing Gomez violated 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25(b) because . . . The government's argument' — that the stipulated removal process set forth in 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25(b) is . . . (b). . 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25(b) provides in full: An Immigration Judge may enter an order of deportation . . .

SANCHEZ, v. US ATTORNEY GENERAL,, 523 F. App'x 682 (11th Cir. 2013)

. . . . § 1003.25(c). . . .

JUAREZ- CHAVEZ, v. H. HOLDER, Jr., 515 F. App'x 463 (6th Cir. 2013)

. . . . § 1003.25(b). . . .

BARRERA- QUINTERO, a k a v. H. HOLDER, Jr., 699 F.3d 1239 (10th Cir. 2012)

. . . . § 1003.25(c). And this is not unique to immigration cases. . . .

ADI, v. H. HOLDER,, 475 F. App'x 89 (6th Cir. 2012)

. . . . § 1003.25(c), permit an Immigration Judge to “conduct hearings through video conference to the same . . .

VILCHEZ, v. H. HOLDER Jr., 682 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2012)

. . . . § 1003.25(c) (“An Immigration Judge may conduct hearings through video conference to the same extent . . .

UNITED STATES v. RAMOS,, 623 F.3d 672 (9th Cir. 2010)

. . . . § 1003.25(b). . . . . § 1003.25. . . . Like the former version of the regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25 provides an IJ with discretion to “enter . . . See also 8 C.F.R. §§ 1003.25(b)(1), (2), (6), (7). . . . Neither 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(d) nor 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25 requires a waiver of the Fifth Amendment right to . . .

UNITED STATES v. VASALLO- MARTINEZ,, 360 F. App'x 731 (9th Cir. 2009)

. . . . § 1003.25(b). . . .

Ul QAMAR, v. H. HOLDER Jr. U. S., 339 F. App'x 122 (2d Cir. 2009)

. . . . § 1003.25 (The IJ “may, for good cause, ... waive the presence of the alien at a hearing when the alien . . . material to the questions whether the IJ would have excused Qamar’s presence for “good cause” under § 1003.25 . . .

SAO, v. H. HOLDER, Jr., 333 F. App'x 73 (6th Cir. 2009)

. . . . § 1003.25(c). . . .

UNITED STATES v. BALDERAS,, 308 F. App'x 55 (9th Cir. 2009)

. . . . § 1003.25(b). . . .

LIGOUSSOU v. B. MUKASEY,, 297 F. App'x 11 (1st Cir. 2008)

. . . . § 1003.25(c). The BIA rejected the other arguments that Ligoussou was deprived of a fair hearing. . . .

UNITED STATES v. SOTO- CASTELO,, 621 F. Supp. 2d 1062 (D. Nev. 2008)

. . . . § 1003.25(b), provides, in part, as follows: An Immigration Judge may enter an order of deportation . . . The defendant thereafter executed a stipulation pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25(b). . . . of his eligibility to apply for voluntary departure before he signed a stipulation under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25 . . . See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25(b). . . . the Stipulated Request and the order of removal did not comport with the requirements of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25 . . .

RAPHEAL, a k a v. B. MUKASEY,, 533 F.3d 521 (7th Cir. 2008)

. . . . § 1003.25(e) is facially unconstitutional. . . . Accordingly, this court should declare that 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25(c) is unconstitutional because it infringes . . . Section 1003.25(c) provides: Telephonic or video hearings. . . .

EKE, v. B. MUKASEY,, 512 F.3d 372 (7th Cir. 2008)

. . . . § 1003.25(c), violates his constitutional due process rights. No court has ever so held, however. . . .

ALTAMIRANO- LOPEZ v. D. KEISLER, U. S., 250 F. App'x 658 (5th Cir. 2007)

. . . . § 1003.25(b). . . .

HERMEZ, v. GONZALES,, 227 F. App'x 441 (6th Cir. 2007)

. . . . § 1003.25(c). . . .

NIKOLOV, v. R. GONZALES,, 204 F. App'x 80 (2d Cir. 2006)

. . . . § 1003.25(a). . . .

HAKIM v. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF UNITED STATES,, 189 F. App'x 135 (3d Cir. 2006)

. . . . § 1003.25(c). . . .

WANG, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,, 160 F. App'x 59 (2d Cir. 2005)

. . . . § 1003.25. Her argument is unavailing. . . .

LI ZHOU, v. R. GONZALES,, 155 F. App'x 359 (9th Cir. 2005)

. . . . § 1003.25(c), because petitioner failed to raise the claim before the BIA, and thus failed to exhaust . . .

D. AKINWANDE, v. ASHCROFT,, 380 F.3d 517 (1st Cir. 2004)

. . . . § 1003.25, that the IJ erred in permitting a witness, Akinwande’s second ex-wife, to testify via telephone . . . can tell, this is the first case to address this argument involving the interpretation of 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25 . . . out the testimony of his ex-wife on the ground that both due process and INS regulation 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25 . . . Akinwande’s initial argument is that the use of the telephone testimony violated 8 C.F.R. § 1003.25, . . .

TANG, v. ASHCROFT,, 354 F.3d 1192 (10th Cir. 2003)

. . . . § 1003.25(a), (c)); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(2)(A)(ii), (iv). Although Mr. . . .

GORDON, Jr. v. SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,, 803 F.2d 1071 (9th Cir. 1986)

. . . On February 1, 1983, this account showed a balance of $1003.25. . . . $689.16 at Coast Federal Savings and another account in the name of Motion Critique with a balance of $1003.25 . . .