59692 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules

borrowers must establish and maintain the needs identified in an Agency SUMMARY: The Department of Justice a reserve account, unless escrowed by approved Capital Needs Assessment (if (‘‘Department’’ or ‘‘DOJ’’) proposes to the Agency. obtained) are completed within a amend the Executive Office for (b) Financial management of the reasonable timeframe. Immigration Review (‘‘EOIR’’) reserve account. Unless otherwise * * * * * regulations governing asylum and approved by the Agency, borrower (j) * * * withholding of removal, including management of the reserve account is (2) The Agency will allow for an changes to what must be included with subject to the requirements of 7 CFR annual adjustment to increase reserve an application for such relief for it to be part 1902, subpart A regarding account funding levels by Operating considered complete and the supervised bank accounts. Cost Adjustment Factor (OCAF) as consequences of filing an incomplete * * * * * published by HUD annually. This will application, changes establishing a 15- (d) Transfer of surplus general require a modification to the Loan day filing deadline for aliens applying operating account funds. (1) The general agreement and the increase documented for asylum in asylum-and-withholding- operating account will be deemed to with budget submission as outlined in only proceedings, and changes related contain surplus funds when the balance § 3560.303. to the 180-day asylum adjudication at the end of the housing project’s fiscal * * * * * clock. year, after all payables and priorities, DATES: Written or electronic comments exceeds 20 percent of the operating and Subpart I—Servicing must be submitted on or before October maintenance expenses. If the borrower 23, 2020. Written comments postmarked ■ 23. Amend § 3560.402 by revising is escrowing taxes and insurance on or before that date will be considered paragraph (b) to read as follows: premiums, include the amount that timely. The electronic Federal Docket should be escrowed by year end and § 3560.402 Loan payment processing. Management System will accept subtract such tax and insurance * * * * * comments prior to midnight Eastern premiums from operating and (b) Required conversion to PASS. Time at the end of that day. maintenance expenses used to calculate Borrowers with Daily Interest Accrual ADDRESSES: If you wish to provide 20 percent of the operating and System (DIAS) accounts must convert to comments regarding this rulemaking, maintenance expenses. PASS with any loan servicing action. you must submit comments, identified (2) If a housing project’s general * * * * * by the agency name and referencing RIN operating account has surplus funds at 1125–AA93 or EOIR Docket No. 19– the end of the housing project’s fiscal Subpart L—Off-Farm Labor Housing 0010, by one of the two methods below. year as defined in paragraph (d)(1), the • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// Agency will require the borrower to use § 3560.576 [Amended] www.regulations.gov. Follow the the surplus funds to address capital ■ 24. Amend § 3560.576 by removing website instructions for submitting needs, make a deposit in the housing the words ‘‘State Director’s’’ and adding comments. project’s reserve account, reduce the in their place ‘‘MFH Leadership • Mail: Paper comments that debt service on the borrower’s loan, or Designee’s’’ in paragraph (e). duplicate an electronic submission are reduce rents in the following year. At unnecessary. If you wish to submit a the end of the borrower’s fiscal year, if Subpart N—Housing Preservation paper comment in lieu of an electronic the borrower is required to transfer § 3560.656 [Amended] submission, please direct the mail/ surplus funds from the general shipment to: Lauren Alder Reid, ■ 25. Amend § 3560.656 by removing operating account to the reserve Assistant Director, Office of Policy, the word ‘‘will’’ and replacing it with account, the transfer does not change Executive Office for Immigration ‘‘may’’ in paragraph (a) introductory the future required contributions to the Review, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2616, text. reserve account. Falls Church, VA 22041. To ensure (e) * * * Elizabeth Green, proper handling, please reference the (2) Reserve accounts must be Acting Administrator, Rural Housing Service. agency name and RIN 1125–AA93 or supervised accounts that require the [FR Doc. 2020–18192 Filed 9–22–20; 8:45 am] EOIR Docket No. 19–0010 on your Agency to approve all withdrawals; BILLING CODE 3410–XV–P correspondence. Mailed items must be except, this requirement is not postmarked or otherwise indicate a applicable when loan funds guaranteed shipping date on or before the by the Section 538 GRRH program are DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE submission deadline. used for the construction and/or FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: rehabilitation of a direct MFH loan Executive Office for Immigration Lauren Alder Reid, Assistant Director, project. Direct MFH loan borrowers, Review Office of Policy, Executive Office for who are exempted from the supervised Immigration Review, 5107 Leesburg account requirement, as described in 8 CFR Parts 1003, 1208, and 1240 Pike, Suite 2616, Falls Church, VA this section, must follow Section 538 22041, telephone (703) 305–0289 (not a GRRH program regulatory requirements [EOIR Docket No. 19–0010; A.G. Order No. 4843–2020] toll-free call). pertaining to reserve accounts. In all SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: cases, Section 538 lenders must get RIN 1125–AA93 prior written approval from the Agency I. Public Participation before reserve account funds involving Procedures for Asylum and Interested persons are invited to a direct MFH loan project can be Withholding of Removal participate in this rulemaking by disbursed to the borrower. AGENCY: Executive Office for submitting written data, views, or * * * * * Immigration Review, Department of arguments on all aspects of this rule via (g) * * * Justice. one of the methods and by the deadline (2) Borrowers should include any stated above. All comments must be ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. needed capital improvements based on submitted in English, or accompanied

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Sep 22, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23SEP1.SGM 23SEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules 59693

by an English translation. The II. Discussion abandoned when the alien fails to Department also invites comments that In 1980, Congress enacted the Refugee timely file them. See Matter of R–R–, 20 relate to the economic, environmental, Act of 1980, which, among other things, I&N Dec. 547, 549 (BIA 1992) (asylum or federalism effects that might result amended the Immigration and application deemed abandoned after from this rule. Comments that will Nationality Act (‘‘INA’’ or ‘‘Act’’) to alien failed to file application by provide the most assistance to the implement the obligations of the United deadline set by the immigration judge); Department in developing these States under the 1967 Protocol Relating Matter of Jean, 17 I&N Dec. 100, 101– 02 (BIA 1979) (asylum application procedures will reference a specific to the Status of Refugees (‘‘1967 deemed abandoned after alien failed to portion of the proposed rule; explain the Protocol’’), by establishing a formal meet 20-day filing deadline set by reason for any recommended change; statutory procedure for granting asylum and include data, information, or immigration judge). to certain refugees who are present in In this notice of proposed rulemaking authority that support such the United States, and by providing for recommended change. (‘‘proposed rule’’), the Department a permanent procedure for the proposes to revise 8 CFR 1208.4 to add Please note that all comments admission and resettlement of refugees. a 15-day deadline from the date of the received are considered part of the Public Law 96–212, 94 Stat. 102, 102. alien’s first hearing to file an application public record and made available for The term ‘‘refugee’’ is now generally for asylum and withholding of removal public inspection at defined as ‘‘any person who is outside for aliens in asylum-and-withholding- www.regulations.gov. Such information of any country of such person’s only proceedings.2 Aliens in such includes personally identifiable nationality . . . and who is unable or proceedings are generally already information (such as your name, unwilling to return to, and is unable or subject to removal orders, denials of address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by unwilling to avail himself or herself of applications for admission, or denials of the commenter. If you want to submit the protection of, that country because permission to land in the case of personally identifiable information of persecution or a well-founded fear of crewmembers, and are often also (such as your name, address, etc.) as persecution on account of race, religion, detained. 8 CFR 1208.2(c).3 Moreover, part of your comment, but do not want nationality, membership in a particular it to be posted online, you must include social group, or political opinion.’’ INA 2 For many years, these proceedings have been the phrase ‘‘PERSONALLY 101(a)(42), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42). Those referred to as ‘‘asylum-only’’ proceedings. See, e.g., five grounds, which mirror those set out Matter of D–M–C–P–, 26 I&N Dec. 644, 645 (BIA IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION’’ in the in the 1951 Convention Relating to the 2015) (‘‘The applicant expressed a fear of returning first paragraph of your comment and to Argentina, and on June 23, 2011, his case was Status of Refugees, as well as the 1967 identify what information you want referred to the Immigration Court for asylum-only Protocol, are the sole grounds for proceedings. . . .’’). EOIR now uses the term redacted. asylum in the United States today. ‘‘asylum-and-withholding-only proceedings.’’ See If you want to submit confidential Procedures for Asylum and Withholding of A. Form I–589 Filing Requirements Removal; Credible Fear and Reasonable Fear business information as part of your Interview, 85 FR 36264, 36265 n.2 (June 15, 2020). comment, but do not want it to be 1. Filing Deadline for Asylum 3 Most aliens who are applicants for admission posted online, you must include the Applications in Asylum-and- are subject to detention during the inspection phrase ‘‘CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS Withholding-Only Proceedings process and any subsequent expedited removal proceedings. 8 CFR 235.3. Aliens who are ordered INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph An applicant for relief or protection removed after entering the United States are subject of your comment. You must from removal, including asylum, must to detention by the Department of Homeland Security (‘‘DHS’’). INA 241(a)(2), 8 U.S.C. prominently identify the confidential comply with applicable requirements to business information to be redacted 1231(a)(2). The categories of aliens described in 8 submit information or documentation in CFR 1208.2(c) encompass both categories—i.e., within the comment. If a comment has support of the application as provided those denied admission to the United States and so much confidential business by statute or regulation. INA those who have entered the United States and information that it cannot be effectively subsequently become subject to removal through a 240(c)(4)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(4)(B). removal order issued by DHS outside of redacted, all or part of that comment With one exception for detained immigration proceedings conducted by the may not be posted on crewmembers of a vessel, see 8 CFR Department. For aliens in the former category, their www.regulations.gov. 1208.5(b)(1)(ii), the regulations asylum claims typically are presented at the time admission is denied. For aliens in the latter Personally identifiable information currently do not prescribe a specific category, their asylum claims typically arise after located as set forth above will be placed deadline for filing an application for DHS has detained them and begun the process of in the agency’s public docket file, but asylum and withholding of removal effectuating their removal. More specifically, alien with EOIR.1 crewmembers who are subject to denial of not posted online. Confidential business Rather, in immigration permission to land or removal pursuant to INA 252, information identified and located as set proceedings, the immigration judge has 8 U.S.C. 1282, are also subject to detention. INA forth above will not be placed in the the authority to set deadlines for the 252(b), 8 U.S.C. 1282(b); 8 CFR 252.1(a). Alien public docket file. The Department may filing of applications and related stowaways are subject to removal pursuant to INA 235(a)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1225(a)(2). Alien stowaways who withhold from public viewing documents. 8 CFR 1003.31(c). Where an go through the credible fear screening process are information provided in comments that immigration judge has set a deadline for detained. INA 235(b)(1)(B)(iii)(IV), 8 U.S.C. it determines may impact the privacy of filing an application for relief and that 1225(b)(1)(B)(iii)(IV). An applicant for admission application is not filed within the time under the Visa Waiver Program (‘‘VWP’’) who is an individual or is offensive. For refused admission may be removed, though such additional information, please read the set by the court, the opportunity to file removal does not constitute a removal under the Privacy Act notice that is available via such an application shall be deemed Act. 8 CFR 217.4(a)(1), (3). An alien admitted under the link in the footer of http:// waived. Id. The Board of Immigration the VWP who is found to be deportable is ordered Appeals has routinely held that removed. 8 CFR 217.4(b). Aliens who have received www.regulations.gov. To inspect the S nonimmigrant status under INA 101(a)(15)(S), 8 agency’s public docket file in person, applications for benefits are deemed U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(S), may be subject to removal. 8 you must make an appointment with the CFR 236.4. Aliens subject to the Guam- agency. Please see the ‘‘For Further 1 There is a statutory one-year deadline for filing Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands asylum applications, which allows for limited VWP are subject to similar procedures regarding Information Contact’’ paragraph above exceptions and exclusions. INA 208(a)(2)(B), (D), refusal of admission and removal as aliens subject for agency contact information. (E), 8 U.S.C. 1158(a)(2)(B), (D), (E). to the regular VWP. 8 CFR 212.1(q)(8).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Sep 22, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23SEP1.SGM 23SEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 59694 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules

their only avenues for relief or 1208.4(c); rather, the deadline would currently have any time requirement for protection are applications for asylum, ensure only that the application is filed the alien to correct an incomplete statutory withholding of removal, and in a timely manner consistent with the application. If the alien fails to file a protection under the regulations issued streamlined and focused nature of complete application within the pursuant to legislation implementing asylum-and-withholding-only required time period, absent exceptional U.S. obligations under the Convention proceedings. circumstances, the application would be Against Torture and Other Cruel, deemed abandoned and would be 2. Re-Filing an Incomplete Application Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or denied. With EOIR Punishment (‘‘CAT regulations’’), and Thirty days is a reasonable period in they would not be in asylum-and- A Form I–589, Application for which to remedy application defects, withholding-only proceedings if they Asylum and for Withholding of and the Department expects that had not already claimed a fear of Removal, is incomplete if it does not applicants would have an incentive to persecution or torture upon being include a response to each question, is re-file the application as soon as returned to their home countries. 8 CFR unsigned, or lacks required supporting possible in order to trigger the 1208.2(c)(3)(i). Claims for asylum and evidence described on the form and possibility of obtaining employment withholding of removal (both statutory, form instructions. 8 CFR 1208.3(c)(3). authorization. It is well established that INA 241(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3), and An incomplete application does not immigration judges have the authority under the CAT regulations) are the sole start the accrual of time for an asylum to set filing deadlines and manage their issues to be resolved in the proceeding applicant to file for employment dockets consistent with applicable law, and are squarely presented at the outset authorization. Id. As currently drafted, and this requirement is fully consistent of the proceeding; thus, there is no however, the regulations provide that if with that authority. See 8 CFR reason not to expect the alien to be the immigration court 5 fails to return an 1003.10(b), 1003.14(b), 1003.18, prepared to state his or her claim as I–589 application submitted by mail 1003.31(c). Further, if an application is quickly as possible. Moreover, delaying within 30 days, the application will be not filed within the time set by an filing of the claim risks delaying deemed complete. Id. The regulations immigration judge, the opportunity to protection or relief for meritorious do not provide a time frame in which file that application shall be deemed claims and increases the likelihood that an alien must re-file the application if waived. 8 CFR 1003.31(c). Additionally, important evidence, including personal the alien wishes it to be considered. Id. reasonable filing deadlines do not recollections, may degrade or be lost Upon an alien’s request and as a matter violate the immigration laws or any over time. Further, without such a of discretion, an immigration judge may international treaty obligations. See, deadline for the asylum application, allow an alien to amend or supplement e.g., Hui Zheng v. Holder, 562 F.3d 647, there is a risk that applicants may the alien’s application after it is filed. 8 655–56 (4th Cir. 2009); Chen v. simply delay proceedings, resulting in CFR 1208.4(c). Mukasey, 524 F.3d 1028, 1033 (9th Cir. inefficiency in what should otherwise The proposed rule would revise 8 2008); Foroglou v. Reno, 241 F.3d 111, be a streamlined proceeding. Finally, CFR 1208.3(c)(3) to ensure that cases of 113 (1st Cir. 2001). such a deadline is consistent with individuals seeking asylum are Without such a deadline, there is a existing regulations that specify a 10- processed efficiently by minimizing any risk that applicants will delay day deadline for detained crewmembers delay between the return of an proceedings based on an assertion that to file an asylum application, 8 CFR incomplete asylum application and the a corrected application will be 1208.5(b)(1)(ii), and with the regulatory re-filing of a complete one. First, the forthcoming, resulting in wasted directive in 8 CFR 1208.5(a) that asylum proposed rule would remove the current immigration judge time and increasing provision that an alien’s incomplete applications filed by detained aliens are the likelihood that, due to the ongoing asylum application submitted by mail to be given expedited consideration.4 addition of cases to the docket, the To allow for unusual situations in will be deemed complete if the eventual application may not be which an alien may need additional immigration court fails to return the adjudicated within 180 days as time to file the application, application within 30 days of receipt. contemplated by the Act. INA notwithstanding the alien’s recent Instead, the proposed rule would 208(d)(5)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. assertion of a fear of persecution, the provide that immigration courts will 1158(d)(5)(A)(iii). These changes will Department also proposes to amend 8 reject all incomplete applications and enhance efficiencies for the immigration return them to the applicant in a timely CFR 1208.4 to allow for the extension of courts by ensuring that cases proceed in fashion to the address of record for the the deadline for good cause similar to a timely and predictable manner rather alien or any representative of record.6 the extension to the 10-day deadline than allowing deficiencies in Further, the proposed rule would add a allowable for alien crewmembers to file applications to be corrected at any maximum of 30 days for the alien to an asylum application. See 8 CFR point, and are fully consistent with the correct any deficiencies in his or her 1208.5(b)(1)(ii). Attorney General’s authority to set Finally, the regulatory deadline application; the regulations do not conditions or limitations on the would not preclude an alien from consideration of asylum applications. 5 As currently written, 8 CFR 1208.3(c)(3) uses the INA 208(d)(5)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(5)(B). amending or supplementing the term ‘‘Service’’ instead of ‘‘immigration court.’’ Use application later in the course of of the term ‘‘Service’’ reflects that the Department Moreover, administrative agencies have proceedings, subject to an immigration did not update certain terms and positions when the prerogative to determine proper judge’s discretion consistent with 8 CFR EOIR’s regulations were copied from chapter I to rules of procedure that best allow them new chapter V of title 8 of the Code of Federal to carry out their missions. Vt. Yankee Regulations following the creation of DHS in 2003. 4 To ensure this deadline is met, the proposed Other references in chapter V to the Immigration Nuclear Power Corp. v. Nat. Res. Def. rule also extends the requirements of 8 CFR and Naturalization Service or DHS offices apply Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 543 (1978). 1240.11(c)(1)(i) through (iii), regarding advisals equally to immigration judges or EOIR. given by an immigration judge and the provision of 6 Aliens are required to maintain an updated 3. Submission of Any Applicable an asylum application to aliens in certain address with the immigration court. Form EOIR–33 Asylum Fee circumstances in removal proceedings, to aliens in must be filed with the immigration court within proceedings under 8 CFR 1208.2(c)(1) and five days of a change in address. 8 CFR The Department also proposes to 1208.4(b)(3)(iii). 1003.15(d)(2). amend 8 CFR 1208.3(c)(3) to specify that

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Sep 22, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23SEP1.SGM 23SEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules 59695

any required filing fee must be credible sources, which, under the immigration judge’s introduction of submitted in connection with the regulation, may include international documents into the record did not asylum application at the time of filing. organizations, private voluntary deprive the respondent of due process See 8 CFR 1003.24, 1003.31(b), agencies, news organizations, or because ‘‘IJs maintain an affirmative 1103.7(a)(3) (describing process for academic institutions. duty to develop the record’’); see also payment of fees relating to EOIR The Department proposes to clarify Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 410 proceedings). A Department regulation, the external materials upon which an (1971) (finding that an administrative 8 CFR 1103.7(b)(4)(ii), provides that immigration judge may rely, including law judge ‘‘acts as an examiner charged when EOIR uses a Department of by broadening the scope of Department with developing the facts’’); Charles H. Homeland Security (‘‘DHS’’) form in components and other government Koch, Jr., Administrative Law and immigration proceedings, the applicable agencies that may possess relevant Practice § 5.25 (2d ed. 1997) (noting that fee is the one provided under DHS information for an immigration judge in ‘‘[t]he presiding official is pivotal to the regulations at 8 CFR 103.7.7 EOIR uses adjudicating a claim. The Department fact-finding function of an evidentiary the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration also proposes to revise the standard for hearing and hence, unlike the trial Services (‘‘USCIS’’) Form I–589, an immigration judge’s consideration of judge, an administrative judge has a Application for Asylum and for information from non-governmental well-established affirmative duty to Withholding of Removal, for which DHS sources to ensure that only probative develop the record’’). Further, this sets the application fee. Under the and credible evidence is considered. change will better enable immigration Department’s regulation, the DHS fee Although materials provided by non- judges to ensure full consideration of all would also apply to any filing of USCIS governmental organizations are relevant evidence and full development Form I–589 in EOIR proceedings. See 8 sometimes helpful, the current of the record for cases involving a pro CFR 1103.7(b)(4)(ii); see also 8 CFR regulatory text could be read to imply se respondent. See Matter of S–M–J–, 21 103.7. Thus, the proposed rule would that they always are, which is not I&N Dec. 722, 729 (BIA 1997) (en banc) provide that a fee must be submitted if necessarily the case. See, e.g., M.A. v. (noting that ‘‘various guidelines for DHS requires one.8 U.S. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 313 (4th Cir. asylum adjudicators recommend the 1990) (en banc) (‘‘A standard of asylum introduction of evidence by the B. Form I–589 Procedural Requirements eligibility based solely on adjudicator’’). 1. Supplementing the Record pronouncements of private 2. The Asylum Adjudication Clock Under 8 CFR 1208.12, an immigration organizations or the news media is The proposed rule would remove and judge 9 may rely on material provided problematic almost to the point of being reserve 8 CFR 1208.7 as EOIR does not by certain entities when deciding an non-justiciable.’’). The proposed adjudicate applications for employment asylum application, or deciding whether revision provides appropriate guidance authorization.10 Further, there is an alien has a credible fear of regarding the use of such materials to confusing language in 8 CFR 1208.7 persecution or torture pursuant to 8 CFR ensure that only credible and probative regarding the relationship between the 1208.30 or a reasonable fear of materials are considered. The Department also proposes to persecution or torture pursuant to 8 CFR time period for applications for expand 8 CFR 1208.12 to allow an 1208.31. Currently, those entities are the employment authorization, which EOIR immigration judge to submit evidence Department of State, the DOJ Office of does not adjudicate, and the time period into the record and consider that International Affairs, DHS, and other for adjudicating actual asylum evidence, so long as the judge has applications, which are relevant for provided a copy to both parties, which 7 On November 14, 2019, DHS proposed to adjust EOIR’s purposes. its fee schedule for certain applications it will give the parties an opportunity to The INA contains two separate adjudicates, including applications also adjudicated respond to or address the information provisions relating to a 180-day time by EOIR—e.g., Forms I–191, I–485, I–601, I–589, appropriately. This proposal is frame in the context of an asylum and I–881. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration consistent with the immigration judge’s Services Fee Schedule and Changes to Certain application. The first, INA Other Immigration Benefit Request Requirements, powers and duties under 8 CFR 208(d)(5)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. 84 FR 62280, 62326–27 (Nov. 14, 2019). As part of 1003.10(b) to manage immigration court 1158(d)(5)(A)(iii), directs the Attorney that proposed rulemaking, DHS proposed to move hearings: ‘‘In deciding the individual General to set procedures for processing its fee schedule from 8 CFR 103.7 to 8 CFR 106.2. cases before them, . . . immigration See 84 FR at 62359–63. On August 3, 2020, DHS asylum applications providing that, in published the final rule regarding its new fee judges shall exercise their independent the absence of exceptional schedule to be effective October 2, 2020. U.S. judgment and discretion and may take Citizenship and Immigration Services Fee Schedule any action consistent with their 10 On June 22, 2020, DHS issued a final rule, and Changes to Certain Other Immigration Benefit authorities under the Act and effective August 21, 2020, in which it removed from Request Requirements, 85 FR 46788 (Aug. 3, 2020). regulations that is appropriate and its regulations in part 208 of title 8 (1) the 30-day The Department will conform its reference in 8 CFR processing provision for initial employment 1103.7(b)(4)(ii) to DHS’s new fee regulation in a necessary for the disposition of such authorization applications for those with pending separate rulemaking. cases.’’ See also 8 CFR 1003.36 (‘‘The asylum applications, and (2) the 90-day time frame 8 DHS’s recent final rule will require a fee of $50 Immigration Court shall create and for receipt of an application to renew employment for Form I–589 in most circumstances. 85 FR at control the Record of Proceeding.’’). It is authorization. Removal of 30-Day Processing 46791. All fees for DHS applications adjudicated by Provision for Asylum Applicant-Related Form I– the Department are payable to DHS, and DHS also consistent with an immigration 765 Employment Authorization Applications, 85 FR deposits the funds in the Immigration Examinations judge’s duty to develop the record. See, 37502, 37503. The rule also indicated that DOJ may Fee Account. See INA 286, 8 U.S.C. 1356. e.g., Yang v. McElroy, 277 F.3d 158, 162 issue conforming changes to 8 CFR 1208.7 at a later 9 The current text of 8 CFR 1208.12 refers to an (2d Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (‘‘[T]he IJ date. Id. at 37510. By removing 8 CFR 1208.7, asylum officer instead of an immigration judge. which mirrors 8 CFR 208.7, the proposed rule This reflects that the Department did not update whose decision the Board reviews, would avoid any potential conflict with DHS certain terms and positions when EOIR’s unlike an Article III judge, is not merely regulatory provisions. On June 26, 2020, DHS regulations were copied from chapter I to new the fact finder and adjudicator but also published a final rule, effective August 25, 2020, chapter V of title 8 of the Code of Federal has an obligation to establish the making changes to 8 CFR 208.7. See Asylum Regulations following the creation of DHS in 2003. Application, Interview, and Employment The proposed regulation corrects that oversight and record.’’); Constanza-Martinez v. Authorization for Applicants, 85 FR 38532. The replaces ‘‘asylum officer’’ with ‘‘immigration judge’’ Holder, 739 F.3d 1100, 1102–03 (8th removal of 8 CFR 1208.7 avoids any potential in 8 CFR 1208.12. Cir. 2014) (concluding that the conflict with changes to 8 CFR 208.7.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Sep 22, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23SEP1.SGM 23SEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 59696 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules

circumstances, final administrative Although both of these provisions remedies that confusion by removing adjudication of the asylum application, reflect an expectation that asylum regulatory language related to the not including administrative appeal, applications should be adjudicated employment authorization process that shall be completed within 180 days after within 180 days of filing, the provisions EOIR does not administer and by the date an application is filed. themselves are not identical. For amending part 1003 of EOIR’s Implementing regulations clarify that example, the adjudication deadline for regulations to implement INA the ‘‘time period[] within which . . . the asylum application itself is subject 208(d)(5)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. the asylum application must be to tolling for ‘‘exceptional 1158(d)(5)(A)(iii), and to direct adjudicated pursuant to section circumstances.’’ INA 208(d)(5)(A)(iii), 8 immigration judges to adjudicate 208(d)(5)(A)(iii) of the Act shall begin U.S.C. 1158(d)(5)(A)(iii). In contrast, the asylum applications within 180 days of when the alien has filed a complete period during which an alien is barred filing absent exceptional circumstances. asylum application in accordance with’’ from filing an application for Although the term ‘‘exceptional applicable procedures. 8 CFR employment authorization based on an circumstances’’ is not defined for 1208.7(a)(2). asylum application may be tolled solely purposes of INA 208(d)(5)(A)(iii), 8 The second, INA 208(d)(2), 8 U.S.C. for an alien-caused continuance, 8 CFR U.S.C. 1158(d)(5)(A)(iii),13 there is no 1158(d)(2), addresses when an asylum 1208.7(a)(1), and continuances are indication that Congress intended for applicant may be granted employment subject to a ‘‘good cause’’ standard, see that standard to be satisfied by any authorization based on an asylum 8 CFR 1003.29 and 1240.6.12 request for delay by the applicant or to application, providing that an applicant Aliens in removal proceedings be linked to the employment for asylum is not entitled to sometimes request continuances authorization process. To the contrary, employment authorization, but such pursuant to 8 CFR 1003.29 that, if EOIR’s adjudication of asylum authorization may be provided under granted, would delay adjudication of applications is a wholly separate regulation by the Attorney General. An their asylum applications past the 180- process from DHS’s adjudication of applicant who is not otherwise eligible day deadline. Section 1003.29 imposes employment authorization applications. for employment authorization shall not a ‘‘good cause’’ standard for granting Indeed, there is no apparent basis to be granted such authorization prior to continuances. But if granting a include the reference to INA 180 days after the date of filing of the continuance would result in missing the 208(d)(5)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. application for asylum. 180-day deadline, the immigration judge 1158(d)(5)(A)(iii), in 8 CFR 1208.7 EOIR’s current regulations provide may only grant the continuance if the because that regulation otherwise that (1) an alien cannot apply for respondent satisfies both the ‘‘good addresses employment authorization, employment authorization until at least cause’’ standard of 8 CFR 1003.29 and which is unrelated to INA 150 days after filing an application for also shows the ‘‘exceptional 208(d)(5)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. asylum, and (2) ‘‘no employment circumstances’’ required by INA 1158(d)(5)(A)(iii).14 authorization shall be issued to an 208(d)(5)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. To better effectuate the ‘‘exceptional asylum applicant prior to the expiration 1158(d)(5)(A)(iii). Under 8 CFR circumstances’’ exception to the 180- of the 180-day period following the 1208.7(a)(2), ‘‘[a]ny delay requested or day deadline in INA 208(d)(5)(A)(iii), 8 filing of the asylum application.’’ 8 CFR caused by the applicant shall not be U.S.C. 1158(d)(5)(A)(iii), the Department 1208.7(a)(1). Furthermore, the time counted as part of’’ the 180-day proposes to add a definition of periods within which the alien may not adjudication deadline described in INA exceptional circumstances in the 208(d)(5)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. apply for employment authorization context of asylum adjudications that is 1158(d)(5)(A)(iii). This means that an ‘‘shall begin when the alien has filed a similar to the one currently in INA alien who causes delays in the complete asylum application in 240(e)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1229a(e)(1). The adjudication process is not entitled to accordance with’’ applicable statutory definition in INA 240(e)(1), 8 such a prompt adjudication of his regulations. 8 CFR 1208.7(a)(2).11 U.S.C. 1229a(e)(1), characterizes asylum claim. But, absent delays that Although neither provision is circumstances in which an order of qualify as exceptional circumstances, 8 privately enforceable, INA 208(d)(7), 8 removal issued in absentia may be CFR 1208.7(a)(2) does not relieve U.S.C. 1158(d)(7), both statutory rescinded for an alien who had notice immigration judges of their obligation to provisions express Congress’s strong of the hearing at which the alien failed adjudicate asylum claims within 180 expectation that asylum applications to appear, provided the alien filed a days. would be adjudicated within 180 days motion to reopen and rescind the order Neither existing regulations nor within 180 days. INA 240(b)(5)(C)(i), 8 of the date of filing. Section EOIR’s operational guidance, however, 208(d)(5)(A)(iii) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. U.S.C. 1229a(b)(5)(C)(i). As a definition has always clearly and carefully of circumstances in which an 1158(d)(5)(A)(iii), does so expressly, by distinguished between INA indicating that asylum applications adjudication should have been delayed, 208(d)(5)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. it also represents a helpful explanation should be adjudicated within 180 days 1158(d)(5)(A)(iii), and INA 208(d)(2), 8 absent ‘‘exceptional circumstances.’’ of the exceptional nature of U.S.C. 1158(d)(2). See Policy circumstances that would warrant an And INA 208(d)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(2), Memorandum 19–05, Guidance does so implicitly, by providing that exception to the 180-day deadline. Regarding the Adjudication of Asylum As of August 14, 2020, EOIR has over employment authorization shall not be Applications Consistent with INA 560,000 applications for asylum and granted prior to 180 days after an alien section 208(d)(5)(A)(iii) (Nov. 19, 2018). withholding of removal pending, and its files an asylum application, i.e., after the Consequently, the proposed rule claim is supposed to have been 13 The term ‘‘exceptional circumstances’’ is adjudicated. 12 The ‘‘good cause’’ standard governs defined in INA 240(e)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1229a(e)(1), but continuances under 8 CFR 1003.29 and only for purposes of INA 240 and 240A, 8 U.S.C. 11 DHS regulations with similar provisions have adjournments under 8 CFR 1240.6, and both 1229a and 1229b. been amended, see note 10, supra, and this provisions were derived from former 8 CFR 242.13 14 The reference to INA 208(d)(5)(A)(iii) was proposed rule would eliminate these provisions (1958). Matter of L–A–B–R–, 27 I&N Dec. 405, 407 inserted into 8 CFR 208.7 (which was later copied altogether from EOIR’s regulations as discussed n.1 (A.G. 2018). For simplicity, the proposed rule in 8 CFR 1208.7) without explanation. See 62 FR below. generally refers only to 8 CFR 1003.29. 444, 464 (Jan. 3, 1997).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Sep 22, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23SEP1.SGM 23SEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules 59697

ability to ensure they are adjudicated 180-day adjudication deadline for an determined that it will not have a consistent with the statutory asylum application. The inclusion of the significant economic impact on a requirements of INA 208(d)(5)(A)(iii), 8 reference to INA 208(d)(5)(A)(iii), 8 substantial number of small entities. 5 U.S.C. 1158(d)(5)(A)(iii), may be U.S.C. 1158(d)(5)(A)(iii), in 8 CFR U.S.C. 605(b). The proposed rule would undermined by the current text of 8 CFR 1208.7, which could be understood to not regulate ‘‘small entities’’ as that term 1208.7(a)(2), which could be interpreted effectively allow an alien or DHS to is defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6). Only to allow either party to unilaterally delay the adjudication deadline individuals, rather than entities, are delay the adjudication of an asylum pursuant only to the ‘‘good cause’’ eligible to apply for asylum, and only application without necessarily showing standard in 8 CFR 1003.29 and 1240.6, individuals are placed in immigration exceptional circumstances, in is in tension with the statute. Thus, not proceedings. contravention of the statute. Nothing in only does 8 CFR 1208.7 warrant B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of the text of INA 208(d)(5)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. deletion, but modifications to 8 CFR 1995 1158(d)(5)(A)(iii), which is directed 1003.29 and 1240.6 are also necessary. toward adjudicators rather than Moreover, removing the reference to This proposed rule will not result in applicants, indicates that an asylum INA 208(d)(5)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. the expenditure by State, local, and applicant may unilaterally prompt an 1158(d)(5)(A)(iii), as part of the removal Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or extension of the adjudication deadline of all of 1208.7 will allow EOIR to by the private sector, of $100 million or in the absence of exceptional ensure that the statutory mandate more in any one year, and it will not circumstances. regarding adjudicating asylum significantly or uniquely affect small An applicant may have his or her applications within 180 days is fulfilled governments. Therefore, no actions were removal proceeding continued upon a absent exceptional circumstances. deemed necessary under the provisions showing of good cause. 8 CFR 1003.29, In order to further ensure that asylum of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 1240.6; Matter of L–A–B–R–, 27 I&N Dec. adjudications are completed within the of 1995. 405 (A.G. 2018). Although neither ‘‘good 180-day period prescribed by INA cause’’ nor ‘‘exceptional circumstances’’ 208(d)(5)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. C. Congressional Review Act is defined by statute or regulation in this 1158(d)(5)(A)(iii), the proposed rule This proposed rule would not be a context, there is no indication that the would directly promulgate a clear major rule as defined by section 804 of two terms were intended to mean the regulation implementing INA the Congressional Review Act. 5 U.S.C. same thing. To the contrary, plain 208(d)(5)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will not result in an meaning would dictate that the two 1158(d)(5)(A)(iii), in 8 CFR 1003.10(b) annual effect on the economy of $100 terms reflect different standards. Indeed, as part of the listing of immigration million or more; a major increase in in other contexts, ‘‘good cause’’ is judge powers and duties. It would also costs or prices; or significant adverse generally treated as a lower standard amend 8 CFR 1003.31(c), which outlines effects on competition, employment, than ‘‘exceptional circumstances.’’ the immigration judge’s authority to set investment, productivity, innovation, or Compare United States v. Lea, 360 F.3d and extend time limits for filings of on the ability of United States-based 401, 403 (2d Cir. 2004) (‘‘Exceptional applications and related documents, to enterprises to compete with foreign- circumstances [under a criminal ensure that the setting of deadlines for based enterprises in domestic and detention statute] exist where there is a filing supporting documents does not export markets. unique combination of circumstances inadvertently extend the 180-day giving rise to situations that are out of deadline absent exceptional D. Executive Order 12866 and Executive the ordinary.’’ (internal quotation marks circumstances. In short, the changes Order 13563 omitted)), with Hall v. Sec’y of Health, would incorporate the 180-day timeline The Office of Information and Educ. & Welfare, 602 F.2d 1372, 1377 by limiting an immigration judge’s (9th Cir. 1979) (‘‘Good cause is . . . not Regulatory Affairs of the Office of ability to set filing deadlines that would Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) has a difficult standard to meet.’’). cause the adjudication of an asylum In short, ‘‘exceptional circumstances’’ determined that this proposed rule is a application to exceed 180 days absent a are circumstances that are ‘‘clearly out ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under showing of exceptional circumstances. of the ordinary, uncommon, or rare.’’ section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Finally, the proposed rule would also United States v. Larue, 478 F.3d 924, Accordingly, the regulation has been remove and reserve § 1208.9 because 926 (8th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) submitted to OMB for review. The that provision refers to operations (applying ‘‘exceptional reasons’’ Department certifies that this regulation performed by asylum officers in DHS, standard); see also INA 240(e)(1), 8 has been drafted in accordance with the not immigration judges in EOIR. That U.S.C. 1229a(e)(1) (exceptional principles of Executive Order 12866, provision was duplicated from § 208.9 circumstances include ‘‘battery or section 1(b), and Executive Order 13563. as part of the reorganization of title 8 extreme cruelty to the alien or any child Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 following the transfer of functions from or parent of the alien, serious illness of direct agencies to assess all costs and the alien, or serious illness or death of the former Immigration and benefits of available regulatory the spouse, child, or parent of the alien, Naturalization Service to DHS due to alternatives and, if regulation is but not including less compelling the Homeland Security Act of 2002, necessary, to select regulatory circumstances’’). The term ‘‘good cause’’ Public Law 107–296. Aliens and approaches that maximize net benefits has no settled meaning and generally Nationality; Homeland Security; (including potential economic, requires a balancing of relevant factors Reorganization of Regulations, 68 FR environmental, public health, and safety to determine whether it exists. Matter of 9824, 9834 (Feb. 28, 2003). effects; distributive impacts; and L–A–B–R–, 27 I&N Dec. at 412–13. Thus, III. Regulatory Requirements equity). Executive Order 13563 although an exceptional circumstance emphasizes the importance of using the will support a finding of good cause, A. Regulatory Flexibility Act best available methods to quantify costs good cause itself is not necessarily an The Department has reviewed this and benefits, reducing costs, exceptional circumstance that would proposed regulation in accordance with harmonizing rules, and promoting warrant an exception to the statutory the Regulatory Flexibility Act and has flexibility.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Sep 22, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23SEP1.SGM 23SEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 59698 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules

The Department believes that this filing deadlines is already established of cases to be adjudicated by EOIR. proposed rule would effectuate by regulation, and filing deadlines for Further, the changes provide guidance congressional intent to resolve cases in both applications and supporting for administrative decision-making but an expeditious manner and would documents are already a well- do not require immigration judges to provide significant net benefits relating established aspect of immigration court make more decisions or to prolong to EOIR proceedings by allowing the proceedings guided by regulations and immigration proceedings. agency to resolve cases more quickly. the Immigration Court Practice Manual. See Executive Order 12866, sec. (1)(b)(6) The proposed rule also does not require E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) (stating that ‘‘[e]ach agency shall assess an immigration judge to schedule a This rule will not have substantial both the costs and the benefits of the merits hearing at any particular time direct effects on the States, on the intended regulation and, recognizing after the application is filed, as long as relationship between the national that some costs and benefits are difficult the application is adjudicated within government and the States, or on the to quantify, propose or adopt a 180 days absent exceptional distribution of power and regulation only upon a reasoned circumstances, which is an existing and responsibilities among the various determination that the benefits of the longstanding statutory requirement. levels of government. Therefore, in intended regulation justify its costs’’). Moreover, this rule does not require that accordance with section 6 of Executive As of August 14, 2020, EOIR has over an alien wait until the immigration Order 13132, it is determined that this 560,000 pending cases with an judge sets a filing deadline before filing rule does not have sufficient federalism application for asylum and withholding an application, and an alien remains implications to warrant the preparation of removal, and the median processing free to file his or her asylum application of a federalism summary impact time for a non-detained case with an with the immigration court before the statement. asylum application is 807 days. This first hearing. Asylum applications are proposed rule would assist EOIR in frequently filed prior to or at an initial F. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice adjudicating new asylum cases more immigration court hearing already, and Reform) efficiently in order to ensure that this existing regulations allow for This rule meets the applicable volume does not increase to an supplementing an initial application as standards set forth in sections 3(a) and insurmountable degree. No costs to the appropriate, subject to an immigration 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988. Department or to respondents are judge’s discretion. Most aliens filing expected. Respondents are already asylum applications in pending G. Paperwork Reduction Act required to submit complete asylum immigration proceedings—87 percent— Under the Paperwork Reduction Act applications in order to have them have representation,15 and the proposed of 1995, Public Law 104–13, 44 U.S.C. adjudicated, and immigration judges rule would not be expected to increase chapter 35, and its implementing already have authority to set deadlines. any burdens on practitioners, who are regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, all The Department notes that this already subject to professional agencies are required to submit to OMB, proposed rule would not impose any responsibility rules regarding workload for review and approval, any reporting new fees. Consistent with the treatment management, 8 CFR 1003.102(q)(1), and requirements inherent in a rule. This of other applications referred by USCIS who are already accustomed to proposed rule may require edits to the that are renewed in immigration preparing and filing documents related USCIS Form I–589, Application for proceedings, an alien filing a USCIS to asylum claims according to deadlines Asylum and for Withholding of Form I–589 with USCIS who is then established by an immigration judge. Removal, because the filing of an referred to DOJ for immigration The Department acknowledges that asylum application may now require proceedings would pay the application establishing a fixed deadline to file an submission of a fee receipt. If necessary, fee only once. The Department’s fees for asylum application in some types of a separate notice will be published in applications published by DHS are immigration proceedings may alter the the Federal Register requesting established in accordance with 8 CFR manner in which attorneys organize comments on the information collection 1103.7(b)(4)(ii), which, in turn, cross- their caseloads, though it also impacts of this rule and the revised references the DHS fee schedule. Given recognizes that attorneys have been USCIS Form I–589. the inextricable nature of the two aware of the 180-day adjudication List of Subjects agencies’ asylum processes and the deadline for asylum applications for benefit of not treating applicants for over two decades and may be familiar 8 CFR Part 1003 substantially similar benefits differently with the similar existing deadline for if they file with DOJ or with DHS, the Administrative practice and alien crewmember asylum applications procedure, Aliens, Immigration, Legal Department’s regulations have in 8 CFR 1208.5(b)(1)(ii). The contained this cross-reference for services, Organization and functions Department seeks comment on the (Government agencies). several years, and this proposed rule proposed rule’s potential indirect costs would not alter it. The Department is and benefits to practitioners, if any, 8 CFR Part 1208 also not authorized, per regulation, to beyond those already inherent in waive the application fee for an Administrative practice and immigration proceedings and existing procedure, Aliens, Immigration, application published by DHS if DHS law. identifies that fee as non-waivable. 8 Reporting and recordkeeping No costs to the Department are requirements. CFR 1103.7(c). The proposed rule would associated with the proposed regulatory also not alter that regulatory structure. changes. The changes do not create an 8 CFR Part 1240 The Department believes that this incentive that would cause DHS to file proposed rule would impose only Administrative practice and more cases and, thus, are not expected procedure, Aliens. minimal direct costs on the public, to to result in an increase in the number include the costs associated with Accordingly, for the reasons set forth attorneys and regulated entities 15 EOIR, Current Representation Rates, available in the preamble, 8 CFR parts 1003, 1208, familiarizing themselves with this rule. at https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1062991/ and 1240 are proposed to be amended An immigration judge’s ability to set download. as follows:

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Sep 22, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23SEP1.SGM 23SEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules 59699

PART 1003—EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR filing of documents after an asylum ■ 7. In § 1208.4, add paragraph (d) to IMMIGRATION REVIEW application has been filed that would read as follows: cause the adjudication of an asylum ■ 1. The authority citation for part 1003 application to exceed 180 days in the § 1208.4 Filing the application. continues to read as follows: absence of exceptional circumstances, * * * * * Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 6 U.S.C. 521; 8 consistent with section 208(d)(5)(A)(iii) (d) Filing deadline. For any alien in U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1154, 1155, 1158, 1182, of the Act and § 1003.10(b). If an asylum proceedings pursuant to 1226, 1229, 1229a, 1229b, 1229c, 1231, application or document is not filed § 1208.2(c)(1) and paragraph (b)(3)(iii) of 1254a, 1255, 1324d, 1330, 1361, 1362; 28 within the time set by the immigration this section, the immigration judge shall U.S.C. 509, 510, 1746; sec. 2 Reorg. Plan No. judge, the opportunity to file that comply with the requirements of 2 of 1950; 3 CFR, 1949–1953 Comp., p. 1002; section 203 of Pub. L. 105–100, 111 Stat. application or document shall be § 1240.11(c)(1)(i) through (iii) and shall 2196–200; sections 1506 and 1510 of Pub. L. deemed waived. set a deadline of fifteen days from the 106–386, 114 Stat. 1527–29, 1531–32; section * * * * * date of the alien’s first hearing before an 1505 of Pub. L. 106–554, 114 Stat. 2763A– immigration judge by which the alien 326 to –328. PART 1208—PROCEDURES FOR must file an asylum application, which ■ 2. In § 1003.10, amend paragraph (b) ASYLUM AND WITHHOLDING OF includes an application for withholding by adding three sentences at the end of REMOVAL of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The paragraph to read as follows: ■ 5. The authority citation for part 1208 immigration judge may extend the § 1003.10 Immigration judges. continues to read as follows: deadline for good cause. If the alien * * * * * Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1158, does not file an asylum application by (b) * * * In the absence of 1226, 1252, 1282; Title VII of Public Law the deadline set by the immigration exceptional circumstances, an 110–229; Pub. L. 115–218. judge, the immigration judge shall deem immigration judge shall complete ■ 6. In § 1208.3, revise paragraph (c)(3) the opportunity to file such an administrative adjudication of an to read as follows: application waived, and the case shall asylum application within 180 days be returned to the Department of after the date an application is filed. For § 1208.3 Form of application. Homeland Security for execution of an purposes of this paragraph (b) and of * * * * * order of removal. §§ 1003.29 and 1240.6 of this chapter, (c) * * * the term exceptional circumstances (3) An asylum application must be § 1208.7 [Removed and Reserved] refers to exceptional circumstances properly filed in accordance with the ■ 8. Remove and reserve § 1208.7. (such as battery or extreme cruelty to form instructions and with §§ 1003.24, the alien or any child or parent of the 1003.31(b), and 1103.7(a)(3) of this § 1208.9 [Removed and Reserved] alien, serious illness of the alien, or chapter, including payment of a fee, if ■ 9. Remove and reserve § 1208.9. serious illness or death of the spouse, any, as explained in the instructions to ■ 10. In § 1208.12, revise paragraph (a) child, or parent of the alien, but not the application. For purposes of filing to read as follows: including less compelling with an immigration court, an asylum circumstances) beyond the control of application is incomplete if it does not § 1208.12 Reliance on information the parties or the immigration court. A include a response to each of the compiled by other sources. finding of good cause does not required questions contained in the (a) In deciding an asylum application, necessarily mean that an exceptional form, is unsigned, is unaccompanied by which includes an application for circumstance has also been established. the required materials specified in withholding of removal and protection * * * * * paragraph (a) of this section, is not under the Convention Against Torture, ■ 3. Revise § 1003.29 to read as follows: completed and submitted in accordance or in deciding whether the alien has a with the form instructions, or is § 1003.29 Continuances. credible fear of persecution or torture unaccompanied by any required fee pursuant to § 1208.30, or a reasonable The immigration judge may grant a receipt. The filing of an incomplete fear of persecution or torture pursuant motion for continuance for good cause application shall not commence the to § 1208.31, an immigration judge may shown, provided that nothing in this period after which the applicant may rely on material provided by the section shall authorize a continuance file an application for employment Department of State, other Department that causes the adjudication of an authorization. An application that is of Justice offices, the Department of asylum application to exceed 180 days incomplete shall be rejected by the Homeland Security, or other U.S. in the absence of exceptional immigration court. If an applicant government agencies, and may rely on circumstances, consistent with section wishes to have his or her application for foreign government and non- 208(d)(5)(A)(iii) of the Act and asylum considered, he or she shall governmental sources if those sources § 1003.10(b). correct the deficiencies in the ■ are determined by the judge to be 4. In § 1003.31, revise paragraph (c) to incomplete application and re-file it read as follows: credible and probative. On his or her within 30 days of rejection. Failure to own authority, an immigration judge § 1003.31 Filing documents and correct the deficiencies in an may submit relevant evidence into the applications. incomplete application or failure to record, if it is credible and probative, * * * * * timely re-file the application with the and may consider it in deciding an (c) Subject to § 1208.4(d) of this deficiencies corrected, absent asylum application, which includes an chapter, the immigration judge may set exceptional circumstances as defined in application for withholding of removal and extend time limits for the filing of § 1003.10(b), shall result in a finding and protection under the Convention applications and related documents and that the alien has abandoned that Against Torture, provided that a copy of responses thereto, if any, provided that application and waived the opportunity the evidence has been provided to both nothing in this section shall authorize to file such an application. parties and both parties have had an setting or extending time limits for the * * * * * opportunity to comment on or object to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Sep 22, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23SEP1.SGM 23SEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS 59700 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 185 / Wednesday, September 23, 2020 / Proposed Rules

the evidence prior to the issuance of the extending upward from 700 feet above of airspace necessary to ensure the immigration judge’s decision. the surface. Also, this action proposes to safety of aircraft and the efficient use of * * * * * modify the Class E airspace extending airspace. This regulation is within the upward from 1,200 feet above the scope of that authority, as it would PART 1240—PROCEEDINGS TO surface. This action also proposes to modify the Class D and Class E airspace DETERMINE REMOVABILITY OF remove the Helena VORTAC from the at Helena Regional Airport, Helena, MT, ALIENS IN THE UNITED STATES airspace legal descriptions. Lastly, this to support IFR operations at the airport. action proposes administrative ■ Comments Invited 11. The authority citation for part corrections to the airspaces’ legal 1240 continues to read as follows: descriptions. This action would ensure Interested parties are invited to Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1158, 1182, the safety and management of participate in this proposed rulemaking 1186a, 1186b, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229a, instrument flight rules (IFR) operations by submitting such written data, views, 1229b, 1229c, 1252 note, 1361, 1362; secs. at the airport. or arguments, as they may desire. 202 and 203, Pub. L. 105–100 (111 Stat. 2160, Comments that provide the factual basis 2193); sec, 902, Pub. L. 105–277 (112 Stat. DATES: Comments must be received on 2681). or before November 9, 2020. supporting the views and suggestions ADDRESSES: presented are particularly helpful in ■ Send comments on this 12. Revise § 1240.6 to read as follows: proposal to the U.S. Department of developing reasoned regulatory § 1240.6 Postponement and adjournment Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 decisions on the proposal. Comments of hearing. New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, After the commencement of the Ground Floor, Room W12–140, environmental, and energy-related hearing, the immigration judge may Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 1– aspects of the proposal. grant a reasonable adjournment either at 800–647–5527, or (202) 366–9826. You Communications should identify both his or her own instance or, for good must identify FAA Docket No. FAA– docket numbers and be submitted in cause shown, upon application by the 2020–0810; Airspace Docket No. 19– triplicate to the address listed above. respondent or the Department of ANM–101, at the beginning of your Persons wishing the FAA to Homeland Security, provided that comments. You may also submit acknowledge receipt of their comments nothing in this section shall authorize comments through the internet at on this notice must submit with those an adjournment that causes the https://www.regulations.gov. comments a self-addressed, stamped adjudication of an asylum application to FAA Order 7400.11E, Airspace postcard on which the following exceed 180 days in the absence of Designations and Reporting Points, and statement is made: ‘‘Comments to exceptional circumstances, consistent subsequent amendments can be viewed _ Docket No. FAA–2020–0810; Airspace with section 208(d)(5)(A)(iii) of the Act online at https://www.faa.gov/air Docket No. 19–ANM–101’’. The and § 1003.10(b) of this chapter. traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the postcard will be date/time stamped and Dated: September 16, 2020. Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation returned to the commenter. William P. Barr, Administration, 800 Independence All communications received before Attorney General. Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; the specified closing date for comments [FR Doc. 2020–21027 Filed 9–21–20; 4:15 pm] telephone: (202) 267–8783. The Order is will be considered before taking action BILLING CODE 4410–30–P also available for inspection at the on the proposed rule. The proposal National Archives and Records contained in this notice may be changed Administration (NARA). For in light of the comments received. A DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION information on the availability of FAA report summarizing each substantive Order 7400.11E at NARA, email public contact with FAA personnel Federal Aviation Administration [email protected] or go to https:// concerned with this rulemaking will be www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ filed in the docket. 14 CFR Part 71 ibr-locations.html. Availability of NPRMs [Docket No. FAA–2020–0810; Airspace FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Docket No. 19–ANM–101] Matthew Van Der Wal, Federal Aviation An electronic copy of this document Administration, Western Service Center, may be downloaded through the RIN 2120–AA66 Operations Support Group, 2200 S. internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking Proposed Amendment of Class D and 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; documents can also be accessed through E airspace; Helena, MT telephone (206) 231–3695. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: the FAA’s web page at https:// AGENCY: Federal Aviation www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/ Administration (FAA), DOT. Authority for This Rulemaking airspace_amendments/. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking The FAA’s authority to issue rules You may review the public docket (NPRM). regarding aviation safety is found in containing the proposal, any comments Title 49 of the United States Code. received, and any final disposition in SUMMARY: This action proposes to Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the person in the Dockets Office (see the modify Class D airspace at Helena authority of the FAA Administrator. ADDRESSES section for the address and Regional Airport. This action also Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and proposes to modify Class E airspace, describes in more detail the scope of the 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, designated as a surface area. agency’s authority. This rulemaking is except federal holidays. An informal Additionally, this action proposes to promulgated under the authority docket may also be examined during establish Class E airspace, designated as described in Subtitle VII, Part A, normal business hours at the Northwest an extension to a Class D or Class E Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that Mountain Regional Office of the Federal surface area. Further, this action section, the FAA is charged with Aviation Administration, Air Traffic proposes to modify Class E airspace, prescribing regulations to assign the use Organization, Western Service Center,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:27 Sep 22, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\23SEP1.SGM 23SEP1 khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS