NPRM FR Notice

59514

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 190 / Thursday, October 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules

I. Public Participation

arguments on all aspects of this rule.
The Department also invites comments
that relate to the economic,
environmental, or federalism effects that
might result from this rule. Comments
that will provide the most assistance to
the Department in developing these
procedures will reference a specific
portion of the rule, explain the reason
for any recommended change, and
include data, information, or authority
that supports such recommended
change.
All submissions received should
include the agency name and reference
RIN 1125–AA72 or EOIR Docket No. 176
for this rulemaking. When submitting
comments electronically, you must
include RIN 1125–AA72 or EOIR Docket
No. 176 in the subject box.
Please note that all comments
received are considered part of the
public record and made available for
public inspection at
www.regulations.gov. Such information
includes personally identifying
information (such as your name,
address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by
the commenter.
If you want to submit personally
identifying information (such as your
name, address, etc.) as part of your
comment, but do not want it to be
posted online, you must include the
phrase ‘‘PERSONALLY IDENTIFYING
INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph
of your comment and identify what
information you want redacted.
If you want to submit confidential
business information as part of your
comment, but do not want it to be
posted online, you must include the
phrase ‘‘CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS
INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph
of your comment. You also must
prominently identify confidential
business information to be redacted
within the comment. If a comment has
so much confidential business
information that it cannot be effectively
redacted, all or part of that comment
may not be posted on
www.regulations.gov.
Personally identifying information
located as set forth above will be placed
in the agency’s public docket file, but
not posted online. Confidential business
information identified and located as set
forth above will not be placed in the
public docket file. To inspect the
agency’s public docket file in person,
you must make an appointment with
agency counsel. Please see the FOR

Interested persons are invited to
participate in this rulemaking by
submitting written data, views, or

paragraph above for agency counsel’s
contact information.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Executive Office for Immigration
Review
8 CFR Parts 1001, 1003, 1103, 1212,
and 1292
[EOIR Docket No. 176; A.G. Order No. 3564–
2015]
RIN 1125–AA72

Recognition of Organizations and
Accreditation of Non-Attorney
Representatives
Executive Office for
Immigration Review, Department of
Justice.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:

This rule proposes to amend
the regulations governing the
requirements and procedures for
authorizing representatives of non-profit
religious, charitable, social service, or
similar organizations to represent
persons in proceedings before the
Executive Office for Immigration
Review (EOIR) and the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS). The rule also
proposes amendments to the regulations
concerning EOIR’s disciplinary
procedures.

SUMMARY:

Electronic comments must be
submitted and written comments must
be postmarked on or before November
30, 2015. The electronic Federal Docket
Management System at
www.regulations.gov will accept
electronic comments submitted prior to
midnight Eastern Time at the end of that
day.
ADDRESSES: Please submit written
comments to Jean King, General
Counsel, Office of the General Counsel,
Executive Office for Immigration
Review, Department of Justice, 5107
Leesburg Pike, Suite 2600, Falls Church,
VA 22041. You may view an electronic
version and provide comments via the
Internet by using the
www.regulations.gov comment form for
this regulation. See Section I of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
more information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean
King, General Counsel, Executive Office
for Immigration Review, 5107 Leesburg
Pike, Suite 2600, Falls Church, Virginia
22041, telephone (703) 305–0470 (not a
toll-free call).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

DATES:

VerDate Sep<11>2014

21:33 Sep 30, 2015

Jkt 238001

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

II. Executive Summary
The Executive Office for Immigration
Review’s (EOIR) Recognition and
Accreditation (R&A) program addresses
the critical and ongoing shortage of
qualified legal representation for
underserved populations in immigration
cases before Federal administrative
agencies. Through the R&A program,
EOIR permits qualified non-attorneys to
represent persons before the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS), the
immigration courts, and the Board of
Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board).
The specially qualified non-attorneys,
known as accredited representatives,
must be associated with and designated
by a non-profit organization, known as
a recognized organization. The nonprofit organization must apply to EOIR
for its recognition and for the
accreditation of its qualified nonlawyers. Currently, there are more than
900 recognized organizations and more
than 1,600 accredited representatives
nationwide.1 The majority of accredited
representatives are accredited to appear
solely before DHS (known as ‘‘partially
accredited representatives’’). Less than
20 percent of the representatives are
accredited to appear before DHS, the
immigration courts, and the Board
(known as ‘‘fully accredited
representatives’’).
The purpose of this proposed rule is
to promote the effective and efficient
administration of justice before DHS
and EOIR by increasing the availability
of competent non-lawyer representation
for underserved immigrant populations.
The proposed rule seeks to accomplish
this goal by amending the requirements
for recognition and accreditation to
increase the availability of qualified
representation for primarily low-income
and indigent persons while protecting
the public from fraud and abuse by
unscrupulous organizations and
individuals. The legal, financial, and
emotional harm and exploitation
perpetrated by notarios 2 and other
1 The numbers of recognized organizations and
accredited representatives are current as of April
27, 2015. Visit the rosters of recognized
organizations and accredited representatives for
updated data at: http://www.justice.gov/eoir/
recognition-accreditation-roster-reports (last visited
Sept. 15, 2015).
2 ‘‘In many Latin American countries, the term
‘notario publico’ (for ‘notary public’) stands for
something very different than what it means in the
United States. In many Spanish-speaking nations,
‘notarios’ are powerful attorneys with special legal
credentials. In the [United States], however, notary
publics are people appointed by state governments
to witness the signing of important documents and
administer oaths. ‘Notarios publico,’ are not
authorized to provide [persons before EOIR and
DHS] with any legal services related to
immigration.’’ United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services, Common Scams, http://

E:\FR\FM\01OCP3.SGM

01OCP3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 190 / Thursday, October 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

unauthorized individuals against
vulnerable immigrant populations is
well-documented.3 Since June 2011, the
Department of Justice (Department) has
collaborated with DHS and the Federal
Trade Commission in a national
initiative to combat the unauthorized
practice of immigration law.4 Numerous
private and government entities have
addressed notario fraud and the
unauthorized practice of law through
educational Web sites, outreach to the
public, legislation, and Federal and state
prosecutions.5 The proposed rule will
assist these efforts by seeking to increase
the number of recognized organizations
and the availability of authorized and
qualified immigration practitioners for
underserved persons, which, in turn,
www.uscis.gov/avoid-scams/common-scams (last
updated Nov. 21, 2014) (emphasis added).
3 See, e.g., Olivia Quinto, Note, ‘‘In a Desert
Selling Water’’: Expanding the U-Visa to Victims of
Notario Fraud and Other Unauthorized Practices of
Law, 14 Rutgers Race & L. Rev. 203 (2013); Mary
Dolores Guerra, Lost in Translation: Notario
Fraud—Immigration Fraud, 26 J. C.R. & Econ. Dev.
23 (2011); Careen Shannon, Regulating Immigration
Legal Service Providers: Inadequate Representation
and Notario Fraud, 78 Fordham L. Rev. 577 (2009);
Anne E. Langford, Note, What’s in a Name?:
Notarios in the United States and the Exploitation
of a Vulnerable Latino Immigrant Population, 7
Harv. Latino L. Rev. 115 (2004).
4 See Press Release, Department of Justice,
Federal Agencies Announce National Initiative to
Combat Immigration Services Scams (June 9, 2011),
available at http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federalagencies-announce-national-initiative-combatimmigration-services-scams (last visited Sept. 15,
2015).
5 For example, the American Immigration
Lawyers Association established a Web site to
educate the public and to assist victims of notario
fraud. See Stop Notario Fraud, http://
www.stopnotariofraud.org/. Several states have
enacted legislation to combat the unauthorized
practice of law. See Travis B. Olsen, Combatting
‘‘Notario Fraud’’ Locally, 22 Berkeley LA Raza L.J.
383 (2012); Milagros Cisneros, H.B. 2659: Notorious
Notaries—How Arizona is Curbing Notario Fraud in
the Immigrant Community, 32 Ariz. St. L.J. 287
(2000). For examples of Federal and state
prosecutions for fraud or the unauthorized practice
of law, see Daniel M. Kowalski, Oregon Immigration
Scammers Exposed, LexisNexis Legal Newsroom:
Immigration Law (Jan. 7, 2014, 10:09 a.m.), http://
www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/immigration/
b/outsidenews/archive/2014/01/07/oregonimmigration-scammers-exposed.aspx; Press
Release, Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney’s
Office, D. Md., Ocean City Man Sentenced for
Immigration Fraud (Feb. 26, 2014), available at
http://www.justice.gov/usao/md/news/2014/
OceanCityManSentencedForImmigration
Fraud.html (last visited Sept. 15, 2015); Press
Release, Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney’s
Office, D.N.J., Former Atlantic City, N.J., Paralegal
Charged with Mail Fraud Conspiracy (Feb. 26,
2014), available at http://www.justice.gov/usao/nj/
Press/files/James,%20Maria%20Complaint%20
News%20Release.html (last visited Sept. 15, 2015);
Press Release, Department of Justice, U.S.
Attorney’s office, S.D.N.Y., Liying Lin Found Guilty
of Immigration Fraud Offenses Following One Week
Jury Trial in Manhattan Federal Court (Feb. 26,
2014), available at http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/
pressreleases/February14/Liying
LinVerdict.php?print= (last visited Sept. 15, 2015).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

21:33 Sep 30, 2015

Jkt 238001

should reduce the likelihood that such
persons become the victims of
immigration scams involving the
unauthorized practice of law.
The proposed rule seeks to
accomplish these objectives by
clarifying the process for applying for
recognition and accreditation and
facilitating the ability of organizations
and representatives to serve persons
before EOIR and DHS. At the same time,
the proposed rule balances the potential
increased availability of recognized
organizations and accredited
representatives with greater oversight
and accountability for recognized
organizations and accredited
representatives.
The rule proposes to transfer
administration of the R&A program
within EOIR from the Board to the
Office of Legal Access Programs (OLAP);
amend the qualifications for recognition
of organizations and accreditation of
their representatives; institute
administrative procedures to enhance
the management of the R&A roster; and
update the disciplinary process to make
recognized organizations, in addition to
accredited representatives, attorneys,
and other practitioners, subject to
sanctions for conduct that contravenes
the public interest.
III. Background
With the exception of a technical
amendment in 1997, the R&A
regulations have remained unchanged
since 1984.6 In the interim, the agencies
responsible for the execution of the
immigration laws have been
restructured. Notably, DHS was
established in 2002 and the functions of
the former Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) were
transferred to DHS in 2003.7 Moreover,
in April 2000, EOIR established the
EOIR Pro Bono Program, now known as
OLAP, under the Office of the EOIR
Director. OLAP’s mission is to improve
access to legal information and
counseling and increase rates of
representation for persons appearing
before the immigration courts and the
Board.
EOIR has administered the R&A
program for the past 30 years in the face
6 Compare 8 CFR 292.2 (1985), with 8 CFR 1292.2
(2014).
7 See Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law
107–296, 116 Stat. 2135; 6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.
Congress divided the functions of the INS among
three new components: U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS), which generally is
responsible for the administration of benefit
applications; Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE), which generally is responsible
for the enforcement of the immigration laws; and
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which is
responsible for, inter alia, enforcement of
immigration laws at and between the ports of entry.

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

59515

of these structural changes in the
government as well as the changing
realities of the immigration system and
of the ability of non-profit organizations
to meet the increased need for legal
representation. During this time, EOIR,
in consultation with DHS, has
comprehensively examined the R&A
regulations in light of various issues that
have arisen and solicited input from the
public on how to address the
developments of the past 30 years in
amended regulations.8 Most recently, in
February 2012, EOIR invited public
comment on possible amendments to
the R&A Regulations, and in March and
April of that year it held public
meetings with interested stakeholders.9
The proposed rule is the product of
these internal and external
deliberations.
IV. Description of the Provisions of the
Proposed Rule
A. Transfer of R&A Program from the
Board to OLAP
Under the current R&A regulations,
the Board approves or disapproves
requests for recognition and
accreditation, determines whether to
withdraw recognition, and maintains a
roster of recognized organizations and
their accredited representatives.10 Given
OLAP’s mission to facilitate access to
legal information and counseling and to
increase the rates of representation for
persons before EOIR and DHS, the
Department has determined that OLAP
is best suited to administer the R&A
program and therefore proposes in this
rule to transfer the program’s
administration from the Board to
OLAP.11
8 See 60 FR 57,200 (Nov. 14, 1995) (requesting
public comment regarding possible changes in the
qualifications required of an organization to be
recognized by EOIR to represent persons before INS,
the Board, and the immigration courts.).
9 See 77 FR 9,590 (Feb. 17, 2012) (notice of two
public meetings and request for comments); EOIR,
Recognition and Accreditation Program, EOIR
Public Meetings (Mar. 14, 2012 & Mar. 21, 2012)
(‘‘R&A Public Meeting Minutes’’), http://
www.justice.gov/eoir/statspub/
RAPublicMeetingMinutesSpring2012.pdf (last
visited Sept. 15, 2015).
10 The Board also has the authority, after the EOIR
or DHS disciplinary counsel initiates disciplinary
proceedings, to impose disciplinary sanctions—
such as disbarment, suspension, or a censure—on
accredited representatives who engage in criminal,
unethical, or unprofessional conduct before the
immigration courts, the Board, or DHS. Under the
proposed rule, the Board maintains its authority to
impose disciplinary sanctions on accredited
representatives while also having new authority to
impose disciplinary sanctions on recognized
organizations.
11 As of the effective date of this rule, the Board
will no longer have authority under 8 CFR
1003.1(d)(5) to determine whether to recognize
organizations and accredit representatives to

E:\FR\FM\01OCP3.SGM

Continued

01OCP3

59516

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 190 / Thursday, October 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules

For over a decade, OLAP has been
responsible for overseeing legal
orientation programs and for facilitating
access to pro bono representation and
self-help educational materials for
individuals in immigration proceedings.
OLAP is best suited to administer the
R&A program because it is dedicated to
fostering access to legal representation
in immigration cases. OLAP executes
this mission primarily through programs
and initiatives that facilitate access to
information (including self-help
materials) and that create incentives for
attorneys and law students to handle
pro bono immigration cases. OLAP is
responsible for administering the Legal
Orientation Program, the Legal
Orientation Program for Custodians of
Unaccompanied Alien Children, the
BIA Pro Bono Project, the Model
Hearing Program, and the newly created
National Qualified Representative
Program.12 With the transfer of the R&A
program to OLAP, OLAP will now
manage the entire spectrum of EOIR
programs designed to facilitate access to
legal representation in immigration
proceedings.
OLAP currently is not designated as
an EOIR component in the regulations.
The proposed rule would formalize
OLAP’s structure and function as a
component of EOIR and transfer the
administration of the R&A program from
the Board to OLAP. Under the proposed
rule, OLAP would have the authority to
approve or disapprove requests for
recognition and accreditation, to
maintain a roster of recognized
organizations and their accredited
representatives, and to administratively
terminate an organization or a
representative.

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

B. Recognition and Accreditation
As outlined below, the proposed rule
would make significant changes to the
process and qualifications for requesting
and renewing recognition and
accreditation, with the express purpose
of increasing capacity while
provide representation before the Immigration
Courts, the Board, and DHS, or DHS alone. Under
8 CFR 1003.0(f)(2), OLAP will have the sole
authority to do so.
12 In April 2013, the Departments of Justice and
Homeland Security announced a nationwide policy
to provide enhanced safeguards and procedural
protections to unrepresented immigration detainees
with indicia of mental incompetence. See Notice,
Department of Justice and Department of Homeland
Security Announce Safeguards for Unrepresented
Immigration Detainees with Serious Mental
Disorders or Conditions (Apr. 22, 2013), available
at http://www.justice.gov/eoir/pages/attachments/
2015/04/21/safeguards-unrepresented-immigrationdetainees.pdf (last visited Sept. 15, 2015). These
safeguards include the provision of a Qualified
Representative to any unrepresented detainee found
mentally incompetent to represent him- or herself
in immigration proceedings.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

21:33 Sep 30, 2015

Jkt 238001

maintaining adequate standards for
recognition and accreditation.
1. Recognition Qualifications
To be recognized under the current
R&A regulations, an organization must:
be a non-profit religious, charitable,
social service, or similar organization
established in the United States; make
only nominal charges and assess no
excessive membership dues for its
services; and have adequate knowledge,
information, and experience at its
disposal. The proposed rule retains the
non-profit requirement with the
additional requirement to demonstrate
Federal tax-exempt status. The proposed
rule also retains the adequate
knowledge, information, and experience
requirement. The proposed rule replaces
the nominal fee requirement with
requirements that shift the singular
focus from fees to the organization’s
other sources of revenue and whether
the organization is primarily serving
low-income and indigent clients. The
proposed rule also requires, in contrast
with the current regulations, that an
organization must have an authorized
officer to act on its behalf and at least
one accredited representative to be
recognized and maintain recognition.
a. Accredited Representative Required
The proposed rule would require that
an organization have at least one
accredited representative to be
recognized, to maintain recognition, and
to have its recognition renewed.
Currently, the R&A regulations do not
include such a requirement and, as a
result, some organizations that have
only attorneys (and no accredited
representatives) on staff have been
recognized. An organization with only
attorneys on staff does not need to seek
recognition because attorneys already
are authorized to appear before DHS, the
immigration courts, and the Board as
long as they are eligible to practice law,
are members in good standing of a bar,
and are not under any order restricting
or prohibiting their practice of law.13
However, an organization with both
attorneys and non-attorneys (or only
non-attorneys) on staff must qualify for
recognition in order for its non-attorney
members to be accredited to represent
persons before DHS, the immigration
courts, or the Board. This proposed
requirement accords with the main
purpose of recognition, which is to
authorize organizations to provide
13 See 8 CFR 1001.1(f); see also id. §§ 292.1(a)(1),
1292.1(a)(1). Non-profit organizations with only
attorneys on staff who provide free or pro bono
legal services may apply to be on the List of Pro
Bono Legal Service Providers. See 8 CFR 1003.61
et seq.

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

affordable, qualified immigration legal
services to underserved immigrant
populations through non-attorneys (as
opposed to attorneys).
b. Non-Profit With Federal Tax-Exempt
Status
The current regulations require
organizations to demonstrate non-profit
status for recognition. The proposed
rule would require an organization to
establish both that it is a non-profit
religious, charitable, social service, or
similar organization established in the
United States and that it is federally taxexempt.14
The proposed requirement to
demonstrate Federal tax-exempt status
provides a means of confirming that
organizations requesting recognition are
legitimate non-profit organizations.15
Specifically, Federal tax-exempt status
ensures that an organization seeking
recognition has been or will be
independently evaluated by the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) to confirm that it
is not engaging in for-profit activities,
and subjects the organization to IRS
oversight if the organization does not
comply with the requirements for its
tax-exempt status. An organization may
satisfy this requirement by submitting
an IRS tax-exemption determination
letter approving tax-exempt status under
26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3) 16 or some other
section of the Federal tax code, or by
submitting another document that
demonstrates the organization is tax14 Non-profit status and Federal tax-exempt status
are different concepts. Non-profit status is a state
law concept that allows organizations to receive
benefits at the state level like tax exemptions.
Organizations with non-profit status are not
automatically granted Federal tax-exempt status,
although most Federal tax-exempt organizations are
non-profit organizations. See Internal Revenue
Service, Applying for Exemption—Difference
Between Non-Profit and Tax-Exempt Status, http://
www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Applying-forExemption-Difference-Between-Nonprofit-and-TaxExempt-Status (last visited Sept. 15, 2015).
15 An organization may still be eligible for
recognition if it can show that Federal tax-exempt
status is not required separately for the
organization. For example, an organization may
show that it is part of a group exemption as a
subordinate of a larger international or national taxexempt organization.
16 See 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3) (stating that an
organization is tax-exempt if it is ‘‘organized and
operated exclusively for religious, charitable,
scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or
educational purposes, or to foster national or
international amateur sports competition . . ., or
for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals,
no part of [its] net earnings . . . inures to the
benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no
substantial part of [its] activities . . . is carrying on
propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence
legislation,’’ and it ‘‘does not participate in, or
intervene in . . . any political campaign on behalf
of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public
office’’).

E:\FR\FM\01OCP3.SGM

01OCP3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 190 / Thursday, October 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

exempt.17 If an organization has not yet
received an IRS tax-exemption
determination letter at the time it
applies for recognition, it may satisfy
this requirement by submitting proof
that it has applied for Federal taxexempt status. This alternative method
of demonstrating tax-exempt status will
permit newly formed organizations to
obtain conditional recognition and start
providing services while their
applications for tax exemptions are
pending. However, an organization that
obtains recognition in this manner
should obtain a favorable tax-exemption
determination letter by the time it seeks
renewal of recognition. An
organization’s failure to do so may
adversely affect its eligibility for
renewal.
While classification as a 501(c)(3)
federally tax-exempt organization may
be sufficient to show that an
organization is a non-profit religious,
charitable, social service, or similar
organization for tax purposes, the
proposed rule neither presumes that
501(c)(3) organizations have non-profit
religious, charitable, social service, or
similar purposes for recognition
purposes, nor limits recognition to
organizations that are tax-exempt under
section 501(c)(3). Organizations that
apply for or obtain Federal tax
exemptions under section 501(c)(3) or
other sections of the Federal tax code
may only receive recognition if they also
show that they are non-profit religious,
charitable, social service, or similar
organizations providing free or reducedcost immigration legal services to
primarily low-income and indigent
persons.18 Consistent with current
agency guidance, an organization may
do so with its charter, by-laws, articles
of incorporation, or similar documents
that show its religious charitable, social
service, or similar mission.19
17 Organizations currently may submit, based on
agency guidance, a tax determination letter to
demonstrate eligibility for recognition. EOIR,
Recognition and Accreditation (R&A) Program,
http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/pages/
attachments//2015/05/13/
randafaqsprintableversion.pdf (last visited Sept. 15,
2015).
18 The legitimacy of a non-profit organization
would be particularly scrutinized in circumstances
where, for example: (1) A commercial enterprise or
for-profit business, such as a travel, insurance, real
estate, or tax business, is operated at the same
location as the non-profit organization seeking
recognition; (2) the non-profit organization receives
funding from a for-profit business operated at the
same location as the non-profit; or (3) the proposed
representative or other employees of the non-profit
organization also work for, or are closely associated
with, a for-profit business. See Matter of St. Francis
Cabrini Immigration Law Center, 26 I&N Dec. 445,
447 (BIA 2014).
19 EOIR, Recognition and Accreditation (R&A)
Program, http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/

VerDate Sep<11>2014

21:33 Sep 30, 2015

Jkt 238001

c. Elimination of Nominal Charges
Requirement
The proposed rule would eliminate
the ‘‘nominal charges’’ requirement
contained in the current regulations.20
The purpose of that requirement had
been to ensure that organizations are in
fact charitable or similar social services
organizations; they are serving lowincome or indigent clients; and they are
not representing clients for profit.21
However, the nominal charges
requirement has been repeatedly
criticized over the years as a barrier to
affordable, quality legal services to
vulnerable populations.22 Commenters
have asserted that some well-qualified
organizations do not apply for
recognition because of the restriction,
and that others are unable to meet the
demand for their services due to the
financial constraints it imposes. They
have stated that the assessment of more
than nominal fees in some cases is
necessary because charitable grants and
private funding can be unreliable and
because, for example, organizations in
rural versus urban areas have distinct
needs and expenses that create a need
for more than nominal fees.
Furthermore, they claim that different
cases may require higher fees because of
their complexity or because they
include the provision of both legal and
social services.23
At the same time, a commenter
expressed concern about allowing
organizations that charge more than
pages/attachments//2015/05/13/
randafaqsprintableversion.pdf (last visited Sept. 15,
2015).
20 See 8 CFR 1292.2(a)(1) (requiring that an
organization demonstrate that it ‘‘makes only
nominal charges and assesses no excessive
membership dues for persons given assistance’’). In
applying the standard, the Board has not defined
‘‘nominal charges’’ in terms of specific dollar
amounts but stated that it refers to ‘‘ ‘something
existing in name only as distinguished from
something real or actual.’ ’’ Matter of Ayuda, 26 I&N
Dec. 449, 450 (BIA 2014) (quoting Matter of
American Paralegal Academy, Inc., 19 I&N Dec.
386, 387 (BIA 1986)).
21 60 FR 57,200, 57,200 (Nov. 14, 1995); see
Matter of Ayuda, 26 I&N Dec. at 450 (‘‘The fees
must be consistent with the purpose and spirit of
the recognition and accreditation program, which is
to provide competent immigration services to lowincome and indigent persons.’’).
22 60 FR at 57,200; R&A Program Comments at 2,
58 (Mar. 14, 2012 & Mar. 21, 2012) (on file with
EOIR; forthcoming on www.regulations.gov with
proposed rule); American Immigration Lawyers
Association, Comments on Public Meetings Related
to the Regulations Governing the EOIR Recognition
and Accreditation Program, 8 CFR 1292, at 3–4
(Apr. 4, 2012) (‘‘AILA Comments’’), available at
http://www.aila.org/File/DownloadEmbeddedFile/
37635 (last visited Sept. 15, 2015).
23 60 FR at 57,200; R&A Public Meeting Minutes
at 2; R&A Program Comments at 3, 8–9, 34–35, 37,
47, 53, 58, 66–67, 77–78; AILA Comments at 3.

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

59517

nominal fees to obtain recognition.24
Higher fees may place organizations in
competition with members of the bar for
clients that can afford legal services,
which would contravene the R&A
program’s goal to serve primarily lowincome and indigent clients.25 Higher
fees could also lead unscrupulous
organizations and individuals to seek
recognition and accreditation so that
they could profit from exploiting
clients.
Recognizing the concerns with the
nominal fees requirement, and to
increase the number and sustainability
of recognized organizations able to
provide immigration legal services to
indigent and low-income persons before
EOIR and DHS, the Board recently
updated and clarified its interpretation
of the ‘‘nominal charges’’ requirement in
Matter of Ayuda, 26 I&N Dec. 449 (BIA
2014). The Board stated that the
‘‘nominal charges’’ requirement requires
an individualized assessment of the
organization, including its geographic
location, the services provided, and the
manner of delivery of services, to
determine whether its fee structure
comports with the goal of providing
low-cost legal services, rather than
simply serving the interests of the
organization.26 The proposed rule
adopts a similar approach to assessing
each organization, but proposes to shift
the focus away from an organization’s
fee levels to the organization’s funding
sources and budget while still requiring
that organizations serve the neediest of
persons. Under the proposed rule, there
is no longer a ‘‘nominal charges’’
requirement and organizations have
greater flexibility in assessing fees.
d. Substantial Amount of Budget Is Not
Derived From Client Charges
The proposed rule would generally
require an organization to demonstrate
that a ‘‘substantial amount of the
organization’s immigration legal
services budget is derived from sources
other than funds provided by or on
behalf of the immigration clients
themselves (such as legal fees,
donations, or membership dues).’’ This
proposed requirement reflects the fact
that a legitimate non-profit organization
providing immigration legal services to
low-income and indigent clients
generally supports its operations
through various sources of outside
funding and not solely or entirely
24 AILA Comments at 3; R&A Program Comments
at 58.
25 AILA Comments at 3–4; R&A Program
Comments at 58–59.
26 Matter of Ayuda, 26 I&N Dec. at 451, 452–53.

E:\FR\FM\01OCP3.SGM

01OCP3

59518

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 190 / Thursday, October 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

through charges of the clients
themselves.27
To satisfy the ‘‘substantial amount’’
requirement under the proposed rule, an
organization must submit its annual
budget for providing immigration legal
services for the current year and, if
available, its annual budget for
providing immigration legal services for
the prior year. If both such budgets are
unavailable, the organization must
submit its projected annual budget for
providing immigration legal services for
the upcoming year. The organization’s
budget, whether actual or projected,
should identify its revenue and
expenses attributable to immigration
legal services. The revenue should
include the amount of fees, membership
dues, and donations 28 received or
expected from the organization’s
immigration clients for immigration
legal services and the sources and
amounts of grants and monetary and inkind donations, such as documented
donations of office space, equipment, or
volunteer services. The organization
should also identify its investment and
fundraising income, real estate, and
other assets.
The proposed rule would require
OLAP to review the organization’s
funding sources. In doing so, the rule
does not identify a specific formula or
percentage to be used to measure a
‘‘substantial’’ amount. Rather, under the
proposed rule, OLAP would make a
determination looking at the totality of
the organization’s circumstances. For
example, an organization with an
annual immigration legal services
budget funded by either no immigration
client fees, membership dues, or
donations, or with a quarter (or less) of
its annual immigration legal services
budget provided by such funding would
likely meet the ‘‘substantial amount’’
requirement. Similarly, an organization
may demonstrate that it has no need for
client fees, membership dues, or
donations from its immigration clients
to support its organization because, for
example, it is a religious organization
that receives in-kind donations of office
space, equipment, and supplies and
relies on volunteers or members of a
religious congregation who provide
27 See id. at 453 (approving application for
recognition with the acknowledgement that the
‘‘organization’s budget and funding demonstrate
that it is substantially supported by grants and is
not dependent primarily on client fees for its
operations’’).
28 Not all donations an organization receives from
immigration clients are donations for immigration
legal services. However, to the extent that an
organization conditions the provision of legal
services on donations suggested or otherwise
encouraged by the organization, the donations
received are for immigration legal services.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

21:33 Sep 30, 2015

Jkt 238001

legal services at little cost to the
organization.
On the other hand, the greater the
amount of funding an organization
derives from fees, membership dues, or
donations provided by or on behalf of
immigration clients, the more likely the
organization will not be able to meet the
‘‘substantial amount’’ requirement. For
instance, an organization whose legal
services budget is based on unreliable
funding sources, such as projected
revenue from small special events (e.g.,
bake sales or garage sales, as opposed to
an annual gala) would likely be
impermissibly dependent on
immigration client fees. Similarly, an
organization that has high salaries, rent,
and other expenses, is more likely to be
overly dependent on immigration client
fees, membership dues, or donations
and would be unlikely to satisfy the
substantial amount requirement.
In limited circumstances, the
proposed rule would authorize OLAP to
grant a waiver of the ‘‘substantial
amount’’ requirement where an
organization persuasively demonstrates
that the waiver is in the public interest.
‘‘Public interest’’ factors to be
considered include: The geographic
location of the organization; the manner
in which legal services are to be
delivered; the types of immigration legal
services offered; and the population to
be served. The history and reputation of
the organization in its community and
the qualifications of its staff may also be
considered in the assessment.
Organizations likely to be considered for
the waiver may be, for example,
operating in an underserved area, such
as a remote detention facility, or
providing assistance to vulnerable or
economically disadvantaged
populations, such as mentally
incompetent persons, unaccompanied
minors, or adjustment of status selfpetitioners under the Violence Against
Women Act (VAWA).
e. Serving Primarily Low-Income and
Indigent Persons
In order to avoid recognizing
organizations with for-profit motives
and to advance the requirement that
organizations have a religious,
charitable, social service, or similar
purpose, the proposed rule would
require an organization to establish that
it provides immigration legal services
primarily to low-income and indigent
clients. Neither the term ‘‘primarily’’
nor the term ‘‘low-income’’ is defined in
the proposed rule. Most commenters
following the March 14, 2012,
stakeholder meeting eschewed a
proposed rule defining ‘‘low-income.’’
They stated that organizations need

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

flexibility in deciding which clients
they serve because organizations are
often unable to verify the income of
clients.29 They also expressed a concern
that an income restriction may limit the
client populations served and prevent
recognized organizations from serving a
set of individuals in need of legal
services but unable to afford an
attorney.30 As a result, the proposed
rule does not define low-income or
indigent in terms of a specific amount
of income or limit eligibility for
recognition to organizations that
exclusively serve low-income and
indigent persons.
Organizations, however, have the
burden of demonstrating that they
provide immigration legal services
‘‘primarily’’ to ‘‘low-income and
indigent’’ persons. While income and
expenses for clients will vary
nationwide and each organization
should have flexibility to determine
which clients are ‘‘low-income and
indigent’’ and eligible for services, each
organization nevertheless should have
guidelines for determining whether
clients are ‘‘low-income and indigent’’
so that OLAP may assess whether the
organization’s guidelines reasonably
ensure that its services will be primarily
directed toward low-income and
indigent persons. For example, an
organization may use a particular
percentage from the annual Federal
poverty guidelines issued by the
Department of Health and Human
Services as a benchmark to determine
whether a person meets the threshold
for free or reduced cost legal services.31
An organization may also use other
factors to assess whether those who
receive its services are ‘‘low-income and
indigent,’’ particularly when its clients
do not have pay stubs, bank accounts,
or other verifiable statements of income.
Requiring recognized organizations to
serve primarily low-income and
indigent clients necessarily affects the
magnitude of legal fees, membership
dues, or donations, if any, that an
organization may charge or request.
Charging or requesting excessive fees,
membership dues, or donations would
not be consistent with the aim of serving
primarily low-income and indigent
clients.32 An organization that charges
29 See, e.g., AILA Comments at 4; R&A Program
Comments at 3, 9, 59, 68, 72–73, 79.
30 R&A Program Comments at 9–10, 28–29, 36,
72, 79–80.
31 See 80 FR. 3,236, 3,237 (Jan. 22, 2015)
(Department of Health and Human Services 2015
poverty guidelines).
32 Cf. 8 CFR 1292.2(a)(1) (requiring that an
organization demonstrate that it ‘‘makes only
nominal charges and assesses no excessive
membership dues for persons given assistance’’).

E:\FR\FM\01OCP3.SGM

01OCP3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 190 / Thursday, October 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
or requests such fees, dues, or donations
would be less likely to primarily serve
low-income and indigent clients, who
have a limited ability to pay fees, and
would be more likely to have an
impermissible profit-seeking motive and
prey upon vulnerable populations.
Thus, while fees, dues, and donations
for immigration legal services are not
defined under the proposed rule,
recognized organizations are expected to
limit fees, dues, and donations charged
or requested so that low-income and
indigent clients are able to access the
organization’s immigration legal
services. Any fees, membership dues, or
donations for immigration legal services
should be listed in an itemized fee
schedule with a description of when
and how they are waived or reduced.
Organizations are required to provide
their fee schedules (if any) to OLAP
when applying for or renewing
recognition and must otherwise make
them readily available to clients and
OLAP. OLAP will scrutinize any fees,
membership dues, or donations charged
or requested in evaluating the totality of
the organization’s funding and whether
it is serving primarily low-income and
indigent clients. Legal fees, membership
dues, or donations charged or requested
by a recognized organization are
expected to be at a rate meaningfully
less than the cost of hiring competent
private immigration counsel in the same
geographic area.
At the same time, the proposed rule
does not prohibit a recognized
organization from serving a limited
number of clients regardless of
income.33 In serving these clients,
however, a recognized organization
would not be permitted to charge or
request legal fees, membership dues, or
donations that are greater than those
that it charges or requests from lowincome and indigent clients.34

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

f. Adequate Knowledge, Information,
and Experience
The current R&A regulations require
an organization to ‘‘ha[ve] at its disposal
33 For instance, an organization may continue its
representation of a previously indigent client who
improves his or her financial status during the
course of representation in order to provide
continuity of qualified legal services. An
organization may also provide legal services to a
limited number of clients regardless of income if
those persons are particularly vulnerable (e.g., they
are illiterate, have limited English proficiency, or
have little or no formal education), or if the
organization is the only available and qualified
provider of immigration legal services in its area.
34 To be clear, the requirements of this rule would
be applicable only to organizations that apply for
and are approved for recognition from EOIR under
this rule, and thereby elect to make themselves
subject to these requirements as a condition of
eligibility for recognition.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

21:33 Sep 30, 2015

Jkt 238001

adequate knowledge, information and
experience’’ to be recognized.35 The
proposed rule would maintain this
requirement but also identify the proof
necessary to satisfy the requirement in
accord with Matter of EAC, Inc., 24 I&N
Dec. 556 (BIA 2008), and Matter of
Lutheran Ministries of Florida, 20 I&N
Dec. 185 (BIA 1990). Specifically, the
organization must describe, among other
things: The services it intends to offer;
the legal resources to which it has
access; its staff’s qualifications and
breadth of immigration knowledge;
formal trainings attended by staff; and
agreements with non-staff immigration
practitioners or other organizations for
consultations or technical legal
assistance.36
Although attorney mentors are
encouraged,37 the proposed rule does
not require an attorney on staff or
attorney supervision of accredited
representatives, as some commenters
proposed, due to cost and feasibility
concerns.38 Ultimately, the organization
must show that it has the resources to
adequately monitor its accredited
representatives as well as sufficient
knowledge, information, and experience
to provide competent legal assistance on
immigration matters for which it
provides services.
g. Authorized Officer
The proposed rule would require an
organization to designate an authorized
officer, who is empowered to act on its
behalf for all matters related to
recognition and accreditation. This
requirement will facilitate
accountability and communication
between OLAP and the organization.
The president, secretary, executive
director, or other designated individual
of the organization may serve as the
authorized officer of the organization.
2. Accreditation Qualifications
To be accredited under the current
R&A regulations, an individual must
have good moral character. The current
regulations also require the organization
to describe an individual’s knowledge of
35 8

CFR 1292.2(a)(2).
Matter of EAC, Inc., 24 I&N Dec. at 558–

36 See

62.
37 An organization associated with an attorney
who is not on staff but who provides consultations
or technical legal assistance to the organization’s
accredited representatives is expected to
demonstrate the degree of interaction and
association with the attorney, and to state if the
attorney charges a fee for such assistance.
Recognition should not be misused as a means for
organizations to engage in for-profit referrals or fee
sharing with private counsel. See Matter of Baptist
Educational Center, 20 I&N Dec. 723, 736 (BIA
1993).
38 R&A Program Comments at 13, 20, 31, 43,51,
62, 70. 74.

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

59519

and experience in immigration law and
procedure without specifying a
minimum standard of knowledge and
experience. The proposed rule replaces
the good moral character requirement
with a character and fitness requirement
that seeks to more comprehensively
examine an individual’s suitability to
represent clients. The proposed rule
also explicitly requires that individuals
be an employee or volunteer of the
organization to be accredited so that
they are subject to the supervision and
direction of the organization. The
proposed rule clarifies the amount of
knowledge and experience required by
adopting a broad knowledge and
adequate experience standard the Board
has applied. Finally, the proposed rule
precludes attorneys as defined by 8 CFR
1001.1(f) and individuals who have
been convicted of a serious crime or
who are under an order restricting their
practice of law from being accredited.
a. Character and Fitness
Whereas the current R&A regulations
require that a proposed accredited
representative be a person of ‘‘good
moral character,’’ 39 the proposed rule
instead would require an organization to
affirm that its proposed representative
possesses the ‘‘character and fitness’’ to
represent clients before the immigration
courts, the Board, or DHS. The proposed
rule’s character and fitness requirement
allows for a more comprehensive
examination of a proposed
representative’s suitability to represent
clients, which is similar to the standards
and principles of fitness that state bars
apply to applicants for admission.40 The
character and fitness requirement is
meant to ensure that an accredited
representative possesses the honesty,
trustworthiness, diligence,
professionalism, and reliability to
execute his or her fiduciary duties and
professional responsibilities to clients,
adversaries, and adjudicators through an
examination of factors such as: criminal
39 8

CFR 1292.2(d).
National Conference of Bar Examiners and
American Bar Association Section of Legal
Education and Admissions to the Bar,
Comprehensive Guide to Bar Admission
Requirements 2015, at vii, 4–7, http://
www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/
publications/misc/legal_education/2015_
comprehensive_guide_to_bar_admission_
requirements.authcheckdam.pdf (last visited Sept.
15, 2015); Virginia Board of Bar Examiners,
Character and Fitness Requirements, http://
barexam.virginia.gov/cf/cfreq.html (last visited
Sept. 15, 2015) (applicant for bar admission must
demonstrate, inter alia, ‘‘honest demeanor’’ and
‘‘good moral character’’); Pennsylvania Board of
Law Examiners, What are the Character and Fitness
Standards?, http://www.pabarexam.org/c_and_f/
cffaqs/2.htm (last visited Sept. 15, 2015); N.H. Sup.
Ct. R. 42B(II) (character and fitness standards
include proving ‘‘good moral character’’).
40 See

E:\FR\FM\01OCP3.SGM

01OCP3

59520

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 190 / Thursday, October 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules

background; prior acts involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation; and past history of
neglecting professional, financial, or
legal obligations.41
An individual’s current immigration
status is also a separate factor in the
fitness determination because of the
inherent conflict in having accredited
representatives represent individuals
before the same immigration agencies
before whom they are actively appearing
in their personal capacities. Moreover,
an individual’s immigration status may
affect whether immigration practitioners
can continue their representation of
clients throughout the pendency of their
clients’ immigration matters. Therefore,
the Department is seeking input from
the public regarding the parameters of
this factor, and is considering whether
individuals seeking accreditation must,
for example, have employment
authorization or not be in active
proceedings before DHS or EOIR.
The character and fitness requirement
may be satisfied by the signatures of the
organization and its proposed
representative on the request for
accreditation (Form EOIR–31A),
attesting that the proposed
representative has the requisite
character and fitness. The signatures
affirm that the proposed representative
has, among other things, a record of
honesty, trustworthiness, diligence,
professionalism, and reliability. The
signatures also attest that the proposed
representative’s work will be performed
in the United States. Additional
documentation, such as a favorable
background check and letters of
recommendation attesting to the
individual’s good character, may also
support the character and fitness
requirement for accreditation.42
b. Employee or Volunteer
The proposed rule would explicitly
require that a proposed representative
for accreditation be subject to the
direction and supervision of the
organization as either its employee or its
volunteer.43 In order to demonstrate that

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

41 The

character and fitness requirement also
avoids potential confusion created by the ‘‘good
moral character’’ requirement, which is a term of art
used to establish eligibility for relief under the
Immigration and Nationality Act. See 8 U.S.C.
1101(f).
42 If a proposed representative has an issue in his
or her record that may affect the character and
fitness determination, the organization and the
proposed representative should address that issue
in the request for accreditation and produce any
relevant documentation so that OLAP can
determine whether the proposed representative
satisfies the character and fitness standard.
43 Under the current R&A regulations, an
accredited representative’s employment or
connection to a recognized organization is

VerDate Sep<11>2014

21:33 Sep 30, 2015

Jkt 238001

this requirement is satisfied, the
organization and its proposed
representative must sign Form EOIR–
31A attesting to the employment or
volunteer relationship.
c. Broad Knowledge and Adequate
Experience
The proposed rule would require an
organization to show that a proposed
representative possesses ‘‘broad
knowledge and adequate experience in
immigration law and procedure’’ and
that a proposed representative for whom
the organization seeks full accreditation
has ‘‘skills essential for effective
litigation.’’ Under the current R&A
regulations, organizations are simply
required to describe ‘‘the nature and
extent of the proposed representative’s
experience and knowledge of
immigration and naturalization law and
procedure.’’ 44 The intent of the
proposed rule is to follow the Board’s
precedential decisions in Matter of EAC,
Inc., 24 I&N Dec. 563 (BIA 2008),45 and
Matter of Central California Legal
Services, Inc., 26 I&N Dec. 105 (BIA
2013),46 which specified the knowledge
and experience sufficient to warrant
accreditation.
The proposed rule does not establish
a required number of formal training
hours, specific courses, or testing to
show broad knowledge and experience
for initial accreditation or for renewal of
accreditation, although some
presumed. See 8 CFR 1292.2(d) (‘‘Accreditation
terminates . . . when the representative’s
employment or other connection with the
organization ceases.’’). Under 8 U.S.C. 1324a,
recognized organizations must verify that their
accredited representative employees are authorized
to work in the United States.
44 8 CFR 1292.2(d).
45 In Matter of EAC, the Board explained that an
accredited representative must have broad
knowledge so that he or she is ‘‘able to readily
identify immigration issues of all types, even in
areas where no services are provided, and has the
ability to discern when it is in the best interests of
the aliens served to refer those with more complex
immigration issues elsewhere.’’ 24 I&N Dec. at 564.
The Board, however, did not require a level of
experience equal to the accredited representative’s
knowledge. Rather, it acknowledged that an
accredited representative’s experience with
immigration law ‘‘need not be fully commensurate
with his or her knowledge to be considered
adequate.’’ Id. The Board further noted that fully
accredited representatives had to ‘‘possess skills
essential for effective litigation,’’ such as the ability
to engage in oral and appellate advocacy, present
documentary evidence and question witnesses, and
prepare motions and briefs. Id.
46 In Matter of Central California Legal Services,
Inc., the Board found that a successful application
for accreditation must show that the proposed
representative ‘‘recently completed at least one
formal training course designed for new
practitioners and that the training provided a solid
overview of the fundamentals of immigration law
and procedure.’’ 26 I&N Dec. at 106.

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

commenters recommended doing so.47
While such requirements would be
helpful in establishing minimum
standards of knowledge and experience,
imposing these requirements by
regulation would limit OLAP’s
flexibility to adapt them to the everchanging immigration legal landscape,
might result in increased costs to
organizations, and could overlook the
unique training needs of organizations
that provide legal services to particular
populations and offer specialized
services.48 Nonetheless, OLAP may
recommend education, testing, training
courses and hours, or internships that
could be sufficient to satisfy the broad
knowledge and adequate experience
requirement for accreditation.49
d. No Attorneys, No Orders Restricting
Practice of Law or Representation, No
Serious Crimes
The proposed rule would restrict
accreditation to non-attorneys and
individuals who have not been
convicted of a serious crime and are not
subject to an order restricting their
practice of law. The proposed rule also
bars attorneys licensed in the United
States from accreditation because
accreditation is not necessary for
attorneys to represent clients before
EOIR or DHS, and thus granting them
accreditation would serve no
meaningful purpose.50
Currently, the regulations allow the
Board to sanction (i.e., through
suspension, disbarment, censure, or
otherwise) accredited representatives
who are subject to a final order of
disbarment of suspension, who resign
while a disciplinary investigation or
proceeding is pending, or who have
been convicted of a serious crime.51 The
proposed rule largely reiterates these
restrictions,52 but extends the serious
crime restriction to cover foreign as well
as domestic serious crime convictions.
This is because individuals for whom
accreditation is sought may have been
convicted of serious crimes while living
or residing in foreign countries. The
47 R&A Public Meeting Minutes at 4–5; R&A
Comments at .2, 3, 10, 20–21, 24–25, 29, 49. 54, 60,
65; AILA Comments at 5.
48 See R&A Public Meeting Minutes at 4–5; R&A
Comments at 43, 49, 55, 73.
49 OLAP anticipates meeting with stakeholders to
develop ‘‘best practices’’ guidelines. In the future,
OLAP may also consider undertaking a separate
rulemaking process to establish certification
standards for training providers.
50 See 8 CFR 1001.1(f), 1292(a)(1).
51 See 8 CFR 1003.101(a), 1003.102(e), (h).
52 The prohibition against accrediting individuals
who are subject to an order restricting their practice
of law is primarily directed at preventing attorneys
who have been suspended or disbarred from
becoming accredited and thereby circumventing the
order of suspension or disbarment.

E:\FR\FM\01OCP3.SGM

01OCP3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 190 / Thursday, October 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
decision to use those convictions as a
disqualifying factor for accreditation is
not unique, as foreign convictions are
given collateral effects under Federal
immigration law. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(43) (stating that the term
‘‘aggravated felony’’ applies to certain
‘‘offense[s] in violation of the law of a
foreign country’’).
In order to demonstrate that the above
qualifications are satisfied, the
organization and its proposed
representative must sign Form EOIR–
31A attesting that the representative is
not an attorney licensed to practice in
the United States; is not subject to an
order restricting his or her practice of
law or representation before a court or
administrative agency; and has not been
convicted of a serious crime.

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

3. Applying for Recognition and
Accreditation
The proposed rule would modify the
filing and review process for recognition
and accreditation requests. Under the
current process, organizations use Form
EOIR–31 to request recognition, and the
form identifies the requirements for
recognition.53 Organizations, however,
are not required by regulation to file a
form to apply for or renew accreditation
of a representative. Rather, they may file
a letter and supporting documentation
or they may file voluntary form EOIR–
31A. The proposed rule would require
that organizations use Form EOIR–31A
to request accreditation (or the renewal
of accreditation) for their
representatives. The required form
should both simplify the accreditation
request process for applicants by
clarifying the required information and
promote efficient and effective
administration of the program to ensure
that only qualified and competent
applicants are recognized and
accredited.54
The proposed rule would modify the
requirements for service of requests for
recognition and accreditation in two
ways. First, the proposed rule requires
service of a request for recognition or
accreditation only on USCIS, not on
both USCIS and ICE.55 All accredited
representatives may appear before
53 The current regulations refer to the outdated
INS Form G–27 application for recognition. 8 CFR
1292.2(b). Upon EOIR’s creation, EOIR redesignated the application for recognition as Form
EOIR–31.
54 EOIR intends to regularly make available
average processing times for recognition and
accreditation applications.
55 The current Form EOIR–31 states that requests
for recognition and accreditation must be served on
the USCIS district director and the ICE chief
counsel who have jurisdiction over the area in
which the organization is located. See Form EOIR–
31, OMB# 1125–0012, at 1 (Oct. 2014).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

21:33 Sep 30, 2015

Jkt 238001

USCIS, and approximately eighty
percent of accredited representatives
and their recognized organizations
provide representation solely before
USCIS. Therefore, it is unnecessary for
organizations to serve all requests for
recognition and accreditation on ICE. If
OLAP determines that it may be
beneficial to obtain a recommendation
or information from ICE, particularly
with applications for renewal of full
accreditations, OLAP may make a
request to ICE for a recommendation or
information.56 Second, the proposed
rule requires service on the USCIS
district offices in the jurisdictions where
the organization and its representatives
offer or intend to offer services, rather
than the USCIS district offices where
the organization is located. The
proposed rule’s service requirements
with respect to USCIS will ensure
involvement from the USCIS offices that
are most likely to have relevant
information, particularly with regard to
applicants who have previously
practiced before USCIS in other
circumstances.57
The proposed rule also allows OLAP
to gather information from new
sources—other than USCIS and ICE—in
evaluating requests for recognition and
accreditation. OLAP may request
investigations and receive information
from the EOIR disciplinary counsel and
the EOIR anti-fraud officer when
evaluating recognition and accreditation
requests. OLAP may also consider
publicly available information, such as
newspaper articles or other public
records. Unfavorable information
obtained by OLAP from these sources,
or from USCIS or ICE, that may be relied
upon to disapprove a recognition or
accreditation request, if not previously
served on the organization, will be
disclosed to the organization. The
organization will be given a reasonable
opportunity to respond to such
unfavorable information prior to any
determination on the request for
recognition or accreditation.
In addition, in order to minimize
adverse determinations, OLAP may
request additional information from an
organization prior to issuing a
determination on a request for
56 For most initial requests for recognition or
accreditation, ICE would have no information
regarding an organization or its proposed
representatives, unless the organization or proposed
representatives were previously recognized or
accredited.
57 As in the current regulations, any USCIS
recommendation regarding a request for recognition
or accreditation will be served on the organization,
which will then have the opportunity to respond to
any unfavorable recommendation.

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

59521

recognition or accreditation.58 This
process is similar to a USCIS Request for
Evidence in the immigration petition or
application context.59 This new process
will allow organizations to address
concerns or questions, thereby
facilitating the approval of their
applications when appropriate.
Finally, similar to the current R&A
regulations, which do not allow for an
appeal or a motion to reopen or
reconsider the Board’s final decision on
recognition or accreditation issues, the
proposed rule provides that OLAP’s
recognition or accreditation
determinations would be final (i.e.,
there would be no appeal of an adverse
determination). An organization whose
request for recognition or accreditation
is disapproved may submit a new
request for recognition or accreditation
when the organization believes it has
overcome or corrected the basis for
disapproval.
4. Extending Recognition and
Accreditation
The proposed rule eliminates the
requirement that organizations with
multiple offices submit separate
applications for recognition of each
physical location,60 and instead grants
OLAP the discretion to approve
extensions of recognition and
accreditation of representatives from the
headquarters or designated office of an
organization to other offices or locations
where the organization provides
immigration legal services. This change
58 The current regulations provide that the Board
may hear oral argument on requests for recognition
and accreditation. See 8 CFR 1292.2(b), (d). The
proposed rule does not provide OLAP with similar
authority because oral argument has rarely been
used by the Board to issue a decision on a request
for recognition or accreditation. Additionally, any
issues that arise in relation to a request for
recognition or accreditation under the proposed
rule may be resolved through the request for
information process.
59 See USCIS, Policy Memorandum 602–0085:
Requests for Evidence and Notices of Intent to Deny
(June 3, 2013), available at http://www.uscis.gov/
USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2013/June%202013/
Requests%20for%20Evidence%20(Final).pdf (last
visited Sept. 15, 2015).
60 Currently, the Board requires an organization
with physically separate branch offices to request
recognition for each branch office, even if another
office is already recognized. Matter of Florida Rural
Legal Services, Inc., 20 I&N Dec. 639, 640 (BIA
1993). The Board also required organizations to file
separate requests for accreditation at each branch
office until recently, when it eliminated the
requirement because organizations were filing
duplicative applications for the same individual.
See Matter of United Farm Workers Foundation, 26
I&N Dec. 454 (BIA 2014). The proposed rule adopts
a similar approach and extends it to allow
organizations with multiple branch offices to seek
OLAP’s approval to extend recognition as well as
accreditation to multiple locations without the need
to submit a separate, largely redundant request. As
a result, the proposed rule eliminates duplicative
requests for both recognition and accreditation.

E:\FR\FM\01OCP3.SGM

01OCP3

59522

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 190 / Thursday, October 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules

should have the effect of increasing the
number of recognized organizations and
accredited representatives available to
provide immigration legal services to
underserved immigrant populations in
different areas, and better reflects the
advances in technology that have
improved an organization’s ability to
oversee its operations, supervise staff,
and access legal resources as well as the
changes in how organizations provide
services.61 It seems unnecessary and
overly burdensome to require an
organization with multiple offices but
virtually the same staff, structure,
mission, and tax status to independently
apply for recognition at each location.62
To extend recognition to another
office or location, the proposed rule
does not require a recognized
organization to fully complete a Form
EOIR–31 for the new office or location.
Rather, the recognized organization
must simply submit Form EOIR–31 with
the names and addresses of offices or
locations where it intends to provide
services and affirm that it conducts
regular inspections, supervises and
controls its accredited representatives,
and provides access to adequate legal
resources at each office or location
where services will be provided. An
organization seeking to extend
recognition to an office or location must
conduct periodic inspections of that
office or location, but daily supervision
of accredited representatives would not
be expected. Once the request for
extension is approved, the
organization’s accredited
representatives may represent clients
out of each of the offices or locations
listed. The addresses of these offices or
locations and the associated accredited
representatives will be placed on the
roster of recognized organizations and
accredited representatives.
The proposed rule does not require
OLAP to extend recognition and
accreditation to all offices or locations
of an organization. Rather, OLAP, in its
discretion, may direct an office or
location of an organization to
independently seek recognition and the
accreditation of its representatives. For

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

61 For

example, this provision may allow for a
farm workers’ organization with a mobile van to
travel to rural locations in order to provide
immigration legal services to its clients or for an
organization to provide services via
videoconferencing equipment when a client is at
one office and a representative is at a second office.
62 See also Matter of United Farm Workers
Foundation, 26 I&N Dec. at 456 & n.2 (noting that
elimination of ‘‘per branch’’ accreditation will
‘‘lessen the paperwork and costs associated with
duplicative applications, and it will eliminate the
unproductive need for recognized organizations to
monitor multiple expiration dates for the same
accredited representative’’).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

21:33 Sep 30, 2015

Jkt 238001

example, if a national non-profit
organization applied to extend
recognition from its headquarters to a
branch or affiliate office with its own
non-profit organizing documents, staff,
funding sources, fee schedules, and
other distinct operations, the branch
office would likely be required to
independently seek recognition and the
accreditation of its representatives.
5. The Validity Period, Renewal of
Recognition and Accreditation, and
Change in Accreditation
a. Validity Period for Recognition and
Accreditation
Under the current R&A regulations,
recognized organizations are recognized
indefinitely, unless their recognition is
withdrawn. Accredited representatives,
on the other hand, are currently
required to request renewal of their
accreditation every three years. Some
commenters recommended that
organizations be required to renew their
recognition to address the perceived
ineffectiveness of the current rule’s
withdrawal of recognition process and
to improve oversight of recognized
organizations, whereas others have
recommended an annual update by the
organization rather than a full rerecognition process.63 Commenters also
expressed concern regarding unduly
burdensome requirements for renewal of
recognition and have suggested up to a
five-year renewal period.64
Under the proposed rule, recognition
would be valid for a period of three
years, unless the organization has been
granted conditional recognition, which
is valid only for two years, or the
organization has its recognition
administratively terminated or is
disciplined (through revocation or
termination) prior to the conclusion of
its recognition period. The accreditation
period of a representative would run
concurrently with the organization’s
recognition period or, if approved
separately from the organization’s
recognition, the representative’s
accreditation would expire on the same
date the organization’s period of
63 See R&A Public Meeting Minutes at 2–3. Some
commenters recommended that EOIR institute an
annual registration or reporting process, possibly
online, that would allow active organizations to
update relevant information rather than go through,
or in addition to, the re-recognition process. See
R&A Program Comments at 45, 57, 64; AILA
Comments at 2. EOIR does not have the resources
at this time to create electronic records for
recognition and accreditation or an online update
process for organizations. EOIR also has concerns
that an annual re-registration would not be
sufficiently thorough to allow for meaningful
oversight or address potential fraud by
unscrupulous individuals.
64 See R&A Program Comments at 8, 18, 79.

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

recognition ends, unless the
representative is administratively
terminated or the representative is
disciplined (through termination,
revocation, suspension, or disbarment)
prior to the conclusion of the
recognition period. This framework
simplifies the renewal process for the
organization, which must seek renewal
for both itself and its representatives at
the same time, and reinforces the
interdependence between recognition
and accreditation, as accreditation does
not exist independently of association
with a recognized organization.
b. Renewal of Recognition and
Accreditation
As noted above, the proposed rule
provides that, in order to retain
recognition, an organization must renew
its recognition along with the
accreditation of its representatives every
three years, or two years after a grant of
conditional recognition.65 For
recognition to be renewed for a threeyear period, the organization must have
at least one representative
simultaneously approved for
accreditation.66 Recognition of an
organization and accreditation of its
representatives remain valid pending a
determination on the renewal requests.
Organizations and representatives
seeking renewal of their status, even
those in pending disciplinary
proceedings, are presumed to be in good
standing and remain eligible to provide
immigration legal services during
OLAP’s consideration of the renewal
request.67
To renew recognition, the
organization must file Form EOIR–31,
establish that it continues to maintain
the qualifications for recognition;
submit fee schedules and annual reports
compiled since its last approval of
recognition; and describe any
unreported changes that impact
eligibility for recognition since the last
approval of recognition. The new
65 A renewal application must be received by the
OLAP Director on or before the third anniversary
date of the last decision approving the
organization’s recognition (or two years after an
approval of conditional recognition). Given the
documentation necessary to establish eligibility for
renewal, an organization should generally refrain
from submitting an application more than 60 days
prior to its anniversary date. The proposed rule also
provides OLAP with discretion to accept an
application out of time.
66 Accordingly, when applying for renewal, the
organization must: (1) Renew accreditation of at
least one current representative; (2) request
accreditation for a new proposed representative; or
(3) both.
67 However, a representative in pending
disciplinary proceedings who has received an
interim suspension that precludes practice before
USCIS or EOIR during the pendency of the
proceedings is not presumed to be in good standing.

E:\FR\FM\01OCP3.SGM

01OCP3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 190 / Thursday, October 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

documentary requirements should not
be unduly burdensome because
organizations likely already prepare the
required documents in the normal
course of their operations. Furthermore,
the ability to extend recognition to
branch offices should reduce the
number of documents required to be
filed by an organization with multiple
offices.
To renew accreditation, the
organization must use Form EOIR–31A,
establish that the accredited
representative continues to maintain the
qualifications for accreditation, and
show that the representative has
continued to receive formal training in
immigration law and procedure
commensurate with the services the
organization provides and the duration
of the representative’s accreditation.
The proposed rule does not mandate
testing or the type or amount of training
required to renew accreditation.68
Rather, similar to the Board’s
interpretation of the current regulations,
the proposed rule imposes a formal
training requirement and requires the
organization to provide evidence of
completed training upon applying for
renewal.69 The formal training courses
should focus generally on recent
developments in immigration law and
procedure, but may concern specific
areas, such as citizenship, asylum,
VAWA, or criminal law and the
consequences of criminal convictions in
immigration proceedings, as may be
relevant to the nature of the
representative’s casework. Case
management skills, ethics, and
professional responsibility training are
also recommended.
In its renewal request, an organization
should also show, through its annual
68 The training requirement for renewal of
accreditation has been the subject of much debate,
but there has been no consensus among training
advocates as to the appropriate type and amount of
training or who should provide the training and
how it should be delivered. See R&A Public Meeting
Minutes at 4–5; R&A Program Comments at 2, 10–
11, 20–22, 24, 40, 43, 54, 60, 65, 68–69; AILA
Comments at 5–6. EOIR considered but rejected
including requirements in the proposed rule for
mandatory testing or a specified type or amount of
training. Inclusion of such requirements would
necessarily increase the costs of applying for
recognition and accreditation, as they would likely
involve fees and added expenses for organizations.
Those fees and added expenses, in turn, would
likely result in increased charges for services to
clients of the organization. Furthermore, EOIR
currently does not have the resources to develop its
own mandatory testing and training program for
accredited representatives.
69 In Matter of Central California Legal Services,
Inc., the Board noted that ‘‘[w]hen a recognized
organization seeks to renew a representative’s
accreditation, it should provide documentation that
its accredited representative has received additional
formal training in immigration law since the most
recent accreditation.’’ 26 I&N Dec. at 106–07 n.3.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

21:33 Sep 30, 2015

Jkt 238001

reports, the types and numbers of
immigration applications and cases
handled by the accredited
representative during the accreditation
period, and submit letters of
recommendation from individuals who
can attest to the representative’s
character and performance during the
period. The duration of a
representative’s accreditation is relevant
in this regard, as a representative who
was accredited six months prior to the
renewal date would not necessarily be
expected to show the same amount of
formal training and work experience as
a representative who was accredited for
an entire three-year period. Nonetheless,
the organization would be expected to
provide information regarding any
training attended or cases handled by
the representative during the
abbreviated period of accreditation.
Even an experienced representative who
has been re-accredited several times
should demonstrate continued formal
training.
OLAP’s process for evaluating
recognition and accreditation renewal
requests is similar to the review process
for initial recognition and accreditation
requests. OLAP may receive a
recommendation from USCIS regarding
the requests, and it may request
additional information from the
organization, review publicly available
information, or seek an investigation
and information from USCIS, ICE, the
EOIR disciplinary counsel, or the EOIR
anti-fraud officer. The organization will
have the opportunity to respond to
unfavorable information that was not
previously provided to it that OLAP
may use to make its renewal
determination.
As in the context of initial requests,
discussed in Part IV.B.3 above, the
proposed rule provides that OLAP’s
determinations regarding recognition or
accreditation renewal requests would be
final (i.e., there would be no appeal
from an adverse determination).
For an organization whose request for
renewal of recognition is disapproved,
both its recognition and the
accreditation of its representatives will
terminate upon service of an
administrative termination notice.
However, the disapproved organization
may submit a new request for
recognition or accreditation.
c. Change in Accreditation
The proposed rule permits a
recognized organization to request, at
any time during the validity period of
accreditation or at renewal, that a
representative’s status be changed from
partial to full accreditation. A request
for a change to full accreditation must

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

59523

demonstrate that the representative has
the skills essential for effective litigation
of cases before the immigration courts
and the Board, such as legal research
and oral and written trial and appellate
advocacy skills. If an organization
requests a change from partial to full
accreditation at renewal, and that
request is disapproved, OLAP may
renew the representative’s partial
accreditation provided that the
representative satisfies the requirements
for renewal of such accreditation.
d. Organizations and Representatives
Recognized and Accredited Prior to the
Effective Date of the Final Rule
Organizations and representatives
recognized and accredited prior to the
effective date of this rule when it is
adopted in final form will remain
recognized and accredited.70 However,
these organizations and representatives
would be subject to the provisions of the
final rule when it becomes effective, and
they would be required to request
renewal of recognition and renewal of
accreditation for their representatives
based on certain triggers, as set forth
below:
• Organizations without an
accredited representative would be
required to renew recognition within
one year of the effective date of the final
rule, so that such organizations become
compliant with the rule’s requirement
that recognized organizations have at
least one accredited representative.
• Organizations submitting a request
for accreditation of a new representative
or a request for extension of recognition
and accreditation to an additional office
or location would be required to renew
recognition and accreditation of all
representatives at that time, so that the
organization’s recognition and the
accreditation of its representatives
remain linked and subject to renewal at
the same time.
• Organizations that do not fall into
either of the above categories would be
required to apply for renewal of
recognition within two years of the
effective date of the final rule if the
organization was recognized for more
than ten years prior to the effective date,
or within three years of the effective
70 At the effective date of the final rule, a pending
application for initial recognition, initial
accreditation, or renewal of accreditation before the
Board would be transferred to OLAP to review.
Organizations with such pending applications
would have to meet the new requirements of the
final rule to be approved for recognition or
accreditation. OLAP will provide organizations
with pending applications the opportunity to
amend the applications, if necessary, to conform to
the new requirements of the final rule. Further
guidance will be provided prior to the effective date
of the final rule.

E:\FR\FM\01OCP3.SGM

01OCP3

59524

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 190 / Thursday, October 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules

date if the organization was recognized
for ten years or less prior to the effective
date. This will ensure that older
recognized organizations that have not
had their qualifications for recognition
evaluated in over ten years are
examined sooner than organizations that
have been more recently recognized.
If the accreditation of a currently
accredited representative would
otherwise expire prior to the date that
the organization is required to renew
recognition under this rule, the
representative’s renewal date will be
tied to the organization’s renewal date.
In other words, if a representative’s
accreditation would otherwise expire
one year after the effective date of the
final rule, but the organization is not
required to renew its recognition until
two years after the effective date, the
representative’s accreditation continues
in effect and does not need to be
renewed until year two, at which time
the organization will be required to seek
renewal of recognition for itself and
renewal of its representatives’
accreditations at the same time. If an
organization timely files a request for
renewal of recognition and
accreditation, both the recognition of
the organization and the accreditation of
its representatives will remain valid
pending OLAP’s consideration of the
renewal requests.
Except for the new eligibility
requirements of the final rule,71 which
would not be applicable until the time
of renewal, these organizations and
representatives would be subject to the
provisions of the final rule as of its
effective date, including the new
disciplinary rules and procedures and
any ground of administrative
termination. Thus, these organizations
and representatives may have their
recognition or accreditation
administratively terminated or may be
subject to disciplinary action for
incompetence, misconduct, or other
disciplinary grounds.

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

6. Conditional Recognition
The proposed rule provides for
conditional recognition of organizations
that have not been previously
recognized or that are recognized anew
after having lost recognition due to an
administrative termination or
disciplinary sanctions. Some
71 Note that the formal training requirement for
renewal specified at 1292.16(c) is not a new
eligibility requirement for renewal of accreditation.
See supra n.69 (discussing Matter of Central
California Legal Services and the need to show
continued training for renewal of accreditation).
Accordingly, representatives accredited prior to the
effective date of the final rule will continue to be
subject to the formal training requirement when
they seek renewal under the final rule.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

21:33 Sep 30, 2015

Jkt 238001

commenters have suggested that newly
recognized organizations should be
subject to a probationary period to
assess their capabilities as non-profit
providers of immigration legal
services.72 Conditional recognition
provides such a probationary period and
requires the specified organizations to
apply for renewal under the processes
outlined above within two years of the
date that OLAP granted conditional
recognition.
For a new organization, the two-year
period provides the necessary time for
the organization to establish itself and
demonstrate that it can maintain the
qualifications for recognition.
Specifically, the conditional recognition
period should provide sufficient time
for new organizations to submit relevant
tax documents, develop their client
base, and establish a track record of
offering immigration legal services to
the community. The two-year
conditional recognition period also
should facilitate informed
recommendations from USCIS and
others in the community as to the
competence of the organization and its
representatives. For a previously
recognized organization that was subject
to an administrative termination or
disciplinary sanctions, conditional
recognition places it in the same
position as a ‘‘new’’ organization. But
the two-year period allows OLAP the
opportunity to review the organization
at an earlier renewal date to ensure that
the same issues that led to an
organization’s earlier termination or
discipline do not resume. Once OLAP
approves a conditionally recognized
organization for renewal of recognition,
the organization and its accredited
representatives then become subject to
the standard three-year renewal cycle.
7. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and
Posting Requirements
The proposed rule would impose
reporting, recordkeeping, and posting
requirements on recognized
organizations and permit OLAP to
administratively terminate recognition if
OLAP determines that such a sanction
is warranted because an organization
fails to comply with these requirements
after being notified of the deficiencies
and having an opportunity to respond.
These measures are intended to promote
accountability from recognized
organizations and serve as deterrents
against fraud and abuse by individuals
seeking to exploit the recognition and
accreditation process.
First, the proposed rule would clarify
the scope of the duty to report set forth
72 R&A

PO 00000

Program Comments at 15, 77.

Frm 00011

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

in the current R&A regulations and
EOIR’s guidance to organizations,73 and
identify additional changes that must be
reported to OLAP, including updated
email addresses and Web sites, as well
as changes in non-profit or tax-exempt
status. Organizations must report these
changes as soon as possible, but
generally not later than 30 days from the
date of the change.
Second, the proposed rule would add
a new recordkeeping requirement,
which will provide OLAP with a means
to monitor organizations and ensure
their compliance with the recognition
requirements. Specifically, recognized
organizations would be required to
compile certain records and maintain
them for six years after the creation of
the records,74 including annual reports
and fee schedules, if any, for each office
or location where services are
provided.75 These records may be
requested for inspection by USCIS or
EOIR in connection with an
investigation, but they are primarily
necessary to apply for renewal of
recognition. The recordkeeping
requirement should not be unduly
burdensome, as organizations likely are
required to retain such information for
client-file retention, tax, or other
accounting purposes. Moreover,
73 See 8 CFR 1292.2(b), (d); EOIR, Recognition &
Accreditation (R&A) Program, http://
www.justice.gov/eoir/recognition-and-accreditationprogram (last visited Sept. 15, 2015). The proposed
rule provides a non-exhaustive list of the types of
changes for which an organization would have a
duty to report, including changes to: The
organization name, address, telephone number,
Web site address, email address, or the designation
of authorized officer of the organization; an
accredited representative’s name or employment or
volunteer status with the organization; and the
organization’s structure.
74 The six-year record retention requirement is
consistent with some state client-file retention
policies for attorneys. See, e.g., American Bar
Association, Materials on Client File Retention,
http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_
responsibility/services/ethicsearch/materials_on_
client_file_retention.html (last visited Sept. 15,
2015); see generally Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct
1.16(d) (regarding attorney’s obligation as to client
records upon termination of representation); ABA
Model Code of Prof’l Responsibility DR 2–110(A)(2)
(regarding attorney’s obligations as to client records
upon withdrawal of representation). A recognized
organization at the time the final rule becomes
effective would be required to begin maintaining
the specified records. An organization recognized
after the effective date of the final rule must
maintain the records prospectively. Both such
organizations may destroy or discard any such
records for recognition and accreditation purposes
that are outside the six-year retention period.
75 The annual report should include information
already gathered by the organization such as the
number of clients served, the types of services
provided, the number of clients who were provided
services at no cost, the total amount of fees charged
to and donations or dues requested from
immigration clients for the services provided, and
the offices or locations where accredited
representatives provided legal services.

E:\FR\FM\01OCP3.SGM

01OCP3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 190 / Thursday, October 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
requiring organizations to maintain and
provide the specified records should
deter unscrupulous individuals and
organizations seeking to abuse the
recognition and accreditation process.
Third, the proposed rule would
authorize OLAP to require recognized
organizations to post certain public
notices.76 These limited notices would
provide information to the public about
the R&A program, the requirements for
recognition and accreditation, and the
approval period of an organization’s
recognition and the accreditation of its
representatives.77 The notices would
also explain how to submit complaints
about accredited representatives or
organizations that exploit or misuse the
R&A process.
C. Administrative Termination of
Recognition and Accreditation

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

The proposed rule would replace the
current withdrawal-of-recognition
process with administrative termination
procedures in order to provide a clear
and more effective mechanism for OLAP
to regulate the R&A roster for
administrative, non-disciplinary
reasons.
As commenters have noted in public
meetings and written comments, the
current withdrawal-of-recognition
procedures are largely ineffective and
have been rarely used.78 Withdrawal of
recognition requires DHS to investigate
whether an organization has maintained
the qualifications for recognition and to
initiate the withdrawal process through
a notice to show cause.79 The process
involves a hearing before an
76 See Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel,
Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626, 651 (1985)
(stating that required factual disclosures by
commercial entities that are reasonably related to a
valid government interest do not violate the First
Amendment).
77 Commenters have suggested that the
recognition and accreditation determination letter
include a certificate for office display. The
certificate could have the names of the organization
and representatives, expiration dates, and
information regarding where complaints can be
filed against organizations, representatives, or
notarios. Additionally, commenters have
recommended that photo identification cards or
secure badges be required for accredited
representatives. The proposed rule does not require
issuance of a certificate, secure identity card, or
badge. Fully accredited representatives already are
required to register through EOIR’s eRegistry. See 8
CFR 1292.1. There would be costs to implement any
additional requirements and EOIR does not intend
to charge a fee to apply for recognition or
accreditation or to issue secure identity documents
for all representatives. Rather, OLAP may explore
less costly options in the future to provide
certificates and accreditation cards. See R&A Public
Meeting Minutes at 2; R&A Program Comments at
1, 8, 15, 26, 58, 61, 63; AILA Comments at 3.
78 See R&A Public Meeting Minutes at 3; R&A
Program Comments at 59, 79; AILA Comments at 4.
79 See 8 CFR 1292.2(c).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

21:33 Sep 30, 2015

Jkt 238001

immigration judge,80 who recommends
a decision to the Board. The Board may
hold oral argument, and it issues the
final decision on withdrawal of
recognition. The Board has issued one
published decision in such proceedings
and DHS (and, before it, INS) have
rarely sought withdrawal of recognition
in the last 20 years.81 Withdrawal of
recognition has proven to be too
cumbersome a process to remove an
organization from the R&A roster for
administrative reasons. The proposed
rule would eliminate this process and
permit OLAP to terminate and remove
organizations and representatives from
the roster for administrative reasons
when appropriate.
The proposed rule provides a list of
administrative bases for terminating
recognition or accreditation. These
bases are limited to circumstances
within the knowledge of the
organization or representative. For
instance, an organization’s recognition
may be administratively terminated
because it voluntarily requested
termination, because it did not request
renewal of recognition,82 or because its
renewal request was disapproved.
Recognition of organizations and
accreditation of representatives may
also be terminated if OLAP notifies the
organization or representative of a
deficiency affecting eligibility for
recognition and accreditation—such as a
failure to maintain the qualifications for
recognition or accreditation or a failure
to comply with the reporting,
recordkeeping, and posting
requirements—and the organization or
representative does not dispute or
provide an adequate explanation for the
deficiency after being provided an
opportunity to do so.
Upon notice to an organization that its
recognition has been terminated, the
accreditation of that organization’s
representatives will automatically be
terminated as well, unless those
individuals are also accredited through
another recognized organization. The
termination of a representative’s
80 The current withdrawal-of-recognition
regulation, which has not been updated since the
creation of DHS, refers to a hearing before a ‘‘special
inquiry officer.’’ See 8 CFR 1292.2(c). That term is
outdated and refers to the former title of individuals
now known as ‘‘immigration judges.’’
81 See Matter of Baptist Educational Center, 20
I&N Dec. 723, 736 (BIA 1993) (withdrawing an
organization’s recognition upon finding that the
organization was not a non-profit because it was not
an entity separate and apart from its accredited
representative, who used the organization’s
recognition to obtain accreditation and receive
income for himself).
82 The proposed rule permits OLAP to grant
additional time for an organization to renew its
recognition or to accept late-filed renewal requests
from organizations.

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

59525

accreditation may result in termination
of the recognition of the representative’s
organization if the organization does not
have any other accredited
representatives. If that is the case,
OLAP, independently or at the request
of the organization, in the exercise of
discretion, may place the organization
on inactive status in lieu of terminating
the organization’s recognition. Inactive
status precludes the organization from
providing immigration legal services if
it does not have an attorney on staff, but
gives the organization a reasonable
opportunity to apply for and have
approved the accreditation of a new
representative without having to request
recognition anew.
D. Sanctioning Recognized
Organizations and Accredited
Representatives
The proposed rule would provide an
additional tool for EOIR to regulate the
roster of recognized organizations
through EOIR’s well-established
disciplinary procedures at part 1003,
subpart G, 8 CFR 1003.101 et seq. The
disciplinary process is separate and
apart from administrative termination,
and is directed at removing and
potentially barring from the roster
organizations and representatives that
commit misconduct and act against the
public interest.
Currently, only attorneys,
representatives, and other
practitioners 83 are subject to sanctions
for committing misconduct or acting
against the public interest. Recognized
organizations are subject to withdrawal
of recognition, which, as discussed
above, is limited to removing
organizations for failing to maintain the
qualifications for recognition (e.g., nonprofit status and nominal fees for its
services). The current regulations do not
address circumstances where
organizations may submit false
information to obtain recognition, abuse
their recognized status by affiliating
with unscrupulous individuals like
notarios, or fail to monitor the provision
of services provided by their
representatives. The proposed rule
extends sanctions to recognized
organizations that commit misconduct
or act against the public interest.
Building on EOIR’s well-established
disciplinary procedures in part 1003,
83 ‘‘Other practitioners’’ includes qualifying law
students and law graduates not yet admitted to the
bar, reputable individuals, and accredited officials
who, like attorneys and accredited representatives,
are authorized to represent clients before EOIR and
are subject to EOIR’s disciplinary procedures and
sanctions. Such practitioners are typically
authorized to appear in a single case and do not
have multiple clients or caseloads like attorneys or
accredited representatives.

E:\FR\FM\01OCP3.SGM

01OCP3

59526

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 190 / Thursday, October 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules

subpart G, the proposed rule would
create a uniform disciplinary process for
attorneys, accredited representatives,
other practitioners and, now,
organizations. The EOIR disciplinary
counsel and the DHS disciplinary
counsel will receive complaints against
recognized organizations, just as they
currently receive complaints against
attorneys, accredited representatives,
and other practitioners. The EOIR
disciplinary counsel or DHS
disciplinary counsel, or both, will
conduct a preliminary inquiry into the
complaints to determine if they have
merit. If a complaint lacks merit, it will
be dismissed. If a complaint has merit,
the EOIR or DHS disciplinary counsel
may disclose the information to OLAP
so that OLAP may informally resolve
the matter with the recognized
organization or consider the information
in the renewal process. The EOIR or
DHS disciplinary counsel may also
initiate formal disciplinary proceedings
against the recognized organization
under the procedures specified at 8 CFR
1003.101 et seq. Under the proposed
rule, recognized organizations would be
subject to the same regulatory
procedures for formal disciplinary
proceedings as attorneys and accredited
representatives, with some exceptions
specified below.84
The proposed rule would thus
generally amend EOIR’s disciplinary
procedures so that they apply equally to
recognized organizations, accredited
representatives, and attorneys. The
proposed rule would also add
provisions to the disciplinary
regulations that apply only to (1)
recognized organizations, (2) accredited
representatives, or (3) attorneys,
accredited representatives, and other
practitioners.

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

1. Grounds and Sanctions Applicable to
Recognized Organizations
The proposed rule provides, at 8 CFR
1003.110, a non-exhaustive list of
grounds for which it would be in the
public interest to impose sanctions
against a recognized organization,
including: (1) Providing a false
statement or misleading information in
applying for recognition or accreditation
of the organization’s representatives; (2)
84 The proposed rule would codify the existing
delegation of authority from the EOIR Director to
the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer to appoint,
upon request of the Chief Immigration Judge, an
administrative law judge as adjudicating official in
disciplinary proceedings. If neither the Chief
Immigration Judge nor the Chief Administrative
Hearing Officer appoints an adjudicating official, or
in the interest of efficiency, the EOIR Director may
appoint an immigration judge or administrative law
judge as an adjudicating official for the disciplinary
proceedings.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

21:33 Sep 30, 2015

Jkt 238001

providing false or misleading
information to clients or prospective
clients regarding the scope of authority
or the services provided by the
organization or its accredited
representatives; (3) failing to adequately
supervise accredited representatives; or
(4) employing, receiving services from,
or affiliating with an individual who
performs an activity that constitutes the
unauthorized practice of law or
immigration fraud. These grounds for
disciplinary sanctions ensure that only
qualified organizations are recognized
and that those organizations are
providing competent representation.
While recognized organizations
should be able to discern the scope of
the rule’s expectations with respect to
the first, second, and fourth grounds of
discipline listed above, a fuller
explanation of what is expected of
organizations with respect to the failureto-supervise ground is provided herein.
That ground requires that organizations
oversee the legal services provided
through their accredited representatives
and any attorneys on staff. A recognized
organization is not required to monitor
the day-to-day services provided by its
accredited representatives, but the
organization should supervise
accredited representatives who have
been the subject of warning letters,
informal admonitions, and agreements
in lieu of discipline from the EOIR or
DHS disciplinary counsel. The proposed
rule would amend the confidentiality
provisions at 8 CFR 1003.108 governing
the information that the EOIR
disciplinary counsel obtains and
possesses so that the disciplinary
counsel may share information about
resolutions that pertain to accredited
representatives 85 with OLAP and an
accredited representative’s
organization.86 These amendments
ensure that both OLAP and recognized
organizations are fully aware of
complaints and other issues related to
accredited representatives.87 If the
conduct that subjected the accredited
85 The confidentiality provisions have not been
changed as they pertain to practitioners other than
accredited representatives, such as attorneys.
Information concerning such practitioners remains
confidential to the same extent as under the current
regulations.
86 The proposed rule does not require the EOIR
disciplinary counsel to disclose this information.
Rather, the EOIR disciplinary counsel, in the
exercise of discretion, may share information with
OLAP and organizations to the extent that the
disclosure of information will not interfere with the
EOIR disciplinary counsel’s regulatory obligations
or an ongoing investigation.
87 Note that DHS has separate confidentiality
provisions in its regulations that would govern DHS
disciplinary counsel’s ability to share similar
information with OLAP and recognized
organizations.

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

representative to discipline continues
after notice to the organization, the
EOIR or DHS disciplinary counsel
would be able to consider whether to
seek sanctions against the organization
for failing to provide adequate
supervision.
The sanctions that may be imposed
against a recognized organization are (1)
revocation; (2) termination; or (3) any
other sanction, other than a
suspension,88 that an adjudicating
official or the Board deems appropriate.
Revocation removes an organization and
its accredited representatives from the
recognition and accreditation roster and
permanently bars the organization from
being recognized anew.89 Termination,
like administrative termination, also
removes an organization and its
accredited representatives from the
recognition and accreditation roster, but
does not permanently bar it from
subsequently applying for recognition.
Unlike administrative termination,
however, the adjudicating official or the
Board may impose a time restriction on
the organization that would preclude
the organization from submitting a new
request for recognition before a
specified date.
2. Grounds and Sanctions Applicable to
Accredited Representatives
The proposed rule would make two
changes to the current grounds for
discipline that are applicable only to
accredited representatives, and provide
a new process for the interim
suspension of certain accredited
representatives in disciplinary
proceedings.
Both changes to the grounds for
discipline are aimed at precluding
accredited representatives from acting
or attempting to act outside the scope of
their full or partial accreditation. In
other words, a partially accredited
representative, who is permitted to
appear only before DHS, must not act or
88 In drafting the proposed rule, EOIR determined
that suspension would not be a permissible
sanction against a recognized organization due to
the administrative complexities of suspending and
reinstating an organization. These complexities
stem from the interconnected relationship between
organizations and their representatives and their
respective renewal periods, and the possibility that
an organization’s qualifications to be recognized
may be at issue after discipline.
89 In addition to revoking an organization’s
recognition, an adjudicating official may identify
individuals affiliated with the organization who
were directly involved in the conduct that
constituted the grounds for revocation. If such
identified individuals affiliate with a new
organization, OLAP may consider their past
conduct when assessing the new organization’s
applications for recognition or accreditation. The
burden would be on the new organization to show
that the individual would not engage in similar
conduct in the future.

E:\FR\FM\01OCP3.SGM

01OCP3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 190 / Thursday, October 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

attempt to act as a fully accredited
representative, who is permitted to
appear before DHS, the immigration
courts, and the Board. The proposed
rule would amend 8 CFR 1003.102(f) to
define the circumstances in which an
accredited representative would be
considered to have made a false or
misleading communication about his or
her qualifications or services that cannot
be substantiated. The proposed rule
would also add, at 8 CFR 1003.102(v),
a new ground for discipline if an
accredited representative acts outside
the scope of his or her accreditation.
The proposed rule would also add 8
CFR 1003.111 to provide for the
imposition of an interim suspension
against certain accredited
representatives in disciplinary
proceedings. If the EOIR disciplinary
counsel or DHS disciplinary counsel
demonstrates by a preponderance of the
evidence that an accredited
representative poses a substantial threat
of irreparable harm to clients or
prospective clients, an adjudicating
official may issue an interim suspension
to the accredited representative. The
interim suspension would preclude a
representative who has committed or is
likely to commit serious misconduct
from continuing to practice during the
pendency of his or her disciplinary
proceedings so as to protect the public
from further potential harm.
3. Procedures Applicable to Recognized
Organizations and Accredited
Representatives
The proposed rule would add two
provisions to the disciplinary
procedures that are applicable only to
recognized organizations and accredited
representatives. First, the proposed rule
states that administrative termination of
an organization’s recognition or a
representative’s accreditation while
disciplinary proceedings are pending
has no effect on the continuation of
disciplinary proceedings or the
imposition of sanctions. The primary
objective of this amendment is to
prevent an organization or
representative from voluntarily
terminating recognition or accreditation
to avoid disciplinary sanctions.
Second, the proposed rule provides
that disciplinary sanctions, if imposed
against an organization or accredited
representative, would take effect
immediately upon the issuance of a
final order—that is, the issuance of the
Board’s decision on appeal or after the
time for filing an appeal from the
adjudicating official’s decision has
expired. Unlike imposition of
disciplinary sanctions against attorneys
and other practitioners, which take

VerDate Sep<11>2014

21:33 Sep 30, 2015

Jkt 238001

effect 15 days after the final order,
disciplinary sanctions would be
imposed immediately against
organizations and accredited
representatives. Recognized
organizations and their accredited
representatives are permitted to
represent persons before the
immigration courts, the Board, or DHS
because EOIR itself grants them that
permission and indicates to the public
that the recognized organizations and
accredited representatives are qualified
to provide representation. Although
attorneys also appear on behalf of
multiple immigration clients, they do
not need similar permission from EOIR
to do so; they may practice before DHS,
the immigration courts, and the Board
because they are members in good
standing of a state bar and not subject
to any orders restricting their practice of
law. The imposition of discipline
against an organization or accredited
representative thus allows EOIR to act
immediately to protect the public from
organizations and representatives that
have engaged in misconduct by
preventing them from continuing such
conduct and significantly impairing the
cases of individuals appearing before
DHS, the immigration courts, and the
Board.
4. Reinstatement
The proposed rule would amend the
provisions regarding reinstatement after
suspension or disbarment. Some of
these amendments would apply to
accredited representatives, attorneys,
and other practitioners, while others
would apply only to accredited
representatives.
The proposed rule would allow the
EOIR or DHS disciplinary counsel to
object to reinstatement because a
practitioner failed to comply with the
terms of a suspension; such objections
could be raised in the context of both
reinstatement after a suspension has
expired and requests for early
reinstatement. The EOIR and DHS
disciplinary counsel frequently receive
evidence that suspended practitioners
continue to practice immigration law
while they are under an order of
suspension. This new provision would
enable the EOIR and DHS disciplinary
counsels to raise relevant evidence to
the Board during reinstatement
proceedings.
In addition, the proposed rule would
make two changes to the reinstatement
provisions that are applicable only to
accredited representatives. First,
accredited representatives who are
disbarred by EOIR are permanently
barred from appearing before the Board,
the immigration courts, or DHS as

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

59527

accredited representatives and cannot
seek reinstatement. Disbarment is
permanent for accredited
representatives because, as discussed
above, EOIR is responsible for
permitting accredited representatives to
represent persons before EOIR and DHS,
and it must protect the public from
representatives who have been found to
have engaged in misconduct worthy of
disbarment. Second, the proposed rule
would amend the reinstatement
provisions to provide that accredited
representatives may seek reinstatement
only if, following the expiration of their
suspension, there is time remaining on
their period of accreditation. In other
words, an accredited representative who
has been suspended for a period of time
greater than the remaining validity
period of his or her accreditation at the
time of the suspension is not eligible to
be reinstated. In such circumstances, an
organization may submit a new request
for accreditation on behalf of such an
individual after the period of
suspension has elapsed.
E. Recognition and Accreditation for
Practice Before DHS
As noted, this proposed rule would
amend the standards governing
recognition of organizations and
accreditation of representatives seeking
to practice before either DHS or EOIR.
Currently, those standards are set forth
in two parallel sets of regulations:
Regulations under the authority of DHS
and contained in 8 CFR part 292; and
regulations under the authority of the
Department and contained in 8 CFR part
1292. Each set of regulations contains
substantially similar standards for
recognition and accreditation, and each
directs organizations and individuals to
apply to the Board in order to obtain
recognition or accreditation. Compare 8
CFR 292.1(a)(4), 292.2, with 8 CFR
1292.1(a)(4), 1292.2.
Although this proposed rule would
revise only 8 CFR part 1292, it would
prescribe the standards and procedures
that EOIR would apply in adjudicating
all future applications for recognition
and accreditation, including
applications for partial accreditation to
represent individuals before DHS.
Accordingly, as of the effective date of
a final rule, EOIR would not apply the
standards and procedures for
recognition and accreditation set forth
in 8 CFR part 292. DHS has informed
the Department that it plans to publish
regulatory amendments to 8 CFR part
292 consistent with any pertinent
changes to Department regulations. The
Department welcomes public comment
on this matter.

E:\FR\FM\01OCP3.SGM

01OCP3

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

59528

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 190 / Thursday, October 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules

V. Request for Public Comments
Based on the foregoing and the
proposed rule, the Department
welcomes comments from the public on
all aspects of this rule.90 In particular,
the Department seeks the public’s input
on the following aspects of the proposed
rule:
• The proposed requirement that an
organization must demonstrate Federal
tax-exempt status, including whether
there are any non-profit organizations
that are currently recognized that would
be precluded from recognition by this
requirement; and whether recognition
should be restricted to non-profit
organizations that have obtained section
501(c)(3) tax-exempt status from the
IRS.
• The proposed requirement that a
‘‘substantial amount of the
organization’s immigration legal
services budget is derived from sources
other than funds provided by or on
behalf of immigration clients themselves
(such as legal fees, donations, or
membership dues).’’
• The proposed requirement that an
organization must demonstrate that its
immigration legal services are directed
primarily to low-income and indigent
clients within the United States and
that, if an organization charges fees, the
organization has a written policy for
accommodating clients unable to pay for
immigration legal services.
• The proposed requirement that, in
order to be recognized, each
organization must have an accredited
representative, including whether an
organization with a licensed attorney
and no accredited representative on staff
should be able to become a recognized
organization.
• The proposed replacement of the
‘‘good moral character’’ requirement for
accreditation with the requirement that
an accredited representative possesses
the ‘‘character and fitness’’ to represent
clients, including what factors may be
relevant to that assessment. Under this
requirement, how should current
immigration status be a factor in the
fitness determination; to what extent
should the agency consider whether the
individual has employment
authorization, has been issued a notice
of intent to revoke or terminate an
immigration status (or other relief), such
as asylum or withholding of removal or
deportation, or is in pending
deportation, exclusion, or removal
proceedings?
90 Additionally, EOIR intends to engage with the
public through public meetings and other means to
receive comments on the entire rule. EOIR will
provide notice of any public engagements in the
Federal Register and on its Web site.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

21:33 Sep 30, 2015

Jkt 238001

• The proposed provision permitting
an organization to extend its recognition
and the accreditation of its
representatives to any office or location
where it offers immigration legal
services.
• The proposed provision that would
grant conditional recognition to an
organization if it has not been
recognized previously or has been
approved for recognition after its
recognition was previously terminated,
including whether conditionally
recognized organizations, particularly
new organizations, would be able to
remove conditional status after one year,
instead of two, by producing the
required records (including
documentation demonstrating taxexempt status) and otherwise meeting
the requirements for renewal.
• The absence, as under the current
R&A regulations, of any opportunity for
administrative review or appeal of
adverse OLAP determinations regarding
the recognition of organizations or the
accreditation of representatives. Under
the revised procedures, would it be
appropriate to provide some
opportunity for administrative review of
adverse OLAP determinations, and if so,
to what extent and in what contexts?
VI. Regulatory Requirements
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act
In accordance with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, this rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. See
5 U.S.C. 605(b).
Currently, there are more than 900
recognized organizations and more than
1,600 accredited representatives. This
rule seeks to increase the number of
recognized organizations and accredited
representatives that are competent and
qualified to provide immigration legal
services primarily to low-income and
indigent persons. The Department,
however, cannot estimate with certainty
the actual increase in the number of
recognized organizations and accredited
individuals that may result from the
proposed rule. That figure is subject to
multiple external factors, including
changes in immigration law and policy
and fluctuating needs for representation
and immigration legal services.
While EOIR does not keep statistics
on the size of recognized organizations,
many of these organizations and their
accredited representatives may be
classified as, or employed by, ‘‘small
entities’’ as defined under section 5
U.S.C. 601. In particular, recognized
organizations, which are by definition
non-profit entities, may also be
classified as ‘‘small organizations’’ and

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

thus, as ‘‘small entities’’ under section
601.
Although the exact number of
recognized organizations that may be
classified as ‘‘small entities’’ is not
known, the Department certifies that
this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of these entities. The proposed
rule, like the current regulations, does
not assess any fees on an organization
to apply for initial recognition or
accreditation, to renew recognition or
accreditation, or to extend recognition.
The Department, however,
acknowledges that organizations may
incur costs to apply for recognition or
accreditation, renew recognition or
accreditation, or extend recognition.
Based on Bureau of Labor Statistics
reports and the average burden hours to
apply for recognition or accreditation,
renew recognition or accreditation, or
extend recognition, discussed below in
the Paperwork Reduction Act section,
the Department estimates the costs as
follows. See also Section G infra
(discussing these burdens in detail in
connection with the Paperwork
Reduction Act). If an organization hires
a lawyer to assist with the application
process, the organization would incur
costs of approximately $109.90 to apply
for initial recognition, $164.85 to renew
recognition, and $109.90 to apply for or
to renew accreditation. If an
organization prepares its applications
on its own, the organization would
incur costs of approximately $20.00 to
apply for initial recognition, $30.00 to
renew recognition, and $20.00 to apply
for or to renew accreditation.
The Department also recognizes that
the proposed rule imposes a new
recordkeeping requirement on
recognized organizations to compile and
maintain fee schedules, if the
organization charges any fees, and
annual reports for a period of six years.
However, the Department does not
believe that the recordkeeping
requirement will have a significant
economic impact on recognized
organizations. The annual reports would
be compiled from information already
in the possession of recognized
organizations, and based on the
estimates from the Paperwork Reduction
Act section below, the Department
estimates that it would cost an
organization approximately $54.95 to
have a lawyer compile three annual
reports, and $10.00 for a non-lawyer to
do so.91 Maintaining the fee schedules
and annual reports after their creation
91 Note that the total average burden (and cost) for
renewing recognition includes the burden (and
cost) of compiling three annual reports.

E:\FR\FM\01OCP3.SGM

01OCP3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 190 / Thursday, October 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
for six years should not impose any
significant economic impact on
recognized organizations because such
records may be retained in the normal
course of business like other records,
such as client files, that organizations
are obligated to retain for state or
Federal purposes.
Despite the costs mentioned above,
the Department notes that the proposed
rule will economically benefit
recognized organizations. The proposed
rule eliminates the requirement that
recognized organizations assess only
‘‘nominal charges’’ for their immigration
legal services. Shifting the primary
focus of eligibility for recognition from
the fees an organization charges its
clients to the organization’s funding will
provide organizations with flexibility in
assessing fees, which should improve
their financial sustainability and their
ability to serve more persons.

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995
This rule will not result in the
expenditure by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100 million or more
in any one year, and it will not
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. Therefore, no actions were
deemed necessary under the provisions
of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995.
C. Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
This rule is not a major rule as
defined in section 251 of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996. See 5 U.S.C. 804.
As discussed in the certification under
the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
organizations and representatives will
not be assessed a fee to either apply for
or seek renewal of recognition and
accreditation, and the burden of seeking
renewal of recognition has been
reasonably mitigated. The Department
recognizes, however, that the proposed
rule’s elimination of the ‘‘nominal
charges’’ restriction may affect
competition and employment in the
market for legal services because a
recognized organization could charge
higher fees (but less than market rates)
to clients. The proposed rule balances
the elimination of the ‘‘nominal
charges’’ restriction by also requiring
that non-profit organizations primarily
serve low-income and indigent persons
and those in underserved areas. Legal
fees charged by a non-profit
organization are expected to be at a rate
meaningfully less than the cost of hiring
competent private immigration counsel
in the same geographic area.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

21:33 Sep 30, 2015

Jkt 238001

Accordingly, this rule will not result in
an annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more, a major increase in
costs or prices, or significant adverse
effects on competition, employment,
investment, productivity, innovation, or
on the ability of United States-based
enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic and
export markets.
D. Executive Order 12866 and Executive
Order 13563 (Regulatory Planning and
Review)
The proposed rule is considered by
the Department to be a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under section 3(f)(4)
of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly,
the regulation has been submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review. The Department
certifies that this regulation has been
drafted in accordance with the
principles of Executive Order 12866,
section 1(b), and Executive Order 13563.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
direct agencies to assess all costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health, and safety
effects, distributive impacts, and
equity). Executive Order 13563
emphasizes the importance of
quantifying costs and benefits, reducing
costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting
flexibility.
The proposed rule seeks to address
the critical and ongoing shortage of
qualified legal representation for
underserved populations in immigration
cases before Federal administrative
agencies. Specifically, the proposed rule
would revise the eligibility
requirements and procedures for
recognizing organizations and
accrediting their representatives to
provide immigration legal services to
underserved populations. To expand the
availability of such legal services, the
proposed rule permits recognized
organizations to extend their recognition
and the accreditation of their
representatives to multiple offices or
locations and to have flexibility in
charging fees for services. The proposed
rule also imposes greater oversight over
recognized organizations and their
representatives in order to protect
against potential abuse of vulnerable
immigrant populations by unscrupulous
organizations and individuals.
The proposed rule will greatly benefit
organizations, DHS, EOIR, and most
importantly, persons who need legal
representation. The proposed rule is
expected to increase the availability of

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

59529

competent and qualified legal
representation in underserved areas and
particularly for indigent and lowincome persons where an ongoing and
critical shortage of such representation
exists. For example, the elimination of
the nominal fee restriction will allow
organizations the flexibility to assess
fees so that organizations will be able to
sustain their operations and potentially
expand them to serve more persons. In
addition, the extension of recognition
and accreditation to multiple offices or
locations will permit organizations and
their representatives, through mobile or
technological means, to reach
underserved persons who may currently
have difficulty finding legal
representation in remote or rural
locations. These two provisions will
greatly increase legal representation for
persons before EOIR and DHS, and in
turn, will substantially aid the
administration of justice.
The proposed rule will provide EOIR
with greater tools to manage and oversee
the recognition and accreditation
program. The proposed rule requires
organizations to renew their recognition
and their representatives’ accreditation
every three years, and it imposes
reporting, recordkeeping, and posting
requirements on the organizations. The
Department acknowledges that the new
oversight provisions impose burdens on
organizations. However, the burdens on
the organizations are necessary to
protect vulnerable immigrant
populations from unscrupulous
organizations and individuals and to
legitimize reputable organizations and
representatives.
Although the renewal requirement
adds a new burden on recognized
organizations, the Department has
reasonably mitigated this burden. The
proposed rule simplifies the renewal
process so that all renewal requests,
both for recognition and for
accreditation of representatives of the
organization are filed simultaneously.
Also, the documentation to support
renewal of recognition and accreditation
would be supplemental to the
documentation used to establish initial
eligibility for recognition and
accreditation. The information and
documentation required to renew
recognition should be in the possession
of the organization in the normal course
of its operations.
The reporting requirement expands
the reporting obligation of organizations
under the current rule, which only
requires organizations to report changes
in the organization’s name, address, or
public telephone number, or in the
employment status of an accredited
representative. The proposed rule

E:\FR\FM\01OCP3.SGM

01OCP3

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

59530

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 190 / Thursday, October 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules

expands the requirement to include any
changes that would affect the
organization’s recognition (such as a
merger), or a representative’s
accreditation (such as a change in the
representative’s name). The reporting
requirement should not impose a
significant cost to organizations because
organizations may comply with the
requirement by simply contacting EOIR
to report such changes.
The recordkeeping requirement will
primarily aid EOIR in evaluating an
organization’s request to renew
recognition. The recordkeeping
requirement requires an organization to
compile fee schedules, if it charges any
fees, and annual reports, and maintain
them for a period of six years. The
recordkeeping requirement is not
unduly burdensome, as organizations
should have such information in their
possession, and the six-year record
retention requirement is consistent with
the organization’s obligation to retain
records, such as client files, for state or
Federal purposes.
The posting requirement would
require organizations to post public
notices about the approval period of an
organization’s recognition and the
accreditation of its representatives, the
requirements for recognition and
accreditation, and the process for filing
a complaint against a recognized
organization or accredited
representative. EOIR would provide the
notices to the organizations, and the
organizations would not incur any
tangible costs for the minimal burden of
posting the notices. In fact, the public
notices should greatly benefit
organizations because the notices would
legitimize organizations and notify the
public that they are qualified to provide
immigration legal services.
As detailed in Sections A (Regulatory
Flexibility Act), supra, and G
(Paperwork Reduction Act), infra, EOIR
anticipates that if an organization hires
a lawyer to assist with the application
process, the organization would incur
costs of approximately $109.90 to apply
for initial recognition, $164.85 to renew
recognition, and $109.90 to apply for or
to renew accreditation. If an
organization prepares its applications
on its own, the organization would
incur costs of approximately $20.00 to
apply for initial recognition, $30.00 to
renew recognition, and $20.00 to apply
for or to renew accreditation.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This rule may have federalism
implications but, as detailed below, will
not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the
National Government and the States, or

VerDate Sep<11>2014

21:33 Sep 30, 2015

Jkt 238001

on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
The proposed rule, like the current
regulations it would replace, permits
non-lawyer accredited representatives to
engage in the practice of law before
EOIR and DHS. This practice of law by
non-lawyers may constitute the
unauthorized practice of law under
some state laws and rules prohibiting
the unauthorized practice of law. The
proposed rule, like the current
regulations, would preempt such state
law prohibitions pursuant to Sperry v.
Florida ex rel. Florida Bar, 373 U.S. 379
(1963), to the extent they prohibit
accredited representatives from
practicing law before EOIR and DHS.92
Despite the preemptive effects of this
proposed rule, the federalism
implications are minimal. The proposed
rule merely updates the current, wellestablished regulations permitting nonlawyer accredited representatives to
engage in the practice of law before
EOIR and DHS. The proposed rule does
not alter or extend the scope of the
limited authorization to practice law
before Federal administrative agencies
provided under the current regulations.
More significantly, following Sperry,
many States have determined that the
limited authorization for non-lawyers to
practice law before EOIR and DHS does
not constitute the unauthorized practice
of law under their State laws and
rules.93
Under these circumstances, in
accordance with section 6 of Executive
Order 13132, it is determined that this
rule does not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation
of a federalism summary impact
statement.
F. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice
Reform
This rule meets the applicable
standards set forth in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
92 Sperry held that a statute and implementing
regulation authorizing non-lawyers to practice
before the Patent Office preempted a contrary state
law prohibition on the unauthorized practice of law
to the extent that the state law prohibition was
incompatible with the Federal rules. See 373 U.S.
at 385.
93 See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 12–2702(A)(4)
(stating that an accredited representative is not
engaging in the unauthorized practice of
immigration law by proving immigration legal
services); N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:21–31(d) (same); N.M.
Stat. Ann. § 36–3–4(A)(4) (same); Va. Unauthorized
Practice R. 9–103 (same); North Carolina State Bar,
Preventing Unlicensed Legal Practice, http://
www.ncbar.gov/public/upl.asp (last visited Sept.
15, 2015) (same).

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

G. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA) of 1995, no person is required to
respond to a Federal collection of
information unless the agency has in
advance obtained a control number from
OMB. In accordance with the PRA, the
Department has submitted requests to
OMB to revise the currently approved
information collections contained in
this rule (Forms EOIR–31, EOIR–31A
and EOIR–44). These information
collections were previously approved by
OMB under the provisions of the PRA,
and the information collections were
assigned OMB Control Numbers 1125–
0012 (EOIR–31), 1125–0013 (EOIR–
31A), and 1125–0007 (EOIR–44).
Through this notice of proposed
rulemaking, the Department invites
comments from the public and affected
agencies regarding the revised
information collections. Comments are
encouraged and will be accepted for
sixty days in conjunction with the
proposed rule. Comments should be
directed to the address listed in the
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of
this preamble. Comments should also be
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget, Office of the Information
and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk
Officer for EOIR, New Executive
Building, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20053. This process is
in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
If you have any suggestions or
comments, especially on the estimated
public burden or associated response
time, or need a copy of the proposed
information collection instruments with
instructions or additional information,
please contact the Department as noted
above. Written comments and
suggestions from the public and affected
agencies concerning the proposed
collections of information are
encouraged.
Comments on the proposed
information collections should address
one or more of the following four points:
(1) Whether the proposed collections of
information are necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
(2) the accuracy of the agency’s estimate
of the burden of the proposed
collections of information, including the
validity of the methodology and
assumptions used; (3) how the
Department could enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and (4) how the
Department could minimize the burden
of the collections of information on
those who elect to respond, including
through the use of appropriate

E:\FR\FM\01OCP3.SGM

01OCP3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 190 / Thursday, October 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information
technology (e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses).
Based on the proposed rule, three
currently approved information
collection instruments will need to be
revised: (1) The form for non-profit
religious, charitable, or social service
organizations to apply for recognition
(Form EOIR–31) (Current OMB approval
number: 1125–0012); (2) the form for
recognized organizations to apply for
accreditation of non-attorney
representatives (Form EOIR–31A)
(Current OMB approval number: 1125–
0013); and (3) the form for filing a
complaint against an immigration
practitioner (Form EOIR–44) (Current
OMB approval number: 1125–0007).

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

1. Request for Recognition, Renewal of
Recognition, or Extension of
Recognition for a Non-Profit, Federal
Tax-Exempt Religious, Charitable,
Social Service, or Similar Organization
(Form EOIR–31)
The revised Form EOIR–31 will be
used to apply for initial recognition,
renewal of recognition, and extension of
recognition. Form EOIR–31 will
generally be used every three years in
connection with a request to renew
recognition. It may also be used on
occasion in the three-year period prior
to renewal if an organization seeks to
extend recognition to a new office or
location, although extension of
recognition to a new office may also be
sought at the same time that initial
recognition or renewal of recognition is
sought.
Form EOIR–31 will be updated to
reflect the eligibility requirements for an
organization to be initially recognized
and to renew recognition, as stated in
the proposed rule. All of the
information required under the current
information collection will be required
by the revised form, as most of the
eligibility requirements under the
current regulations are consistent with
the proposed rule; 94 however, some of
the information will be examined
94 The revised form will require organizations to
provide the same information and documents that
are required under the current information
collection. Organizations will continue to have to
submit: A copy of their charter, constitution, bylaws, or articles of incorporation; documentation of
their Federal tax-exempt status (e.g., the first page
of the last IRS information return, if any);
information regarding fees charged to clients,
including fee schedules and fee waiver or reducedfee policies; documents regarding funding sources
and budget; and information regarding the
immigration services the organizations intend to
provide, members of their staff, their legal
resources, and consultation agreements with other
organizations or private attorneys.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

21:33 Sep 30, 2015

Jkt 238001

differently to determine whether an
organization satisfies the new eligibility
requirements for recognition of the
proposed rule.
The proposed rule would require
revision of the currently approved
information collection with regard to its
use for renewal of recognition. In the
renewal context, the revised form
requires organizations to provide: (1)
Fee schedules used since the last
approval of recognition; and (2) annual
reports for each year since the last
approval of recognition. As described in
footnote 75, the annual report should
include information already gathered by
the organization, such as the number of
clients served, the types of services
provided, the number of clients who
were provided with services at no cost,
the total amount of fees charged to and
donations or dues requested from
immigration clients for the services
provided, and the locations where
accredited representatives provided
legal services. The fee schedules and
annual reports will be used to: (1)
Evaluate an organization’s request to
renew recognition to determine whether
the organization is satisfying the
requirements for recognition, namely
the provision of immigration legal
services to primarily low-income and
indigent persons; and (2) evaluate the
effectiveness of the recognition and
accreditation program in providing
immigration legal services to primarily
low-income and indigent persons.
Under the current information
collection, which is currently used only
for initial recognition, the estimated
average time to review the form, gather
necessary materials, complete the form,
and assemble the attachments is 2
hours. The Department estimates that
the average total response time will
remain 2 hours for initial recognition
because initial recognition requires the
same materials as the current
information collection. For renewal of
recognition, with the additional
requirements described above, namely
the assembly of the annual reports, the
Department estimates that the average
time to review the form, gather
necessary materials, complete the form,
and assemble the attachments for each
application to renew recognition will be
3 hours in total. Both estimates include
the time saved from streamlining the
recognition process by allowing an
organization to file a single application
for multiple locations.95 The estimate
95 Note that organizations must currently seek
recognition separately for each office that provides
immigration legal services. Under the proposed rule
and revised form, organizations may extend
recognition from one office to other offices that
provide immigration legal services by providing

PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

59531

for the renewal context includes the
additional burdens associated with
document retention and preparation of
the annual reports. The Department
estimates that the number of
respondents seeking recognition in the
first year will be approximately 432
organizations (128 new organizations
and 304 recognized organizations
seeking renewal).96 The total public
burden of this revised collection is
estimated to be 1,168 burden hours
annually ((128 respondents × 1 response
per respondent × 2 hours per response
= 256 burden hours) + (304 respondents
× 1 response per respondent × 3 hours
per response = 912 burden hours) =
1,168 burden hours).
2. Request by Organization for
Accreditation or Renewal of
Accreditation of Non-Attorney (Form
EOIR–31A)
Form EOIR–31A will be updated to
reflect the eligibility requirements for an
individual to become an accredited
representative, as stated in the proposed
rule. The revisions are non-substantive
and are simply intended to clarify what
information is required when applying
for initial accreditation and renewal of
accreditation, as well as the eligibility
requirements for becoming an
accredited representative.97 The revised
form will not require the applicant to
provide any new or additional
information not already provided under
the current information collection. EOIR
Form-31A will continue to be used to
apply for initial accreditation and to
seek renewal of accreditation. EOIR
Form-31A will be generally used every
three years in connection with a request
to renew accreditation, and may be used
on occasion in the intervening time if an
organization seeks accreditation for a
new representative. As there is no new
or additional information collected
under the revised form, the Department
estimates the average response time of 2
hours to complete Form EOIR–31A for
information regarding the additional offices on the
same form as the initial office.
96 Under the proposed rule, the 913 currently
recognized organizations are expected to seek
renewal of recognition over the next three years.
Accordingly, the Department estimates that at least
one third (304) of the 913 approved organizations
will seek renewal of recognition each year for the
next three years.
97 For example, Part 5 (Qualifications for
Accreditation) of Form EOIR–31A has been revised
to include a list eligibility requirements, including
that the applicant is an employee or volunteer of
the organization; the applicant is not a licensed
attorney; the applicant is not subject to any order
restricting the individual in the practice of law or
from otherwise providing representation before a
court or administrative agency; and the applicant
has not been convicted of a serious crime anywhere
in the world.

E:\FR\FM\01OCP3.SGM

01OCP3

59532

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 190 / Thursday, October 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules

each application for initial accreditation
or to renew accreditation will remain
the same as the currently approved
collection, with a total number of
respondents at approximately 615
applications for accreditation annually.
The total public burden of this revised
collection is 1,230 burden hours
annually (615 respondents × 1 response
per respondent × 2 hours per response
= 1,230 burden hours).

8 CFR Part 1103
Administrative practice and
procedure, Authority delegations
(Government agencies), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

3. Immigration Practitioner Complaint
Form (Form EOIR–44)

8 CFR Part 1240
Administrative practice and
procedure, Aliens.

Form EOIR–44 will be updated to
reflect that the public may use the form
to file a complaint against a recognized
organization, in addition to an
immigration practitioner. The revised
form will not require the preparer to
provide any new or additional
information not already provided under
the current collection. The information
on this form will be used to determine
whether the EOIR or DHS disciplinary
counsel should conduct a preliminary
inquiry, request additional information
from the complainant, refer the matter
to a law enforcement agency, or take no
further action. The Department
estimates an average response time of 2
hours to complete Form EOIR–44, with
a total number of respondents at
approximately 200 complainants
annually. The total public burden of this
revised collection is 400 burden hours
annually.
There are no capital or start-up costs
associated with these information
collections. The estimated public cost is
zero. For informational purposes only,
there may be additional costs to
respondents. Respondents may incur a
cost if they hire a private practitioner to
assist them with completing these
forms. The Bureau of Labor Statistics
reports that the median hourly wage for
lawyers is $54.95. For those respondents
who proceed without a practitioner,
there is an estimated cost of $10 per
hour for completing the form (the
individuals’ time and supplies) in lieu
of the practitioner cost. There are also
no fees associated with filing these
forms.
List of Subjects

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

8 CFR Part 1001
Administrative practice and
procedure, Aliens, Immigration,
Organizations and functions
(Government agencies).
8 CFR Part 1003
Administrative practice and
procedure, Aliens, Immigration, Legal
services, Organizations and functions
(Government agencies).

VerDate Sep<11>2014

21:33 Sep 30, 2015

Jkt 238001

8 CFR Part 1212
Administrative practice and
procedure, Aliens, Immigration,
Passports and visas, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

8 CFR Part 1292
Administrative practice and
procedure, Immigration, Lawyers,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth
in the preamble, 8 CFR parts 1001, 1003,
1103, 1212, 1240, and 1292 are
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 1001—DEFINITIONS
1. The authority citation for part 1001
is revised to read as follows:

■

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 8 U.S.C. 1101,
1103; Pub. L. 107–296, 116 Stat. 2135; Title
VII of Pub. L. 110–229.

2. In § 1001.1, add paragraphs (x) and
(y) to read as follows:

■

§ 1001.1

Definitions.

*

*
*
*
*
(x) The term OLAP means the Office
of Legal Access Programs.
(y) The term OLAP Director means the
Program Director of the Office of Legal
Access Programs.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 1003—EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR
IMMIGRATION REVIEW
3. The authority citation for part 1003
continues to read as follows:

■

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 6 U.S.C. 521; 8
U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1154, 1155, 1158, 1182,
1226, 1229, 1229a, 1229b, 1229c, 1231,
1254a, 1255, 1324d, 1330, 1361, 1362; 28
U.S.C. 509, 510, 1746; sec. 2 Reorg. Plan No.
2 of 1950; 3 CFR, 1949–1953 Comp., p. 1002;
section 203 of Pub. L. 105–100, 111 Stat.
2196–200; sections 1506 and 1510 of Pub. L.
106–386, 114 Stat. 1527–29, 1531–32; section
1505 of Pub. L. 106–554, 114 Stat. 2763A–
326 to –328.

4. In § 1003.0, revise paragraphs (a)
and (e)(1), redesignate paragraph (f) as
paragraph (g), and add new paragraph
(f), to read as follows:

■

§ 1003.0
Review.

Executive Office for Immigration

(a) Organization. Within the
Department of Justice, there shall be an

PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

Executive Office for Immigration
Review (EOIR), headed by a Director
who is appointed by the Attorney
General. The Director shall be assisted
by a Deputy Director and by a General
Counsel. EOIR shall include the Board
of Immigration Appeals, the Office of
the Chief Immigration Judge, the Office
of the Chief Administrative Hearing
Officer, the Office of Legal Access
Programs, and such other staff as the
Attorney General or the Director may
provide.
*
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
(1) Professional standards. The
General Counsel shall administer
programs to protect the integrity of
immigration proceedings before EOIR,
including administering the disciplinary
program for practitioners and
recognized organizations under subpart
G of this part.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) Office of Legal Access Programs
and authorities of the Program Director.
Within EOIR, there shall be an Office of
Legal Access Programs (OLAP),
consisting of a Program Director and
such other staff as the Director deems
necessary. Subject to the supervision of
the Director, the Program Director of
OLAP (the OLAP Director), or his
designee, shall have the authority to:
(1) Develop and administer a system
of legal orientation programs to provide
education regarding administrative
procedures and legal rights under
immigration law;
(2) Develop and administer a program
to recognize organizations and accredit
representatives to provide
representation before the Immigration
Courts, the Board, and DHS, or DHS
alone. The OLAP Director shall
determine whether an organization and
its representatives meet the eligibility
requirements for recognition and
accreditation in accordance with this
chapter. The OLAP Director shall also
have the authority to administratively
terminate the recognition of an
organization and the accreditation of a
representative and to maintain the roster
of recognized organizations and their
accredited representatives;
(3) Issue guidance and policies
regarding the implementation of OLAP’s
statutory and regulatory authorities; and
(4) Exercise such other authorities as
the Director may provide.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 5. In § 1003.1, revise paragraph
(b)(13), the first sentence of paragraph
(d)(2)(iii), and paragraph (d)(5) to read
as follows:

E:\FR\FM\01OCP3.SGM

01OCP3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 190 / Thursday, October 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
§ 1003.1 Organization, jurisdiction, and
powers of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.

*

*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(13) Decisions of adjudicating officials
in disciplinary proceedings involving
practitioners or recognized
organizations as provided in subpart G
of this part.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) Disciplinary consequences. The
filing by a practitioner, as defined in
§ 1003.101(b), of an appeal that is
summarily dismissed under paragraph
(d)(2)(i) of this section, may constitute
frivolous behavior under § 1003.102(j).
* * *
*
*
*
*
*
(5) Discipline of practitioners and
recognized organizations. The Board
shall have the authority pursuant to
§ 1003.101 et seq. to impose sanctions
upon practitioners who appear in a
representative capacity before the
Board, the Immigration Courts, or DHS,
and upon recognized organizations. The
Board shall also have the authority
pursuant to § 1003.107 to reinstate
disciplined practitioners to appear in a
representative capacity before the Board
and the Immigration Courts, or DHS, or
all three authorities.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 6. In § 1003.101, add paragraph (c) to
read as follows:
§ 1003.101

General provisions.

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

*

*
*
*
*
(c) The administrative termination of
a representative’s accreditation under 8
CFR 1292.17 after the issuance of a
Notice of Intent to Discipline pursuant
to § 1003.105(a)(1) shall not preclude
the continuation of disciplinary
proceedings and the imposition of
sanctions, unless counsel for the
government moves to withdraw the
Notice of Intent to Discipline and the
adjudicating official or the Board grants
the motion.
■ 7. In § 1003.102, revise paragraph
(f)(2), remove the word ‘‘or’’ from the
end of paragraph (t)(2), remove the
period and add ‘‘; and’’ in its place at
the end of paragraph (u), and add
paragraph (v).
The revisions and addition read as
follows:
§ 1003.102

Grounds.

*

*
*
*
*
(f) * * *
(2) Contains an assertion about the
practitioner or his or her qualifications
or services that cannot be substantiated.
A practitioner shall not state or imply

VerDate Sep<11>2014

21:33 Sep 30, 2015

Jkt 238001

that he or she has been recognized or
certified as a specialist in immigration
or nationality law unless such
certification is granted by the
appropriate state regulatory authority or
by an organization that has been
approved by the appropriate state
regulatory authority to grant such
certification. An accredited
representative shall not state or imply
that he or she
(i) Is approved to practice before the
Immigration Courts or the Board, if he
or she is only approved as an accredited
representative before DHS;
(ii) Is an accredited representative for
an organization other than a recognized
organization through which he or she
acquired accreditation; or
(iii) Is an attorney.
*
*
*
*
*
(v) Acts outside the scope of his or her
approved authority as an accredited
representative.
■ 8. In § 1003.103, revise paragraph (c)
to read as follows:
§ 1003.103 Immediate suspension and
summary disciplinary proceedings; duty of
practitioner or recognized organization to
notify EOIR of conviction or discipline.

*

*
*
*
*
(c) Duty of practitioner and
recognized organizations to notify EOIR
of conviction or discipline. A
practitioner and if applicable, the
authorized officer of each recognized
organization with which a practitioner
is affiliated must notify the EOIR
disciplinary counsel within 30 days of
the issuance of the initial order, even if
an appeal of the conviction or discipline
is pending, when the practitioner has
been found guilty of, or pleaded guilty
or nolo contendere to, a serious crime,
as defined in § 1003.102(h), or has been
disbarred or suspended by, or while a
disciplinary investigation or proceeding
is pending has resigned from, the
highest court of any State, possession,
territory or Commonwealth of the
United States, or the District of
Columbia, or any Federal court. A
practitioner’s failure to do so may result
in an immediate suspension as set forth
in paragraph (a) of this section and other
final discipline. An organization’s
failure to do so may result in the
administrative termination of its
recognition for violating the reporting
requirement under 8 CFR 1292.14. This
duty to notify applies only to
convictions for serious crimes and to
orders imposing discipline for
professional misconduct entered on or
after August 28, 2000.
■ 9. In § 1003.104, revise paragraph (b)
to read as follows:

PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

59533

§ 1003.104 Filing of Complaints;
preliminary inquiries; resolutions; referrals
of complaints.

*

*
*
*
*
(b) Preliminary inquiry. Upon receipt
of a disciplinary complaint or on its
own initiative, the EOIR disciplinary
counsel will initiate a preliminary
inquiry. If a complaint is filed by a
client or former client, the complainant
thereby waives the attorney-client
privilege and any other privilege
relating to the representation to the
extent necessary to conduct a
preliminary inquiry and any subsequent
proceedings based thereon. If the EOIR
disciplinary counsel determines that a
complaint is without merit, no further
action will be taken. The EOIR
disciplinary counsel may, in his or her
discretion, close a preliminary inquiry if
the complainant fails to comply with
reasonable requests for assistance,
information, or documentation. The
complainant and the practitioner shall
be notified of any such determination in
writing.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 10. In § 1003.105, revise paragraph
(a)(1), the first sentence of paragraph
(c)(1), the last sentence of paragraph
(c)(2), and paragraphs (c)(3), (d)(2)
introductory text, and (d)(2)(ii) to read
as follows:
§ 1003.105

Notice of Intent to Discipline.

(a) Issuance of Notice. (1) If, upon
completion of the preliminary inquiry,
the EOIR disciplinary counsel
determines that sufficient prima facie
evidence exists to warrant charging a
practitioner with professional
misconduct as set forth in § 1003.102 or
a recognized organization with
misconduct as set forth in § 1003.110,
he or she will file with the Board and
issue to the practitioner or organization
that was the subject of the preliminary
inquiry a Notice of Intent to Discipline.
In cases involving practitioners, service
of the notice will be made upon the
practitioner either by certified mail to
his or her last known address, as
defined in paragraph (a)(2) of this
section, or by personal delivery. In cases
involving recognized organizations,
service of the notice will be made upon
the authorized officer of the
organization either by certified mail at
the address of the organization or by
personal delivery. The notice shall
contain a statement of the charge(s), a
copy of the preliminary inquiry report,
the proposed disciplinary sanctions to
be imposed, the procedure for filing an
answer or requesting a hearing, and the
mailing address and telephone number
of the Board. In summary disciplinary
proceedings brought pursuant to

E:\FR\FM\01OCP3.SGM

01OCP3

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

59534

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 190 / Thursday, October 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules

§ 1003.103(b), a preliminary inquiry
report is not required to be filed with
the Notice of Intent to Discipline. If a
Notice of Intent to Discipline is filed
against an accredited representative, the
EOIR disciplinary counsel shall send a
copy of the notice to the authorized
officer of the recognized organization
through which the representative is
accredited at the address of the
organization.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Answer. (1) Filing. The practitioner
or, in cases involving a recognized
organization, the organization shall file
a written answer to the Notice of Intent
to Discipline with the Board within 30
days of the date of service of the Notice
of Intent to Discipline unless, on motion
to the Board, an extension of time to
answer is granted for good cause. * * *
(2) * * * The practitioner or, in cases
involving a recognized organization, the
organization may also state affirmatively
special matters of defense and may
submit supporting documents,
including affidavits or statements, along
with the answer.
(3) Request for hearing. The
practitioner or, in cases involving a
recognized organization, the
organization shall also state in the
answer whether a hearing on the matter
is requested. If no such request is made,
the opportunity for a hearing will be
deemed waived.
(d) * * *
(2) Upon such a default by the
practitioner or, in cases involving a
recognized organization, the
organization, the counsel for the
government shall submit to the Board
proof of service of the Notice of Intent
to Discipline. The practitioner or the
organization shall be precluded
thereafter from requesting a hearing on
the matter. The Board shall issue a final
order adopting the proposed
disciplinary sanctions in the Notice of
Intent to Discipline unless to do so
would foster a tendency toward
inconsistent dispositions for comparable
conduct or would otherwise be
unwarranted or not in the interests of
justice. With the exception of cases in
which the Board has already imposed
an immediate suspension pursuant to
§ 1003.103 or that otherwise involve an
accredited representative or recognized
organization, any final order imposing
discipline shall not become effective
sooner than 15 days from the date of the
order to provide the practitioner
opportunity to comply with the terms of
such order, including, but not limited
to, withdrawing from any pending
immigration matters and notifying
immigration clients of the imposition of

VerDate Sep<11>2014

21:33 Sep 30, 2015

Jkt 238001

any sanction. Any final order imposing
discipline against an accredited
representative or recognized
organization shall become effective
immediately. A practitioner or a
recognized organization may file a
motion to set aside a final order of
discipline issued pursuant to this
paragraph, with service of such motion
on counsel for the government,
provided:
*
*
*
*
*
(ii) The practitioner’s or the
recognized organization’s failure to file
an answer was due to exceptional
circumstances (such as serious illness of
the practitioner or death of an
immediate relative of the practitioner,
but not including less compelling
circumstances) beyond the control of
the practitioner or the recognized
organization.
■ 11. In § 1003.106, revise paragraph
(a)(2) introductory text, paragraphs
(a)(2)(i) through (iii), paragraph (a)(3)
introductory text, and paragraphs
(a)(3)(ii), (b), and (c) to read as follows:
§ 1003.106 Right to be heard and
disposition.

(a) * * *
(2) The procedures of paragraphs (b)
through (d) of this section apply to cases
in which the practitioner or recognized
organization files a timely answer to the
Notice of Intent to Discipline, with the
exception of cases in which the Board
issues a final order pursuant to
§ 1003.105(d)(2) or § 1003.106(a)(1).
(i) The Chief Immigration Judge shall,
upon the filing of an answer, appoint an
Immigration Judge as an adjudicating
official. At the request of the Chief
Immigration Judge, the Chief
Administrative Hearing Officer may
appoint an Administrative Law Judge as
an adjudicating official. If the Chief
Immigration Judge or the Chief
Administrative Hearing Officer does not
appoint an adjudicating official or if in
the interest of efficiency, the Director
may appoint either an Immigration
Judge or Administrative Law Judge as an
adjudicating official. An Immigration
Judge or Administrative Law Judge shall
not serve as the adjudicating official in
any case in which he or she is the
complainant, in any case involving a
practitioner who regularly appears
before him or her, or in any case
involving a recognized organization
whose representatives regularly appear
before him or her.
(ii) Upon the practitioner’s or, in cases
involving a recognized organization, the
organization’s request for a hearing, the
adjudicating official may designate the
time and place of the hearing with due
regard to the location of the

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

practitioner’s practice or residence or of
the recognized organization, the
convenience of witnesses, and any other
relevant factors. When designating the
time and place of a hearing, the
adjudicating official shall provide for
the service of a notice of hearing, as the
term ‘‘service’’ is defined in § 1003.13,
on the practitioner or the authorized
officer of the recognized organization
and the counsel for the government. The
practitioner or the recognized
organization shall be afforded adequate
time to prepare his, her, or its case in
advance of the hearing. Pre-hearing
conferences may be scheduled at the
discretion of the adjudicating official in
order to narrow issues, to obtain
stipulations between the parties, to
exchange information voluntarily, and
otherwise to simplify and organize the
proceeding. Settlement agreements
reached after the issuance of a Notice of
Intent to Discipline are subject to final
approval by the adjudicating official or,
if the practitioner or organization has
not filed an answer, subject to final
approval by the Board.
(iii) The practitioner or, in cases
involving a recognized organization, the
organization may be represented by
counsel at no expense to the
government. Counsel for the practitioner
or the organization shall file the
appropriate Notice of Entry of
Appearance (Form EOIR–27 or EOIR–
28) in accordance with the procedures
set forth in this part. Each party shall
have a reasonable opportunity to
examine and object to evidence
presented by the other party, to present
evidence, and to cross-examine
witnesses presented by the other party.
If the practitioner or the recognized
organization files an answer but does
not request a hearing, then the
adjudicating official shall provide the
parties an opportunity to submit briefs
and evidence to support or refute any of
the charges or affirmative defenses.
*
*
*
*
*
(3) Failure to appear in proceedings.
If the practitioner or, in cases involving
a recognized organization, the
organization requests a hearing as
provided in § 1003.105(c)(3) but fails to
appear, the adjudicating official shall
then proceed and decide the case in the
absence of the practitioner or the
recognized organization in accordance
with paragraph (b) of this section, based
on the available record, including any
additional evidence or arguments
presented by the counsel for the
government at the hearing. In such a
proceeding the counsel for the
government shall submit to the
adjudicating official proof of service of

E:\FR\FM\01OCP3.SGM

01OCP3

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 190 / Thursday, October 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
the Notice of Intent to Discipline as well
as the Notice of the Hearing. The
practitioner or the recognized
organization shall be precluded
thereafter from participating further in
the proceedings. A final order imposing
discipline issued pursuant to this
paragraph shall not be subject to further
review, except that the practitioner or
the recognized organization may file a
motion to set aside the order, with
service of such motion on counsel for
the government, provided:
*
*
*
*
*
(ii) The practitioner’s or the
recognized organization’s failure to
appear was due to exceptional
circumstances (such as serious illness of
the practitioner or death of an
immediate relative of the practitioner,
but not including less compelling
circumstances) beyond the control of
the practitioner or the recognized
organization.
(b) Decision. The adjudicating official
shall consider the entire record and, as
soon as practicable, render a decision. If
the adjudicating official finds that one
or more grounds for disciplinary
sanctions enumerated in the Notice of
Intent to Discipline have been
established by clear and convincing
evidence, the official shall rule that the
disciplinary sanctions set forth in the
Notice of Intent to Discipline be
adopted, modified, or otherwise
amended. If the adjudicating official
determines that the practitioner should
be suspended, the time period for such
suspension shall be specified. If the
adjudicating official determines that the
organization’s recognition should be
revoked, the official may also identify
the persons affiliated with the
organization who were directly involved
in the conduct that constituted the
grounds for revocation. If the
adjudicating official determines that the
organization’s recognition should be
terminated, the official shall specify the
time restriction, if any, before the
organization may submit a new request
for recognition. Any grounds for
disciplinary sanctions enumerated in
the Notice of Intent to Discipline that
have not been established by clear and
convincing evidence shall be dismissed.
The adjudicating official shall provide
for service of a written decision or
memorandum summarizing an oral
decision, as the term ‘‘service’’ is
defined in § 1003.13, on the practitioner
or, in cases involving a recognized
organization, on the authorized officer
of the organization and on the counsel
for the government. Except as provided
in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the
adjudicating official’s decision becomes

VerDate Sep<11>2014

21:33 Sep 30, 2015

Jkt 238001

final only upon waiver of appeal or
expiration of the time for appeal to the
Board, whichever comes first, nor does
it take effect during the pendency of an
appeal to the Board as provided in
§ 1003.6. A final order imposing
discipline against an accredited
representative or recognized
organization shall take effect
immediately.
(c) Appeal. Upon issuance of a
decision by the adjudicating official,
either party or both parties may appeal
to the Board to conduct a review
pursuant to § 1003.1(d)(3). Parties must
comply with all pertinent provisions for
appeals to the Board, including
provisions relating to forms and fees, as
set forth in Part 1003, and must use
Form EOIR–45. The decision of the
Board is the final administrative order
as provided in § 1003.1(d)(7), and shall
be served upon the practitioner or, in
cases involving a recognized
organization, the organization as
provided in § 1003.1(f). With the
exception of cases in which the Board
has already imposed an immediate
suspension pursuant to § 1003.103 or
cases involving accredited
representatives or recognized
organizations, any final order imposing
discipline shall not become effective
sooner than 15 days from the date of the
order to provide the practitioner
opportunity to comply with the terms of
such order, including, but not limited
to, withdrawing from any pending
immigration matters and notifying
immigration clients of the imposition of
any sanction. A final order imposing
discipline against an accredited
representative or recognized
organization shall take effect
immediately. A copy of the final
administrative order of the Board shall
be served upon the counsel for the
government. If disciplinary sanctions
are imposed against a practitioner or a
recognized organization (other than a
private censure), the Board may require
that notice of such sanctions be posted
at the Board, the Immigration Courts, or
DHS for the period of time during which
the sanctions are in effect, or for any
other period of time as determined by
the Board.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 12. In § 1003.107, revise paragraphs
(a) and (b), redesignate paragraph (c) as
paragraph (d), and add new paragraph
(c) to read as follows:
§ 1003.107 Reinstatement after disbarment
or suspension.

(a) Reinstatement upon expiration of
suspension. (1) Except as provided in
paragraph (c)(1) of this section, after the
period of suspension has expired, a

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

59535

practitioner who has been suspended
and wishes to be reinstated must file a
motion to the Board requesting
reinstatement to practice before the
Board and the Immigration Courts, or
DHS, or before all three authorities. The
practitioner must demonstrate by clear
and convincing evidence that he or she
meets the definition of attorney or
representative as set forth in § 1001.1(f)
and (j), respectively, of this chapter. The
practitioner must serve a copy of such
motion on the EOIR disciplinary
counsel. In matters in which the
practitioner was ordered suspended
from practice before DHS, the
practitioner must serve a copy of such
motion on the DHS disciplinary
counsel.
(2) The EOIR disciplinary counsel
and, in matters in which the practitioner
was ordered suspended from practice
before DHS, the DHS disciplinary
counsel may reply within 13 days of
service of the motion in the form of a
written response objecting to the
reinstatement on the ground that the
practitioner failed to comply with the
terms of the suspension. The response
must include supporting documentation
or evidence of the petitioner’s failure to
comply with the terms of the
suspension. The Board, in its discretion,
may afford the parties additional time to
file briefs or hold a hearing to determine
if the practitioner meets all the
requirements for reinstatement.
(3) If a practitioner does not meet the
definition of attorney or representative,
the Board shall deny the motion for
reinstatement without further
consideration. If the practitioner failed
to comply with the terms of the
suspension, the Board shall deny the
motion and indicate the circumstances
under which the practitioner may apply
for reinstatement. If the practitioner
meets the definition of attorney or
representative and the practitioner
otherwise has complied with the terms
of the suspension, the Board shall grant
the motion and reinstate the
practitioner.
(b) Early reinstatement. (1) Except as
provided in paragraph (c) of this
section, a practitioner who has been
disbarred or who has been suspended
for one year or more may file a petition
for reinstatement directly with the
Board after one-half of the suspension
period has expired or one year has
passed, whichever is greater, provided
that he or she meets the definition of
attorney or representative as set forth in
§ 1001.1(f) and (j), respectively, of this
chapter. A copy of such a petition shall
be served on the EOIR disciplinary
counsel. In matters in which the
practitioner was ordered disbarred or

E:\FR\FM\01OCP3.SGM

01OCP3

59536

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 190 / Thursday, October 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules

suspended from practice before DHS, a
copy of such petition shall be served on
the DHS disciplinary counsel.
(2) A practitioner seeking early
reinstatement must demonstrate by clear
and convincing evidence that he or she
possesses the moral and professional
qualifications required to appear before
the Board, the Immigration Courts, or
DHS, and that his or her reinstatement
will not be detrimental to the
administration of justice. The EOIR
disciplinary counsel and, in matters in
which the practitioner was ordered
disbarred or suspended from practice
before DHS, the DHS disciplinary
counsel may reply within 30 days of
service of the petition in the form of a
written response to the Board, which
may include, but is not limited to,
documentation or evidence of the
practitioner’s failure to comply with the
terms of the disbarment or suspension
or of any complaints filed against the
disbarred or suspended practitioner
subsequent to his or her disbarment or
suspension.
(c) Accredited representatives. (1) An
accredited representative who has been
suspended for a period of time greater
than the remaining period of validity of
his or her accreditation at the time of
the suspension is not eligible to be
reinstated under § 1003.107(a) or (b). In
such circumstances, after the period of
suspension has expired, an organization
may submit a new request for
accreditation pursuant to 8 CFR 1292.13
on behalf of such an individual.
(2) Disbarment. An accredited
representative who has been disbarred
is permanently barred from appearing
before the Board, the Immigration
Courts, or DHS as an accredited
representative and cannot seek
reinstatement.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 13. In § 1003.108, revise paragraph (a)
introductory text, paragraphs (a)(1)(i)
through (iv), and paragraph (a)(2)(iv),
add paragraph (a)(3), and revise
paragraph (b) to read as follows:

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

§ 1003.108

Confidentiality.

(a) Complaints and preliminary
inquiries. Except as otherwise provided
by law or regulation, information
concerning complaints or preliminary
inquiries is confidential. A practitioner
or recognized organization whose
conduct is the subject of a complaint or
preliminary inquiry, however, may
waive confidentiality, except that the
EOIR disciplinary counsel may decline
to permit a waiver of confidentiality if
it is determined that an ongoing
preliminary inquiry may be
substantially prejudiced by public

VerDate Sep<11>2014

21:33 Sep 30, 2015

Jkt 238001

disclosure before the filing of a Notice
of Intent to Discipline.
(1) * * *
(i) A practitioner or recognized
organization has caused, or is likely to
cause, harm to client(s), the public, or
the administration of justice, such that
the public or specific individuals
should be advised of the nature of the
allegations. If disclosure of information
is made pursuant to this paragraph, the
EOIR disciplinary counsel may define
the scope of information disseminated
and may limit the disclosure of
information to specified individuals and
entities;
(ii) A practitioner or recognized
organization has committed criminal
acts or is under investigation by law
enforcement authorities;
(iii) A practitioner or recognized
organization is under investigation by a
disciplinary or regulatory authority, or
has committed acts or made omissions
that may reasonably result in
investigation by such authorities;
(iv) A practitioner or recognized
organization is the subject of multiple
disciplinary complaints and the EOIR
disciplinary counsel has determined not
to pursue all of the complaints. The
EOIR disciplinary counsel may inform
complainants whose allegations have
not been pursued of the status of any
other preliminary inquiries or the
manner in which any other complaint(s)
against the practitioner or recognized
organization have been resolved.
(2) * * *
(iv) To the practitioner or recognized
organization who is the subject of the
complaint or preliminary inquiry or the
practitioner’s or recognized
organization’s counsel of record.
*
*
*
*
*
(3) Disclosure of information for the
purpose of recognition of organizations
and accreditation of representatives.
The EOIR disciplinary counsel, in the
exercise of discretion, may disclose
information concerning complaints or
preliminary inquiries regarding
applicants for recognition and
accreditation, recognized organizations
or their authorized officers, or
accredited representatives to the OLAP
Director for any purpose related to the
recognition of organizations and
accreditation of representatives.
(b) Resolutions reached prior to the
issuance of a Notice of Intent to
Discipline. Resolutions reached prior to
the issuance of a Notice of Intent to
Discipline, such as warning letters,
admonitions, and agreements in lieu of
discipline are confidential, except that
resolutions that pertain to an accredited
representative may be disclosed to the

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

accredited representative’s organization
and the OLAP Director. However, all
such resolutions may become part of the
public record if the practitioner
becomes subject to a subsequent Notice
of Intent to Discipline.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 14. Add §§ 1003.110 and 1003.111 to
read as follows:
§ 1003.110 Sanction of recognized
organizations.

(a) Authority to sanction. (1) An
adjudicating official or the Board may
impose disciplinary sanctions against a
recognized organization if it is in the
public interest to do so. It will be in the
public interest to impose disciplinary
sanctions if a recognized organization
has engaged in the conduct described in
paragraph (b). In accordance with the
disciplinary proceedings set forth in this
subpart, an adjudicating official or the
Board may impose the following
sanctions:
(i) Revocation, which removes the
organization and its accredited
representatives from the recognition and
accreditation roster and permanently
bars the organization from future
recognition;
(ii) Termination, which removes the
organization and its accredited
representatives from the recognition and
accreditation roster but does not bar the
organization from future recognition. In
terminating recognition under this
section, the adjudicating official or the
Board may preclude the organization
from submitting a new request for
recognition under 8 CFR 1292.13 before
a specified date; or
(iii) Such other disciplinary sanctions,
except a suspension, as the adjudicating
official or the Board deems appropriate.
(2) The administrative termination of
an organization’s recognition under 8
CFR 1292.17 after the issuance of Notice
of Intent to Discipline pursuant to
§ 1003.105(a)(1) shall not preclude the
continuation of disciplinary
proceedings and the imposition of
sanctions, unless counsel for the
government moves to dismiss the Notice
of Intent to Discipline and the
adjudicating official or the Board grants
the motion.
(3) The imposition of disciplinary
sanctions against a recognized
organization does not result in
disciplinary sanctions against that
organization’s accredited
representatives; disciplinary sanctions,
if any, against an organization’s
accredited representatives must be
imposed separately from disciplinary
sanctions against the organization.
Termination or revocation of an
organization’s recognition has the effect

E:\FR\FM\01OCP3.SGM

01OCP3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 190 / Thursday, October 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
of terminating the accreditation of
representatives of that organization, but
such individuals may retain or seek
accreditation through another
recognized organization.
(b) Grounds. It shall be deemed to be
in the public interest for an adjudicating
official or the Board to impose
disciplinary sanctions against any
recognized organization that violates
one or more of the grounds specified in
this paragraph, except that these
grounds do not constitute the exclusive
grounds for which disciplinary
sanctions may be imposed in the public
interest. A recognized organization may
be subject to disciplinary sanctions if it:
(1) Knowingly or with reckless
disregard provides a false statement or
misleading information in applying for
recognition or accreditation of its
representatives;
(2) Knowingly or with reckless
disregard provides false or misleading
information to clients or prospective
clients regarding the scope of authority
of, or the services provided by, the
organization or its accredited
representatives;
(3) Fails to adequately supervise
accredited representatives; or
(4) Employs, receives services from, or
affiliates with an individual who
performs an activity that constitutes the
unauthorized practice of law or
immigration fraud.
(c) Joint disciplinary proceedings. The
EOIR disciplinary counsel or DHS
disciplinary counsel may file a Notice of
Intent to Discipline against a recognized
organization and one or more of its
accredited representatives pursuant to
§ 1003.101 et seq. Disciplinary
proceedings conducted on such notices,
if they are filed jointly with the Board,
shall be joined and referred to the same
adjudicating official pursuant to
§ 1003.106. An adjudicating official may
join related disciplinary proceedings
after the filing of a Notice of Intent to
Discipline.

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

§ 1003.111

Interim suspension.

(a) Petition for interim suspension—
(1) EOIR Petition. In conjunction with
the filing of a Notice of Intent to
Discipline or at any time thereafter
during disciplinary proceedings before
an adjudicating official, the EOIR
disciplinary counsel may file a petition
for an interim suspension of an
accredited representative. Such
suspension, if issued, precludes the
representative from practicing before the
Board and the Immigration Courts
during the pendency of disciplinary
proceedings and continues until the
issuance of a final order in the
disciplinary proceedings.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

21:33 Sep 30, 2015

Jkt 238001

(2) DHS Petition. In conjunction with
the filing of a Notice of Intent to
Discipline or at any time thereafter
during disciplinary proceedings before
an adjudicating official, the DHS
disciplinary counsel may file a petition
for an interim suspension of an
accredited representative. Such
suspension, if issued, precludes the
representative from practicing before
DHS during the pendency of
disciplinary proceedings and continues
until the issuance of a final order in the
disciplinary proceedings.
(3) Contents of the petition. In the
petition, counsel for the government
must demonstrate by a preponderance
of the evidence that the accredited
representative poses a substantial threat
of irreparable harm to clients or
prospective clients. An accredited
representative poses a substantial threat
of irreparable harm to clients or
prospective clients if the representative
committed three or more acts in
violation of the grounds of discipline
described at § 1003.102, when actual
harm or threatened harm is
demonstrated, or any other conduct
that, if continued, will likely cause
irreparable harm to clients or
prospective clients. Counsel for the
government must serve the petition on
the accredited representative, as
provided in § 1003.105, and send a copy
of the petition to the authorized officer
of the recognized organization at the
address of the organization through
which the representative is accredited.
(4) Requests to broaden scope. The
EOIR disciplinary counsel or DHS
disciplinary counsel may submit a
request to broaden the scope of any
interim suspension order such that an
accredited representative would be
precluded from practice before the
Board, the Immigration Courts, and
DHS.
(b) Response. The accredited
representative may file a written
response to the petition for interim
suspension within 30 days of service of
the petition.
(c) Adjudication. Upon the expiration
of the time to respond to the petition for
an interim suspension, the adjudicating
official will consider the petition for an
interim suspension, the accredited
representative’s response, if any, and
any other evidence presented by the
parties before determining whether to
issue an interim suspension. If the
adjudicating official imposes an interim
suspension on the representative, the
adjudicating official may require that
notice of the interim suspension be
posted at the Board and the Immigration
Courts, or DHS, or all three authorities.
Upon good cause shown, the

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

59537

adjudicating official may set aside an
order of interim suspension when it
appears in the interest of justice to do
so. If a final order in the disciplinary
proceedings includes the imposition of
a period of suspension against an
accredited representative, time spent by
the representative under an interim
suspension pursuant to this section may
be credited toward the period of
suspension imposed under the final
order.
PART 1103—APPEALS, RECORDS,
AND FEES
15. The authority citation for part
1103 continues to read as follows:

■

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1304,
1356; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510

16. In § 1103.3, revise paragraph (a),
remove and reserve paragraph (b), and
revise paragraph (c).
The revsions read as follows:

■

§ 1103.3 Denials, appeals, and precedent
decisions.

(a) The regulations pertaining to
denials, appeals, and precedent
decisions of the Department of
Homeland Security are contained in 8
CFR 103.3.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) DHS precedent decisions. The
Secretary of Homeland Security, or
specific officials of the Department of
Homeland Security designated by the
Secretary with the concurrence of the
Attorney General, may file with the
Attorney General decisions relating to
the administration of the immigration
laws of the United States for publication
as precedent in future proceedings, and
upon approval of the Attorney General
as to the lawfulness of such decision,
the Director of the Executive Office for
Immigration Review shall cause such
decisions to be published in the same
manner as decisions of the Board and
the Attorney General.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 1212—DOCUMENTARY
REQUIREMENTS: NONIMMIGRANTS;
WAIVERS; ADMISSION OF CERTAIN
INADMISSIBLE ALIENS; PAROLE
17. The authority citation for part
1212 continues to read as follows:

■

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101 and note, 1102,
1103, 1182 and note, 1184, 1187, 1223, 1225,
1226, 1227, 1255; 8 U.S.C. 1185 note (section
7209 of Pub. L. 108–458); Title VII of Pub.
L. 110–229.
■

18. Revise § 1212.6 to read as follows:

E:\FR\FM\01OCP3.SGM

01OCP3

59538
§ 1212.6
cards.

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 190 / Thursday, October 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Border crossing identification

The regulations of the Department of
Homeland Security pertaining to border
crossing identification cards can be
found at 8 CFR 212.6.
PART 1292—REPRESENTATION AND
APPEARANCES
19. Revise the authority citation for
part 1292 to read as follows:

■

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1362.

20. In part 1292, before § 1292.1, add
an undesignated center heading to read
‘‘In General’’.
■ 21. In § 1292.1, revise paragraph (a)(4)
to read as follows:
■

§ 1292.1

Representation of others.

(a) * * *
(4) Accredited representative. An
individual whom EOIR has authorized
to represent immigration clients on
behalf of a recognized organization, and
whose period of accreditation is current
and has not expired. A partially
accredited representative is authorized
to practice solely before DHS. A fully
accredited representative is authorized
to practice before DHS, and upon
registration, to practice before the
Immigration Courts and the Board.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 1292.2
■
■

[Removed and Reserved]

22. Remove and reserve § 1292.2.
23. Revise § 1292.3 to read as follows:

§ 1292.3 Conduct for practitioners and
recognized organizations—Rules and
Procedures.

Practitioners, as defined in
§ 1003.101(b) of this chapter, and
recognized organizations are subject to
the imposition of sanctions as provided
in 8 CFR part 1003, subpart G,
§ 1003.101 et seq., and 8 CFR 292.3
(pertaining to practice before DHS).
■ 24. Revise § 1292.6 to read as follows:

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

§ 1292.6

Interpretation.

Interpretations of §§ 1292.1 through
1292.6 will be made by the Board,
subject to the provisions of part 1003 of
this chapter. Interpretations of
§§ 1292.11 through 1292.19 will be
made by the OLAP Director.
■ 25. Add §§ 1292.11 through 1292.19,
with an undesignated center heading
preceding § 1292.11, to read as follows:
Sec.

*

*

*

*

*

Recognition of Organizations and
Accreditation of Non-Attorney
Representatives
1292.11 Recognition of an organization.
1292.12 Accreditation of representatives.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

21:33 Sep 30, 2015

Jkt 238001

1292.13 Applying for recognition of
organizations or accreditation of
representatives.
1292.14 Reporting, recordkeeping, and
posting requirements for recognized
organizations.
1292.15 Extension of recognition and
accreditation to multiple offices or
locations of an organization.
1292.16 Renewal of recognition and
accreditation.
1292.17 Administrative termination of
recognition and accreditation.
1292.18 Complaints against recognized
organizations and accredited
representatives.
1292.19 Roster of recognized organizations
and accredited representatives.

*

*

*

*

*

Recognition of Organizations and
Accreditation of Non-Attorney
Representatives
§ 1292.11

Recognition of an organization.

(a) In general. The OLAP Director, in
the exercise of discretion, may recognize
an eligible organization to provide
representation through accredited
representatives who appear on behalf of
clients before the Immigration Courts,
the Board, and DHS, or DHS alone. The
OLAP Director will determine whether
an organization is eligible for
recognition. To be eligible for
recognition, the organization must
establish that:
(1) The organization is a non-profit,
Federal tax-exempt religious, charitable,
social service, or similar organization
established in the United States;
(2) The organization is simultaneously
applying to have at least one employee
or volunteer of the organization
approved as an accredited
representative by the OLAP Director and
at least one application for accreditation
is concurrently approved;
(3) A substantial amount of the
organization’s immigration legal
services budget is derived from sources
other than funds provided by or on
behalf of the immigration clients
themselves (such as legal fees,
donations, or membership dues);
(4) The organization provides
immigration legal services primarily to
low-income and indigent clients within
the United States and if the organization
charges fees, has a written policy for
accommodating clients unable to pay
fees for immigration legal services;
(5) The organization has access to
adequate knowledge, information, and
experience in all aspects of immigration
law and procedure; and
(6) The organization has designated
an authorized officer to act on behalf of
the organization.
(b) Proof of status as non-profit
religious, charitable, social service, or

PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

similar organization established in the
United States. The organization must
submit a copy of its organizing
documents, including a statement of its
mission or purpose.
(c) Proof of tax-exempt status. The
organization must submit a copy of its
currently valid IRS tax-exemption
determination letter and a copy of the
first page of its last annual IRS
information return (such as the IRS
Form 990, 990–N, or 990–T) or
otherwise demonstrate that the
organization is not required to file a
return. If an IRS tax-exemption
determination letter has not been
issued, the organization must submit
proof that it has applied for tax-exempt
status.
(d) Proof of funding and service to
low-income and indigent clients. The
organization must submit an annual
budget for providing immigration legal
services, a declaration from its
authorized officer, and any additional
documentation to demonstrate that the
organization provides immigration legal
services primarily to low-income and
indigent clients within the United
States, that the organization derives a
substantial amount of its immigration
legal services budget from sources other
than funds provided by or on behalf of
the immigration clients themselves, and,
if the organization charges fees, that it
has a written policy for accommodating
clients unable to pay fees for
immigration legal services.
(1) Annual budget. The organization
must submit its annual budget for
providing immigration legal services for
the current year and, if available, its
annual budget for providing
immigration legal service for the prior
year. If the annual budgets for both the
current and prior year are unavailable,
the organization must submit its
projected annual budget for the
upcoming year. The annual budget
should describe how the organization is
funded and include information about
the organization’s operating expenses
and sources of revenue for providing
immigration legal services. Sources of
revenue may include, but are not
limited to, grants, fees, donations, or
dues.
(2) Declaration. The authorized officer
must attest that the organization
provides immigration legal services
primarily to low-income and indigent
clients within the United States.
(3) Waiver. The organization may
request a waiver of the requirement that
a substantial amount of the
organization’s annual immigration legal
services budget is derived from sources
other than funds provided by or on
behalf of the immigration clients

E:\FR\FM\01OCP3.SGM

01OCP3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 190 / Thursday, October 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
themselves. To support its request for a
waiver, the organization must submit
documentation to show that a waiver
would be in the public interest.
(4) Additional documentation.
Additional documentation may include,
but is not limited to, a fee schedule and
organizational policies and guidance
regarding fee waivers or reduced fees
based on financial need.
(e) Proof of knowledge, information,
and experience. The organization must
submit: A description of the
immigration legal services that the
organization seeks to offer; a description
of the legal resources to which the
organization has access; an
organizational chart showing names,
titles, and supervisors of immigration
legal staff members; a description of the
qualifications, experience, and breadth
of immigration knowledge of these staff
members, including, but not limited to
resumes, letters of recommendation,
certifications, and a list of all relevant,
formal immigration-related trainings
attended by staff members; and any
agreement or proof of a formal
arrangement entered into with non-staff
immigration practitioners and
recognized organizations for
consultations or technical legal
assistance.
(f) Validity period of recognition.
Recognition is valid for a period of three
years from the date of the OLAP
Director’s approval of recognition,
unless the organization has been granted
conditional recognition. Conditional
recognition is granted to an organization
that has not been recognized previously
or that has been approved for
recognition after recognition was
previously terminated pursuant to
§ 1292.17 or 8 CFR 1003.101 et seq.
Conditional recognition is valid for two
years from the date of the OLAP
Director’s approval of conditional
recognition. Any organization’s
recognition is subject to being
terminated pursuant to § 1292.17 or
upon the issuance of disciplinary
sanctions (termination or revocation)
under 8 CFR 1003.101 et seq.

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

§ 1292.12

Accreditation of representatives.

(a) In general. Only recognized
organizations, or organizations
simultaneously applying for
recognition, may request accreditation
of individuals. The OLAP Director, in
the exercise of discretion, may approve
accreditation of an eligible individual as
a representative of a recognized
organization for either full or partial
accreditation. An individual who
receives full accreditation may represent
clients before the Immigration Courts,
the Board and DHS. An individual who

VerDate Sep<11>2014

21:33 Sep 30, 2015

Jkt 238001

receives partial accreditation may
represent clients only before DHS. In the
request for accreditation, the
organization must specify whether it
seeks full or partial accreditation and
establish eligibility for accreditation for
the individual. To establish eligibility
for accreditation, an organization must
demonstrate that the individual for
whom the organization seeks
accreditation:
(1) Has the character and fitness to
represent clients before the Immigration
Courts and the Board, or DHS, or before
all three authorities. Character and
fitness includes, but is not limited to, an
examination of factors such as: Criminal
background; prior acts involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation; past history of
neglecting professional, financial, or
legal obligations; and current
immigration status;
(2) Is employed by or is a volunteer
of the organization;
(3) Is not an attorney as defined in 8
CFR 1001.1(f);
(4) Has not resigned while a
disciplinary investigation or proceeding
is pending and is not subject to any
order disbarring, suspending, enjoining,
restraining, or otherwise restricting him
or her in the practice of law or
representation before a court or any
administrative agency;
(5) Has not been found guilty of, or
pleaded guilty or nolo contendere to, a
serious crime, as defined in 8 CFR
1003.102(h), in any court of the United
States, or of any state, possession,
territory, commonwealth, or the District
of Columbia, or of a jurisdiction outside
of the United States; and
(6) Possesses broad knowledge and
adequate experience in immigration law
and procedure. If an organization seeks
full accreditation for an individual, it
must establish that the individual also
possesses skills essential for effective
litigation.
(b) Request for accreditation. To
establish that an individual satisfies the
requirements of paragraph (a), the
organization must submit a request for
accreditation (Form EOIR–31A and
supporting documents). The request for
accreditation must be signed by the
authorized officer and the individual to
be accredited, both attesting that the
individual satisfies these requirements.
(c) Proof of knowledge and
experience. To establish that the
individual satisfies the requirement in
paragraph (a)(6) of this section, the
organization must submit with its
request for accreditation, at minimum:
A description of the individual’s
qualifications, including education and
immigration law experience; letters of

PO 00000

Frm 00026

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

59539

recommendation from at least two
persons familiar with the individual’s
qualifications; and documentation of all
relevant, formal immigration-related
training, including a course on the
fundamentals of immigration law,
procedure, and practice. An
organization must also submit
documentation that an individual for
whom the organization seeks full
accreditation has formal training,
education, or experience related to trial
and appellate advocacy.
(d) Validity period of accreditation.
Accreditation is valid for the same
period as the recognition of the
organization that applied for
accreditation, unless the organization’s
recognition or the representative’s
accreditation is terminated pursuant to
§ 1292.17 or the organization or the
representative is subject to disciplinary
sanctions (termination, revocation,
suspension, or disbarment) under 8 CFR
1003.101 et seq.
(e) Change in accreditation. An
organization may request to change the
accreditation of a representative from
partial to full accreditation at any time
during the validity period of
accreditation or at renewal. Such a
request will be treated as a new, initial
request for full accreditation and must
comply with this section.
§ 1292.13 Applying for recognition of
organizations or accreditation of
representatives.

(a) In general. An organization
applying for recognition or accreditation
of a representative must submit a
request for recognition (Form EOIR–31)
or a request for accreditation (Form
EOIR–31A) to the OLAP Director with
proof of service of a copy of the request
on each USCIS district director in the
jurisdictions where the organization
offers or intends to offer immigration
legal services. An organization must
submit a separate request for
accreditation (Form EOIR–31A) for each
individual for whom it seeks
accreditation. To determine whether an
organization has established eligibility
for recognition or accreditation of a
representative, the OLAP Director shall
review all information contained in the
request for recognition or accreditation
and may review any publicly available
information or any other information
that OLAP may possess about the
organization, its authorized officer, or
the proposed representative or may have
received pursuant to paragraphs (b), (c),
and (d) of this section. Unfavorable
information obtained by the OLAP
Director that may be relied upon to
disapprove a recognition or
accreditation request, if not previously

E:\FR\FM\01OCP3.SGM

01OCP3

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

59540

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 190 / Thursday, October 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules

served on the organization, shall be
disclosed to the organization, and the
organization shall be given a reasonable
opportunity to respond. Prior to
determining whether to approve or
disapprove a request for recognition or
accreditation, the OLAP Director may
request additional information from the
organization pertaining to the eligibility
requirements for recognition or
accreditation. The OLAP Director, in
writing, shall inform the organization
and each USCIS district director in the
jurisdictions where the organization
offers or intends to offer immigration
legal services of the determination
approving or disapproving the
organization’s request for recognition or
accreditation of a representative. The
OLAP Director may, in the exercise of
discretion, extend the deadlines
provided in this section.
(b) USCIS recommendation and
investigation. Within 30 days from the
date of service of the request for
recognition or accreditation, each USCIS
district director served with the request
may submit to the OLAP Director a
recommendation for approval or
disapproval of the request for
recognition or accreditation including
an explanation for the recommendation,
or may request from the OLAP Director
a specified period of additional time,
generally no more than 30 days, in
which to conduct an investigation or
otherwise obtain relevant information
regarding the organization, its
authorized officer, or any individual for
whom the organization seeks
accreditation. The OLAP Director shall
inform the organization if he or she
grants a request from a USCIS district
director for additional time to conduct
an investigation, or if, in the exercise of
discretion, the OLAP Director has
requested that a USCIS district director
conduct an investigation of the
organization, its authorized officer, or
any individual for whom the
organization seeks accreditation. A
USCIS district director must submit any
recommendation with proof of service
of a copy of the recommendation on the
organization. Within 30 days of service
of an unfavorable recommendation, the
organization may file with the OLAP
Director a response to the unfavorable
recommendation, along with proof of
service of a copy of such response on
the USCIS district director that provided
the recommendation.
(c) ICE recommendation. Upon
receipt of a request for recognition or
accreditation, the OLAP Director may
request a recommendation or
information from each ICE chief counsel
in the jurisdictions where the
organization offers or intends to offer

VerDate Sep<11>2014

21:33 Sep 30, 2015

Jkt 238001

immigration legal services regarding the
organization, its authorized officer, or
any individual for whom the
organization seeks accreditation. Within
30 days from the date of receipt of the
OLAP Director’s request, each ICE chief
counsel may make a recommendation or
disclose information regarding the
organization, its authorized officer, or
individuals for whom the organization
seeks accreditation. An ICE chief
counsel must submit any
recommendation with proof of service
of a copy of the recommendation on the
organization. Within 30 days of service
of an unfavorable recommendation, the
organization may file with the OLAP
Director a response to the unfavorable
recommendation, along with proof of
service of a copy of such response on
the ICE chief counsel that provided the
recommendation. The OLAP Director, in
writing, shall inform each ICE chief
counsel that provided a
recommendation of the determination
approving or disapproving the
organization’s request for recognition or
accreditation of a representative.
(d) EOIR investigation. Upon receipt
of a request for recognition or
accreditation, the OLAP Director may
request that the EOIR disciplinary
counsel or anti-fraud officer conduct an
investigation into the organization, its
authorized officer, or any individual for
whom the organization seeks
accreditation. Within 30 days from the
date of receipt of the OLAP Director’s
request, the EOIR disciplinary counsel
or anti-fraud officer may disclose to the
OLAP Director information, including
complaints, preliminary inquiries,
warning letters, and admonitions,
relating to the organization, its
authorized officer, or any individual for
whom the organization seeks
accreditation.
(e) Finality of decision. The OLAP
Director’s determination to approve or
disapprove a request for recognition or
accreditation is final. An organization
whose request for recognition or
accreditation was previously
disapproved may submit a new request
for recognition or accreditation at any
time unless otherwise prohibited.
§ 1292.14 Reporting, recordkeeping, and
posting requirements for recognized
organizations.

(a) Duty to report changes. A
recognized organization has a duty to
promptly notify the OLAP Director in
writing of changes in the organization’s
contact information, changes to any
material information the organization
provided in Form EOIR–31, Form EOIR–
31A, or the documents submitted in
support thereof, or changes that

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

otherwise materially relate to the
organization’s eligibility for recognition
or the eligibility for accreditation of any
of the organization’s accredited
representatives. These changes may
include alterations to: The
organization’s name, address, telephone
number, Web site address, email
address, or the designation of the
authorized officer of the organization;
an accredited representative’s name or
employment or volunteer status with
the organization; and the organization’s
structure, including a merger of
organizations that have already been
individually accorded recognition or a
change in non-profit or Federal taxexempt status.
(b) Recordkeeping. A recognized
organization must compile each of the
following records in a timely manner,
and retain them for a period of six years
from the date the record is created, as
long as the organization remains
recognized:
(1) The organization’s immigration
legal services fee schedule, if the
organization charges any fees for
immigration legal services, for each
office or location where such services
are provided; and
(2) An annual report compiled by the
organization regarding, for each
accredited representative, the types and
numbers of immigration cases and
applications for which it provided
immigration legal services, the nature of
the services provided, the number of
clients to which it provided services at
no cost, the amount of fees, donations,
and membership dues, if any, charged
or requested of immigration clients, and
the offices or locations where the
immigration legal services were
provided. OLAP may require the
organization to submit such records to
it or USCIS upon request.
(c) Posting. The OLAP Director shall
have the authority to issue public
notices regarding recognition and
accreditation and to require recognized
organizations and accredited
representatives to post such public
notices. Information contained in the
public notices shall be limited to: The
names and validity periods of a
recognized organization and its
accredited representatives, the
requirements for recognition and
accreditation, and the means to
complain about a recognized
organization or accredited
representative.
§ 1292.15 Extension of recognition and
accreditation to multiple offices or locations
of an organization.

Upon approving an initial request for
recognition or a request for renewal of

E:\FR\FM\01OCP3.SGM

01OCP3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 190 / Thursday, October 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
recognition, or at any other time, the
OLAP Director, in his or her discretion,
may extend the recognition of an
organization to any office or location
where the organization offers services.
To request extension of recognition, an
organization that is seeking or has
received recognition must submit a
Form EOIR–31 that identifies the name
and address of the organization’s
headquarters or designated office and
the name and address of each other
office or location for which the
organization seeks extension of
recognition. The organization must also
provide a declaration from its
authorized officer attesting that it
periodically conducts inspections of
each such office or location, exercises
supervision and control over its
accredited representatives at those
offices and locations, and provides
access to adequate legal resources at
each such office or location. OLAP may
require an organization to seek separate
recognition for an office or location of
the organization, for example, when a
subordinate office or location has
distinct operations, management
structure, or funding sources from the
organization’s headquarters. The OLAP
Director’s determination to extend
recognition to the offices or locations
identified in Form EOIR–31 permits the
organization’s accredited
representatives to provide immigration
legal services out of those offices or
locations. OLAP will post the address of
each office or location to which
recognition has been extended on the
roster of recognized organizations and
accredited representatives.

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

§ 1292.16 Renewal of recognition and
accreditation.

(a) In general. To retain its recognition
and the accreditation of its
representatives after the conclusion of
the validity period specified in
§ 1292.11(f), an organization must
submit a request for renewal of its
recognition, in conjunction with a
request for renewal of accreditation of
each representative for whom it seeks
renewal of accreditation, or a request for
accreditation of each proposed
representative for whom it seeks initial
accreditation (Form EOIR–31, Form
EOIR 31A, and supporting documents).
The request for renewal of recognition
may only be approved if at least one
request for accreditation is concurrently
approved or renewed.
(b) Timing of renewal. An
organization requesting renewal of
recognition and renewal of accreditation
must submit the requests on or before
the third anniversary date of the
organization’s last approval or renewal

VerDate Sep<11>2014

21:33 Sep 30, 2015

Jkt 238001

of recognition or, for a conditionally
recognized organization, on or before
the second anniversary of the approval
date of the conditional recognition with
proof of service of a copy of the requests
on each USCIS district director in the
jurisdictions where the organization
offers or intends to offer immigration
legal services. The OLAP Director, in his
or her discretion, may grant additional
time to submit a request for renewal or
accept a request for renewal filed out of
time. The recognition of the
organization and the accreditation of
any representatives for whom the
organization timely requests renewal
shall remain valid pending the OLAP
Director’s consideration of the renewal
requests, except in the case of an
interim suspension pursuant to 8 CFR
1003.111.
(c) Renewal requirements—(1)
Recognition. The request for renewal of
recognition must establish that the
organization remains eligible for
recognition under § 1292.11(a), include
the records specified in § 1292.14(b) that
the organization compiled since the last
approval of recognition, and describe
any unreported changes that impact
eligibility for recognition from the date
of the last approval of recognition.
(2) Accreditation. Each request for
renewal of accreditation must establish
that the individual remains eligible for
accreditation under § 1292.12(a) and has
continued to receive formal training in
immigration law and procedure
commensurate with the services the
organization provides and the duration
of the representative’s accreditation.
Each request for initial accreditation of
a proposed representative submitted
with a request for renewal of recognition
must comply with § 1292.12.
(d) Recommendations and
investigations. Each USCIS district
director served with a request for
renewal of recognition or a request for
renewal of accreditation may submit to
the OLAP Director a recommendation
for approval or disapproval of that
request pursuant to § 1292.13(b). The
OLAP Director may request a
recommendation from the ICE chief
counsels, or an investigation from the
EOIR disciplinary counsel or anti-fraud
officer, pursuant to § 1292.13(c) and (d).
(e) Renewal process. The OLAP
Director shall review all information
contained in the requests and may
review any publicly available
information or any other information
that OLAP may possess about the
organization, its authorized officer, or
any individual for whom the
organization seeks accreditation or
renewal of accreditation or that OLAP
may have received pursuant to

PO 00000

Frm 00028

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

59541

§ 1292.13(b) through (d). Unfavorable
information obtained by the OLAP
Director that may be relied upon to
disapprove a recognition or
accreditation request, if not previously
served on the organization, shall be
disclosed to the organization, and the
organization shall be given a reasonable
opportunity to respond. Prior to
determining whether to approve or
disapprove a request for renewal of
recognition or accreditation, the OLAP
Director may request additional
information from the organization
pertaining to the eligibility requirements
for recognition or accreditation. The
OLAP Director, in writing, shall inform
the organization and each USCIS district
director in the jurisdictions where the
organization offers or intends to offer
immigration legal services of the
determination to approve or disapprove
a request for renewal of recognition. If
the OLAP Director renews recognition,
the OLAP Director shall issue a written
determination approving or
disapproving each request for
accreditation or renewal of
accreditation.
(f) Finality of decision. The OLAP
Director’s determination to approve or
disapprove a request to renew
recognition or accreditation is final. An
organization whose request for renewal
of recognition or accreditation of its
representatives has been disapproved,
and whose recognition or accreditation
of its representatives is terminated, may
submit a new request for recognition
and accreditation at any time unless
otherwise prohibited.
(g) Validity period of recognition and
accreditation after renewal. After
renewal of recognition and
accreditation, the recognition of the
organization and the accreditation of its
representatives are valid for a period of
three years from the date of the OLAP
Director’s determination to renew
recognition and accreditation, unless
the organization’s recognition or the
representative’s accreditation is
terminated pursuant to § 1292.17 or the
organization or the representative is
subject to disciplinary sanctions (i.e.,
termination, revocation, suspension, or
disbarment) under 8 CFR 1003.101 et
seq.
(h) Organizations and representatives
recognized and accredited prior to the
regulation’s effective date—(1)
Applicability. An organization or
representative that received recognition
or accreditation prior to the effective
date of this regulation through the Board
under former § 1292.2 is subject to the
provisions of this part. Such an
organization or representative shall
continue to be recognized or accredited

E:\FR\FM\01OCP3.SGM

01OCP3

59542

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 190 / Thursday, October 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules

until the organization is required to
request renewal of its recognition and
accreditation of its representatives as
required by paragraph (h)(2) of this
section and pending the OLAP
Director’s determination on the
organization’s request for renewal if
such a request is timely made, unless
the organization’s recognition or the
representative’s accreditation is
terminated pursuant to § 1292.17 or the
organization or the representative is
subject to disciplinary sanctions
(termination, revocation, suspension, or
disbarment) under 8 CFR 1003.101 et
seq.
(2) Renewal of recognition and
accreditation. To retain its recognition
and the accreditation of its
representatives, an organization that
received recognition prior to the
effective date of this regulation must
request renewal of its recognition and
the accreditation of its representative(s)
pursuant to this section on or before the
following dates:
(i) Within 1 year of the effective date
of this regulation, if the organization
does not have an accredited
representative on the effective date of
this regulation;
(ii) Upon the submission of a request
for accreditation of an individual who
has not been previously accredited
through that organization or a request to
extend recognition and accreditation
pursuant to § 1292.15;
(iii) Within 2 years of the effective
date of this regulation, if the
organization is not required to submit a
request for renewal at an earlier date
under paragraphs (i) or (ii) of this
section, and the organization has been
recognized for more than 10 years as of
the effective date of this regulation; or
(iv) Within 3 years of the effective
date of this regulation, if the
organization is not required to submit a
request for renewal at an earlier date
under paragraphs (i), (ii), or (iii) of this
section.

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

§ 1292.17 Administrative termination of
recognition and accreditation.

(a) In general. The OLAP Director may
administratively terminate an
organization’s recognition or a
representative’s accreditation and
remove the organization or
representative from the recognition and
accreditation roster. Prior to issuing a
determination to administratively
terminate recognition or accreditation,
the OLAP Director may request
information from the organization,
representative, USCIS, or EOIR,
regarding the bases for termination. The
OLAP Director, in writing, shall inform
the organization and the representative,

VerDate Sep<11>2014

21:33 Sep 30, 2015

Jkt 238001

as applicable, of the determination to
terminate the organization’s recognition
or the representative’s accreditation,
and the reasons for the determination.
(b) Bases for administrative
termination of recognition. The bases for
termination of recognition under this
section are:
(1) An organization did not submit a
request to renew its recognition, or to
renew accreditation of a representative
or to obtain initial accreditation for a
proposed representative, at the time
required for renewal;
(2) An organization’s request for
renewal of recognition is disapproved;
(3) All of the organization’s accredited
representatives have been terminated
pursuant to this section or suspended or
disbarred pursuant to 8 CFR 1003.101 et
seq.;
(4) An organization submits a written
request to the OLAP Director for
termination of its recognition;
(5) An organization fails to comply
with its reporting, recordkeeping, and
posting requirements under § 1292.14,
after being notified of the deficiencies
and having an opportunity to respond;
or
(6) An organization fails to maintain
eligibility for recognition under
§ 1292.11, after being notified of the
deficiencies and having an opportunity
to respond.
(c) Bases for administrative
termination of accreditation. The bases
for termination of accreditation under
this section are:
(1) An individual’s organization has
its recognition terminated pursuant to
this section or terminated or revoked
pursuant to 8 CFR 1003.101 et seq.;
(2) An organization does not submit a
request for renewal of the individual’s
accreditation at the time required for
renewal;
(3) An accredited representative
submits a written request to the OLAP
Director for termination of his or her
accreditation;
(4) An organization submits a written
request to the OLAP Director for
termination of the accreditation of one
or more of its representatives; or
(5) An individual fails to maintain
eligibility for accreditation under
§ 1292.12, after the individual’s
organization has been notified of the
deficiencies and had an opportunity to
respond.
(d) Effect of administrative
termination of recognition. The OLAP
Director’s determination to terminate
recognition is final as of the date of
service of the administrative
termination notice. Upon service of an
administrative termination notice to the
organization’s accredited

PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

representatives by OLAP, the
organization’s representatives shall no
longer be authorized to represent clients
before the Immigration Courts, the
Board, or DHS on behalf of that
organization, but the notice shall not
affect an individual’s accreditation
through another recognized organization
unless otherwise specified. An
organization whose recognition is
terminated may submit a new request
for recognition at any time after its
termination unless otherwise
prohibited.
(e) Effect of administrative
termination of accreditation. The OLAP
Director’s determination to terminate
accreditation is final as of the date of
service of the administrative
termination notice. Upon service of an
administrative termination notice to an
accredited representative by OLAP, the
individual shall no longer be authorized
to represent clients before the
Immigration Courts, the Board, or DHS
on behalf of that organization, but the
notice does not affect the individual’s
accreditation through another
organization unless specified in the
determination. If there are no other
accredited representatives for the
individual’s recognized organization,
the OLAP Director’s termination of the
individual’s accreditation may result in
the termination of recognition of that
individual’s organization. In the
exercise of discretion, the OLAP
Director, independently or upon the
request of such an organization, may
place the organization on inactive
status, which precludes the organization
from providing immigration legal
services unless it has an attorney of
staff, in order for the organization to
apply for and have approved, within a
reasonable time, the accreditation of one
or more representatives. An
organization may submit a request for
accreditation on behalf of any
individual whose accreditation has been
terminated unless otherwise prohibited.
§ 1292.18 Complaints against recognized
organizations and accredited
representatives.

(a) Filing complaints. Any individual
may submit a complaint to EOIR or
USCIS that a recognized organization or
accredited representative has engaged in
behavior that is a ground of termination
or otherwise contrary to the public
interest. Complaints must be submitted
in writing or on Form EOIR–44 to the
EOIR disciplinary counsel or DHS
disciplinary counsel and must state in
detail the information that supports the
basis for the complaint, including, but
not limited to: The name and address of
each complainant; the name and

E:\FR\FM\01OCP3.SGM

01OCP3

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 190 / Thursday, October 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules

tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS3

address of each recognized organization
and accredited representative that is a
subject of the complaint; the nature of
the conduct or behavior; the individuals
involved; and any other relevant
information. EOIR disciplinary counsel
and DHS disciplinary counsel shall
notify each other of any complaint that
pertains, in whole or in part, to a matter
involving the other agency.
(b) Preliminary inquiry. Upon receipt
of the complaint, the EOIR disciplinary
counsel will initiate a preliminary
inquiry. If a complaint is filed by a
client or former client of a recognized
organization or any of its accredited
representatives, the complainant waives
the attorney-client privilege and any
other privilege relating to the
representation to the extent necessary to
conduct a preliminary inquiry and any
subsequent proceedings based thereon.

VerDate Sep<11>2014

21:33 Sep 30, 2015

Jkt 238001

If the EOIR disciplinary counsel
determines that a complaint is without
merit, no further action will be taken.
The EOIR disciplinary counsel may
also, in his or her discretion, dismiss a
complaint if the complainant fails to
comply with reasonable requests for
information or documentation. If the
EOIR disciplinary counsel determines
that a complaint has merit, the EOIR
disciplinary counsel may disclose
information concerning the complaint
or the preliminary inquiry to the OLAP
Director pursuant to 8 CFR
1003.108(a)(3) or initiate disciplinary
proceedings through the filing of a
Notice of Intent to Discipline pursuant
to 8 CFR 1003.105. If a complaint
involves allegations that a recognized
organization or accredited
representative engaged in criminal
conduct, the EOIR disciplinary counsel

PO 00000

Frm 00030

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 9990

59543

shall refer the matter to DHS or the
appropriate United States Attorney, and
if appropriate, to the Inspector General,
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or
other law enforcement agency.
§ 1292.19 Roster of recognized
organizations and accredited
representatives.

The OLAP Director shall maintain a
roster of recognized organizations and
their accredited representatives. An
electronic copy of the roster shall be
made available to the public and
updated periodically.
Dated: September 15, 2015.
Sally Quillian Yates,
Deputy Attorney General.
[FR Doc. 2015–24024 Filed 9–29–15; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–30–P

E:\FR\FM\01OCP3.SGM

01OCP3