[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 232 (Monday, December 5, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-29724]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: December 5, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Immigration and Naturalization Service

8 CFR Parts 208, 236, 242, 274a, and 299

[INS No. 1651-93; AG Order No. 1937-94]
RIN 1115-AD64

 

Rules and Procedures for Adjudication of Applications for Asylum 
or Withholding of Deportation and for Employment Authorization

AGENCY: Immigration and Naturalization Service, Justice.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This final rule streamlines the adjudication of asylum 
applications submitted to the Immigration and Naturalization Service 
(INS). Asylum officers who adjudicate the applications of persons who 
have no legal immigration status will no longer prepare detailed 
denials. Instead, in almost all cases, asylum officers will grant 
meritorious applications and refer applications that they do not grant 
to immigration judges, who will adjudicate the claims in either 
exclusion or deportation proceedings. The rule restricts employment 
authorization to applicants for asylum or withholding of deportation 
whose claims either have been granted or remain pending after more than 
150 days, a period which would not run until the alien has filed a 
complete application and which would not include delays sought or 
caused by the applicant. This rule conforms existing regulations to the 
current practice of receiving applications for asylum and withholding 
of deportation at the four INS Service Centers. The rule also updates 
the regulations by removing references to the Asylum Policy and Review 
Unit.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective January 4, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Davidson, Senior Policy 
Analyst, Asylum Division, Immigration and Naturalization Service, 425 I 
Street NW., ULLICO 3rd Floor, Washington, DC 20536, (202) 633-4389, or 
Gerald S. Hurwitz, Counsel to the Director, Executive Office for 
Immigration Review, 2400 Skyline Tower, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Falls 
Church, VA 22041, (703) 305-0470.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of Justice published a 
proposed rule on March 30, 1994 (59 FR 14779) as part of a 
comprehensive initiative to streamline the process for adjudication of 
applications for asylum and withholding of deportation. Other aspects 
of this initiative have increased the government's ability to 
adjudicate such applications efficiently.
    The proposed rule was designed to streamline the asylum 
adjudications process by making several principal reforms. First, the 
role and functions of asylum officers would change to allow the 
officers to address a greater volume of applications and to concentrate 
their efforts on approving meritorious claims. Asylum officers would no 
longer deny applications from persons who are excludable or deportable, 
but instead would refer such cases directly to an immigration judge for 
adjudication. The original application also would be forwarded to the 
immigration judge to form part of the record of proceedings. Second, 
the proposed rule would have instituted a fee for filing asylum 
applications. Third, an asylum applicant would not be eligible to apply 
for employment authorization based on his or her asylum application 
until 150 days after the date on which the asylum application is filed. 
The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and the Executive 
Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) would strive to complete the 
adjudication of asylum applications, through the decision of an 
immigration judge, within this 150-day period. Persons granted asylum 
would become eligible immediately to apply for and receive employment 
authorization. Persons whose cases were not decided by an immigration 
judge within the 150-day period would be eligible to apply for 
employment authorization. The INS would have 30 days to adjudicate such 
applications. Persons denied asylum by an immigration judge either 
within the 150-day period or prior to the issuance of employment 
authorization by the INS would not be eligible to receive employment 
authorization.
    Beyond these principal reforms, the proposed rule would have: 
eliminated the requirement that asylum officers and immigration judges 
await the receipt of advisory opinions from the Department of State; 
curtailed the authority of asylum officers to grant or deny withholding 
of deportation under section 243(h) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act, 8 U.S.C. 1253(h) (INA or Act); and specified that information 
provided in asylum applications could be used as a basis for an Order 
to Show Cause against the applicant under 8 CFR 242.1. The proposed 
rule also would have made several technical and conforming amendments.
    The Department of Justice received 345 comments in response to this 
proposed rule. Many were submitted as a result of consultations between 
various non-governmental organizations. The following sections 
summarize the comments, set forth the response of the Department of 
Justice, and explain the revisions adopted.
    The comments primarily focused upon the following topics: 
conformity with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA); constitutional 
questions; the proposed $130 filing fee; retroactivity of the proposed 
rule; service of notice; employment authorization; the discretionary 
nature of asylum interviews; interpreters; the ``safe third country'' 
ground of denial for applicants otherwise eligible for asylum; the 
elimination of the Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID) and the applicant's 
opportunity to rebut a NOID; and the definition and treatment of 
persons convicted of an aggravated felony. In addition, there were 
general comments regarding United States immigration policy.
    Many comments agreed that asylum reforms and a solution to the 
backlog problem are needed. Some stated, however, that even if the 
proposed rule met the objectives of the Immigration and Naturalization 
Service, it would do so at the expense of bona fide asylum applicants 
and would compromise fairness and humanitarian principles. Many 
comments stated that the proposed rule would not stop frivolous claims 
or reduce the backlog.

1. Administrative Procedure Act Issues

    Comment: Several comments stated that the proposed rule violated 
the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because the 
rule included changes to regulations affecting the Executive Office for 
Immigration Review (EOIR), and the INS has no authority to promulgate 
regulations on behalf of EOIR. Sections alleged to fall within EOIR's 
jurisdiction were 208.1, 208.2, 208.3, 208.12, 208.14, 208.18, 236.3, 
and 242.17. The comments suggested that the Department should republish 
the sections of the proposed rule that pertain to EOIR proceedings with 
instructions that comments should be directed to the EOIR.
    Response and Disposition: The proposed rule was published by the 
Department of Justice. The Attorney General has authority to promulgate 
regulations on behalf of all Department of Justice agencies, including 
INS and EOIR. Officials of EOIR participated in drafting all relevant 
provisions of the proposed rule. Upon publication of the rule, the 
name, address, and phone number of the Counsel to the Director of EOIR 
were included as a point of contact for further information. Since this 
rule chiefly concerns the process for adjudicating asylum applications 
that are received in the first instance by the INS, public comments 
were directed to the INS; however, a copy of every comment was 
forwarded by the INS to EOIR. Specific suggestions were made by EOIR 
and have been incorporated into this final rule. Accordingly, this rule 
has been issued in compliance with the notice and comment requirements 
of the APA.

2. Constitutional Issues

    Comment: Several comments stated that the proposed rule would 
violate the Constitution by infringing upon liberty and property 
interests protected under the due process clauses of the Fifth and 
Fourteenth Amendments. The comments identified the following as 
violations of due process: (a) not every asylum applicant would receive 
an asylum officer interview, which is essential for an asylum officer 
genuinely to evaluate a case; (b) those denied an interview would be 
deprived of the opportunity to have their claim decided in a non-
adversarial setting and instead would be required to present their 
asylum claim to an immigration judge during an adversarial proceeding; 
(c) an applicant not granted asylum would be denied the opportunity, 
available under the current procedures, to rebut the asylum officer's 
initial determination to deny the claim (Notice of Intent to Deny); and 
(d) due to elimination of the Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID), the 
applicant would not have access to the information that the asylum 
officer relied upon in deciding not to grant the claim. The comments 
stated that such infringement could not be justified by the 
Government's interest in improving the efficiency or financial 
viability of the asylum process.
    Comments stated that procedures similar to those in the proposed 
rule have been invalidated by the federal courts. They pointed to 
Mendez v. Thornburgh, No. 88-04995 (C.D. Cal., Order filed May 26, 
1989, modified June 23, 1989), in which the court preliminarily 
enjoined an expedited adjudication process put into place in Los 
Angeles and stated that applicants were entitled to a re-interview. 
Comments also noted American Baptist Churches v. Thornburgh, 760 F. 
Supp. 796 (N.D. Cal. 1991) (hereinafter ``ABC''), in which the 
Government agreed to re-interview Salvadoran asylum-seekers. Comments 
suggested that agency efforts to expedite the asylum process through 
measures compromising due process and equal protection have been 
enjoined as a ``pattern and practice violation'' in a number of other 
cases.
    Response and Disposition: The proposed rule fully recognized the 
due process rights of asylum applicants. By preserving asylum and 
withholding of deportation proceedings before an immigration judge, the 
rule provides due process: (a) the applicant is permitted to testify 
and submit all relevant evidence in support of his or her claim; (b) 
the applicant may be represented by an attorney; (c) the applicant is 
entitled to cross-examine all witnesses presented by the Government and 
to rebut any documentary evidence submitted by the Government; and (d) 
the applicant has the right to administrative appeal and judicial 
review of an adverse decision. In addition, as discussed below, the 
final rule amends the proposed rule by providing that the INS will 
conduct interviews for all asylum applicants within its jurisdiction 
who have filed a complete application. All who apply for asylum before 
an asylum officer will thus have an opportunity to present their claim 
in a nonadversarial proceeding. Furthermore, neither the settlement 
agreement in Mendez nor the settlement agreement in ABC suggests that 
INS procedures were invalid. The rule does not single out any class of 
applicants for distinct treatment and all asylum applicants will be 
treated in the same manner without regard to nationality or country of 
origin. Asylum officers will interview all applicants who appear for 
their scheduled interviews before determining whether to grant, deny, 
or refer their applications.

3. Federalism Issues

    Comments: Several comments argued that the proposed rule required a 
``cost benefit assessment'' under Executive Order 12866 because it 
constitutes a ``significant regulatory action.'' The comments also 
suggested that the Department was required to perform a ``federalism 
assessment'' under Executive Order 12612, since portions of the 
regulation could affect state governments' public welfare programs. The 
comments argued that the inability of asylum applicants to work for 180 
days and during the appeal process could lead the applicants and their 
families to rely on state public assistance that they might not turn to 
if authorized to work. This, the comments stated, constitutes a 
``substantial direct effect on the States,'' triggering the need for a 
federalism assessment.
    Response and Disposition: Executive Order 12866 requires an agency 
to submit a draft proposed rule and an assessment of the potential 
costs and benefits of the regulation to the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) for review if the agency or OMB considers the rule ``to be 
a significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of that Order. The 
Department of Justice considered the proposed rule to be a significant 
regulatory action and complied with the Executive Order by submitting a 
copy of the draft proposed rule and a summary of the reasons for the 
regulation to the OMB. See 59 FR 14784 (March 30, 1994).
    Executive Order 12612 requires a federalism assessment if a 
proposed regulation has ``substantial direct effects on the States, on 
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.'' Whether policies have federalism implications depends 
principally on whether the policies would preempt state law or 
interfere with an area of regulation that is usually reserved to the 
states. If an agency determines that a policy has federalism 
implications, the federalism assessment must consider the costs or 
burdens the regulations would impose on the states and resources 
available to the states to offset the added costs or burdens.
    The Department and OMB determined that Executive Order 12612 did 
not require a federalism assessment of this rule. Regulations regarding 
immigration and alienage are an exclusive federal concern, and thus do 
not preempt state law or impinge upon areas of state regulation. 
Furthermore, Congress has enacted specific legislation governing the 
employment of aliens which authorized the promulgation of regulations 
on the subject. The rule also would not have a substantial direct 
effect on the states. While it is possible that asylum applicants not 
eligible to apply for work authorization might seek state benefits, the 
nature and degree of any such claims are at best an indirect effect of 
the adoption of new asylum procedures. Many asylum seekers have entered 
the United States illegally and are not eligible for most state 
benefits; and some state benefits, such as education, are available 
regardless of whether an applicant has work authorization. Meanwhile, 
the overall asylum reform effort should reduce the pressure on state 
public assistance benefits by more promptly granting asylum and work 
authorization to those deserving of these benefits and more promptly 
removing from the United States those who are not. Accordingly, there 
is no need for a federalism assessment under Executive Order 12612.

4. Filing Fee for Asylum Applications (8 CFR 103.7(b)(1))

    Proposed Rule: The proposed rule would have amended 8 CFR 
103.7(b)(1) to provide that a fee of $130 be charged for an application 
for asylum or withholding of deportation. Section 208.4(d) would have 
been amended to provide that an application be accompanied by such fee 
or by an application for waiver of fee in accordance with 8 CFR 
103.7(c)(1).
    Comments: Comments supporting fees argued that asylum applicants 
should have to pay a filing fee if they can afford to do so, that the 
general public does not benefit from services provided by the INS, and 
that taxpayers should not have to bear the entire cost.
    Most comments, however, urged either elimination or reduction of 
the fee. It was argued that the proposed fee would unfairly punish 
persons seeking protection from persecution, treat asylum as a 
privilege limited to those who could afford it, discourage bona fide 
applications, and create a burden for the INS in administering the fee 
waiver provisions. Several comments claimed that the fee would be 
unfair in light of the proposed rule's limitation on an asylum 
applicant's access to employment authorization pending the adjudication 
of the asylum claim. Other comments stated that the amount of the fee 
was excessive: even if an applicant could not qualify for a fee waiver, 
he or she might still be unable to apply for asylum due to the overall 
cost, including those for an attorney, counselor, and interpreter, to 
complete the asylum application process. These comments unfavorably 
compared the proposed fee to those charged by The Netherlands ($25.00) 
and Australia ($30.00), the only countries that now charge an 
application fee, and suggested that a fee at this level would be more 
appropriate.
    Several comments also argued that charging a fee would not be 
economically efficient. Collecting the fee and administering a waiver 
system would create significant administrative costs. Adjudicating 
waivers, aside from being time-consuming, would increase personnel 
costs and paperwork, would add an additional step to the adjudication 
process, and would expose the INS to litigation over contested waiver 
decisions. If, as anticipated, a large number of applicants applied for 
and obtained fee waivers, the costs in administering the fee and the 
waiver might not even offset the relatively low amount of fees 
collected.
    Several comments also questioned whether the INS could fairly 
administer a fee waiver process. They alleged that the INS previously 
has used improper criteria in adjudicating applications for waivers of 
fees for Temporary Protected Status and for renewal of employment 
authorization documents. These comments urged that the process be 
fairly implemented by removing irrelevant discretionary factors from 
the waiver procedure and focusing solely on the applicant's ability to 
pay the fee. Some argued that the INS should propose, publish, and 
elicit public comments on uniform guidelines for adjudicating fee 
waivers for all INS applications. Others argued that the INS should 
create a fee waiver process for asylum applicants under a separate 
regulation, independent of 8 CFR 103.7(c). Some proposed that asylum 
applicants filing through an approved voluntary agency or an accredited 
representative should receive automatic fee waivers. Many comments 
suggested that waiver guidelines should incorporate the poverty 
guidelines of the Department of Health and Human Services. Some 
comments suggested that a time limit be set within which the INS must 
make waiver determinations and, if the decision is not made within that 
time, that the waiver be granted. Comments also suggested that the fee-
paying or waiver status of the applicant not be disclosed to the asylum 
officer adjudicating the claim. One comment suggested that the filing 
of a fraudulent fee waiver be used as evidence weighing against the 
applicant's credibility on the underlying asylum claim.
    Several comments stated that under section 286(m) of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. 1356(m), the INS may not impose a fee for asylum applications. 
This section provides that the INS may set its fee for providing 
adjudication and naturalization services at a level that will ensure 
the full recovery of costs for those services, including those provided 
without charge to asylum applicants or other immigrants. Several 
comments also stated that a specific fee for asylum applications is 
unnecessary because after the implementation of asylum reform, the 
surcharge added to INS fees in conformance with section 286(m) should 
generate sufficient revenues to cover the costs of the asylum program.
    A number of comments made recommendations for changing the fee 
proposal. One comment proposed setting the fee at $615, which is the 
estimated total cost of adjudicating an asylum application. Under this 
proposal, if the applicant could not pay the fee at the time of filing, 
then he or she should pay half of the fee at the time of filing and pay 
the balance within 90 days or at the time of the interview, whichever 
is sooner. One comment suggested loaning the entire cost of asylum 
processing ($615) to the applicant. The loan could be paid back in one 
to three years as the person begins to work.
    Some comments suggested that the fee be deferred so that a person 
granted asylum pay the fee when he or she applies for adjustment of 
status or for any other subsequent benefit under the Act. For those 
whose applications are denied and who subsequently seek another 
immigration benefit, such as adjustment of status upon marriage or 
reentry after deportation, the asylum fee would be collected at the 
time the applicant submits the respective application. The comments 
argued that applicants will be in a better position to pay the fee at 
the time of these subsequent applications.
    One comment suggested that the fee not be charged to those who file 
their asylum application before an immigration judge in exclusion or 
deportation proceedings. This comment noted that most of the alleged 
abuse of the asylum system occurs in applications filed with asylum 
officers and that it is unfair to charge a fee to those who are 
defending themselves in removal proceedings.
    Response and Disposition: The comments received in response to the 
fee proposal have been carefully considered. It has been concluded that 
imposition of the fee at this time would likely impose administrative 
burdens that would not be offset by the anticipated receipts from the 
fee. Accordingly, the provisions relating to the fee are not included 
as part of the final rule. Adjudication of asylum applications before 
the INS will continue to be funded by way of a statutorily authorized 
surcharge assessed on applications for other immigration benefits. 
Additional funding provided by the 1995 appropriations for Asylum 
Reform will provide resources for INS and EOIR. As part of an ongoing 
comprehensive economic review of its entire fee structure, the INS will 
examine alternative sources of funding for asylum adjudications, 
including the possibility of a user fee.

5. General (8 CFR 208.1)

a. Effective Date (8 CFR 208.1(a))

    Proposed Rule: The proposed rule would have amended 8 CFR 208.1(a) 
to state that Part 208 applies to all adjudications of asylum 
applications, whether by an asylum officer or by an immigration judge, 
on or after the effective date of the final rule.
    Comments: Many comments urged INS not to apply some or all of the 
proposed amendments to Part 208 to applications filed prior to the 
effective date of the final rule. These comments suggested that a 
``retroactive'' application of the rule could result in different 
treatment for asylum applicants who filed at the same time, but prior 
to the effective date of the final rule--namely: claims filed and 
adjudicated before the effective date of the final rule will have been 
processed under the prior practice of a mandatory asylum officer 
interview and opportunity to rebut a NOID; NOIDs are eliminated for 
claims filed but not adjudicated by the effective date and, under the 
proposed rule, such claims could be referred immediately to an 
immigration judge without an interview by an asylum officer. Some 
comments also noted that making the rule applicable to applications 
that have already been filed would have no effect in discouraging the 
prospective filing of non-meritorious applications.
    A number of comments argued that the proposed rule is invalid under 
the Supreme Court's decision in Bowen v. Georgetown University 
Hospital, 488 U.S. 204 (1988), which held that retroactive rulemaking 
is improper under the APA absent express statutory authority, because 
Congress has not given the Attorney General retroactive rulemaking 
authority through the Immigration and Nationality Act.
    Finally, one comment argued that applying the proposed rule to 
``all adjudications'' creates conflicts with judicial decisions and 
settlement agreements in litigation concerning asylum procedures.
    Response and Disposition: These comments were carefully considered, 
but it was concluded that the effective date provision does not run 
afoul of Bowen v. Georgetown University Hospital. The rule is not 
``retroactive'' within the meaning of that case because it does not 
alter the past legal consequences of past actions; rather, it affects 
only procedures that are to be followed in cases that are yet to be 
adjudicated.
    The effective date provision applies only to adjudications of 
applications for asylum or withholding of deportation under 8 CFR Part 
208. The rule therefore will not apply to the amended provisions of 8 
CFR 242.17(e) regarding the use of information provided on an asylum 
application as the basis for establishing the alienage or deportability 
of an asylum applicant, or to the related provision at 8 CFR 
208.3(c)(2). These amended provisions will apply only to applications 
received by the INS after the effective date of the final rule. 
Similarly, the effective date provisions do not affect 8 CFR 
274a.12(c)(8). Thus, asylum applicants who have filed their 
applications prior to the effective date of the final rule will not be 
subject to the final rule's provisions governing initial applications 
for employment authorization. Sections 208.7(a) and 242.17(e) of the 
final rule will be amended to clarify this point. However, the rule 
governing extensions of employment authorization in Sec. 208.7(d) shall 
apply to all asylum applicants upon the effective date of this rule. 
Furthermore, the final rule cannot and does not intend to alter any 
obligations imposed on the INS or asylum applicants by judicial 
decisions or settlement agreements in cases such as ABC or Mendez. 
Finally, the rule will not apply to cases pending in district courts, 
courts of appeals, or the Supreme Court.
    The other aspects of the rule, while they would affect pending 
applications, do not affect the past legal consequences of past 
actions, but merely affect procedures to be applied in the future. The 
main procedural differences under this rule are elimination of the NOID 
and written denial decisions by asylum officers. These changes, 
however, do not alter the legal circumstances or rights of any person 
with a pending application. No person eligible for asylum under 
existing regulations will be rendered ineligible due to any change made 
by this rule. Asylum claims will continue to be adjudicated under the 
same legal standard.
    Limiting application of the final rule to applications filed after 
the effective date would severely impair efforts at asylum reform 
because it would require two parallel systems of adjudication: one for 
cases filed before the effective date, one for cases filed afterwards. 
Neither the Supreme Court's decision in Bowen nor any section of the 
APA requires such a result. The rule achieves the goal of streamlining 
the asylum process while maintaining the same legal standards used to 
adjudicate each asylum application in a timely manner. This provision 
of the proposed rule will be adopted in the final rule with amendments 
for clarity.

b. Qualifications and Training of Asylum Officers (8 CFR 208.1(b))

    Comments: Two comments suggested that both immigration judges and 
asylum officers receive special training in international human rights 
law, conditions in countries of origin, and other relevant national and 
international refugee laws. One comment observed that the current rule 
that provides for extensive training of asylum officers has improved 
their decision-making, and reasoned that the same requirement would 
have a similar effect on the decisions of immigration judges.
    Response and Disposition: The Department provides extensive initial 
training and continuing education to immigration judges that includes 
training related to asylum adjudications. The Department will continue 
to work to improve such training programs. However, the Department does 
not consider it necessary that there be specific regulatory 
requirements regarding the training of immigration judges.

6. Form of Application (Section 208.3)

a. Required Copies of Forms (8 CFR 208.3(a))

    Proposed Rule: Section 208.3(a) of the proposed rule stated that 
the applicant file three copies of any supporting documentation and one 
completed fingerprint card (Form FD-258) for all individuals ages 14 
years and older who are included on the application.
    Comments: One comment stated that it is not clear whether two or 
three copies of the application are required, and another questioned 
the reason for requiring three copies of supporting documentation.
    Response and Disposition: The final rule has been clarified to make 
clear that the I-589 and supporting documents, plus two copies, are 
required. Three copies of supporting documentation are required because 
one copy is retained by the INS in the applicant's alien registration 
file, one copy is forwarded to the Department of State under 8 CFR 
208.4(a), and, if the application is not granted by the asylum officer, 
a copy of the application with all supporting documents is forwarded to 
the immigration judge under the referral process described in 8 CFR 
208.14(b). This provision of the proposed rule has been amended to 
clarify that the original and two copies of the application are 
required.

b. Use of Information in Application (8 CFR 208.3(c)(2))

    Proposed Rule: Section 208.3(c)(2) of the proposed rule stated that 
information provided in an asylum application may be used to satisfy 
the Government's burden of proof in establishing deportability under 
section 242 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1252.
    Comment: One comment asserted that the proposed rule should state 
that the information in the asylum application may not satisfy the 
clear, convincing, and unequivocal standard of evidence for 
deportability.
    Response and Disposition: The Department believes that an alien's 
written admission of alienage and of having no lawful status in the 
United States is sufficient to satisfy the standard of evidence for 
establishing deportability. Consequently, the new asylum application 
will contain a clear warning that the application may be used to 
establish deportability. This part of the final rule will not be 
applied retroactively and will affect only those persons who make an 
application on the new form after the effective date of this rule. 
Accordingly, this provision of the proposed rule will be adopted 
without amendment in the final rule.

c. Delivery by Mail (8 CFR 208.3(c)(3))

    Proposed Rule: Section 208.3(c)(3) of the proposed rule stated that 
mailing to the address provided on the application shall constitute 
adequate service of all notices and other documents, including any 
charging documents (Forms I-221 and I-122).
    Comments: Several comments argued that delivery by regular mail of 
an Order to Show Cause (OSC) violates section 242B(a)(1) of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. 1252b(a)(1), which requires that OSCs be presented by personal 
service or certified mail. Other comments argued that the OSC should be 
served by certified mail to ensure that it is actually received and 
that the rule does not take into consideration that an applicant may 
move after his or her application has been filed.
    Three comments also addressed the issue of service to legal 
representatives. One comment stated that if the applicant is 
represented by an attorney, service should be made on the applicant's 
legal representative, rather than on the applicant. Another comment 
recommended that mailing documents to the applicant's attorney or 
representative also should constitute adequate service. Finally, a 
comment asserted that EOIR should be informed whether an applicant was 
represented by an attorney at the Asylum Office.
    Response and Disposition: This provision is not intended to--and 
legally could not--alter the certified mail delivery requirements in 
section 242B of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1252b. In cases where personal 
delivery of the OSC is not possible, OSCs will continue to be served by 
certified mail. This provision is adopted with an appropriate 
clarifying amendment in the final rule.
    The recommendations regarding service upon attorneys or registered 
representatives have been considered carefully. The Department believes 
that the rules for service of an OSC must ensure that the person 
subject to proceedings has actually received the document. The 
Department also is concerned that an attorney retained for the asylum 
process might not remain as the applicant's attorney in exclusion or 
deportation proceedings. As this final rule is implemented, the INS 
will work with attorneys and advocacy organizations to consider these 
and other proposals relating to the service of notices and other 
documents, but the suggestion of having charging documents mailed to an 
applicant's attorney or representative constitute adequate service has 
not been adopted.

d. Signatures under Penalty of Perjury (8 CFR 208.3(c)(4) and 8 CFR 
208.3(d))

    Proposed Rule: Sections 208.3(c)(4) and 208.3(d) of the proposed 
rule stated that the applicant and anyone other than an immediate 
relative of the applicant who prepares or assists the applicant in 
preparing the asylum application must sign the application subject to 
penalty of perjury. A person other than an immediate relative who 
prepares or assists the applicant in preparing the application also 
must provide his or her full mailing address. In addition, if the 
applicant later claims ignorance of the contents of the application, 
his or her signature may provide the basis for denial of the claim.
    Comments: Several comments suggested that any preparer, including 
an immediate relative, sign the asylum application under penalty of 
perjury and provide an address. One comment argued that exempting 
family members from signing the I-589 weakens the regulation because 
unscrupulous preparers, to remain undetected, will not sign the 
application.
    Many other comments criticized this provision as unduly punitive 
because many asylum applicants have limited education, are unfamiliar 
with United States laws, and rely on those who claim to be qualified to 
assist them with their asylum applications. Such applicants should not 
be subject to prosecution if there are errors in the application. Some 
comments asserted that this provision will prevent applicants from 
obtaining help in completing their applications. In addition, one 
comment claimed that those assisting applicants might fear reprisal 
from their own governments if their role in assisting asylum applicants 
were known. Another stated that organizations may not wish to sign the 
forms because of their unwillingness to incur potential liability for 
an inaccurate representation not known to them. One comment argued that 
subjecting persons other than the applicant to penalty of perjury 
places an undue burden on attorneys and translators who are assisting 
applicants but can do little to verify the veracity of the applicants' 
statements.
    The comments made several recommendations directed at protecting 
applicants and the individuals and organizations who assist applicants. 
One comment recommended that only the preparers, not the applicants, 
should sign the asylum application subject to a penalty of perjury 
because genuine asylum-seekers, particularly those that do not speak 
English, may be unaware of the actions of an unprincipled preparer. One 
comment advocated that those who prepare asylum applications without 
charging the applicant a fee should not be required to sign the form. 
Another comment suggested that if an improperly prepared asylum 
application is not signed by the preparer, the asylum officer should 
ask the applicant who prepared the application. With the applicant's 
permission, the asylum officer then could relay the information about 
the preparer to the appropriate local INS enforcement division.
    Finally, two comments asserted that the signature requirement is 
too broad. The comments claimed that the signature requirement in the 
proposed rule is more sweeping than the requirement on the form itself, 
and that it fails to specify the degree of assistance that triggers the 
necessity to sign the form.
    Response and Disposition: The requirement that the applicant and 
outside preparers sign the Form I-589 under penalty of perjury is 
necessary and appropriate for several reasons. An asylum applicant is 
seeking an important benefit and should be required to provide only 
truthful information to the Government. The evidentiary rules for 
adjudicating asylum applications treat the credible testimony of the 
applicant as sufficient to meet the applicant's burden of proof and 
thus there should be appropriate consequences for making false 
statements. Those who assist in preparing applications also should bear 
these consequences if they have knowingly included false information on 
the application.
    The fact that a signature is made under penalty of perjury does 
not, of course, alter the Government's burden to establish the elements 
of the crime in the event of prosecution. Many of the objections raised 
in the comments would apply to situations where perjury could not be 
proved. Nevertheless, those applying for asylum and those who assist 
others in doing so should have the same obligation to make truthful 
statements as persons who make other applications to the Government. 
These provisions of the proposed rule will be adopted in the final 
rule, with amendments for clarity and to eliminate unnecessary words.

e. Incomplete Applications (8 CFR 208.3(c)(5) and 8 CFR 208.3(c)(6))

    Proposed Rule: Section 208.3(c)(5) of the proposed rule stated that 
an application that is incomplete or lacks a response to each of the 
enumerated questions may be referred to an immigration judge for 
adjudication or may be denied by the asylum officer. Section 
208.3(c)(6) defined an incomplete application as one that does not 
include a response to each of the questions contained in the Form I-
589, that is unsigned, that is unaccompanied by the required materials 
specified in paragraph (a) of this section, or that is unaccompanied by 
the required fee or application for fee waiver.
    Comments: Numerous comments criticized these provisions for 
establishing overly harsh penalties and for not including a 
sufficiently clear definition of what constitutes an incomplete 
application. The comments claimed that an application may be denied or 
referred because minor or irrelevant questions were not answered. The 
comments suggested that the applicant be given a chance to remedy such 
an omission. The comments also questioned whether an application would 
be deemed incomplete if certain questions were answered but the 
responses lacked substance.
    Several comments agreed that incomplete applications should not be 
adjudicated and recommended amendments to the rule. One comment 
suggested that this provision be moved to a new subsection and labelled 
``Summary Disposition--Action on Incomplete Forms.'' Another comment 
suggested that the term ``incomplete'' be deleted from the final rule 
in order to restrict the rule to allow denial or referral only when the 
applicant has been completely unresponsive to a question. A third 
comment advocated that incomplete applications be returned to the 
applicant, rather than denying them or referring them to an immigration 
judge.
    Response and Disposition: The final rule retains the current 
mandate that all asylum applicants who appear as scheduled will receive 
an interview with an asylum officer.
    Accordingly, incomplete applications will not be denied or referred 
to an immigration judge without an interview. These sections of the 
proposed rule are therefore adopted with appropriate amendments in the 
final rule. The final rule provides that an incomplete application 
shall be returned by mailing it to an applicant within 30 days of 
receipt of the application by the INS; and that if an application has 
not been returned within this 30-day period, the application shall be 
deemed complete. Under section 208.7 of the final rule, if the 
application is incomplete, the 150-day period will not begin until the 
applicant submits a complete application. For clarity, the last 
sentence of Sec. 208.3(c)(6) of the proposed rule, defining an 
incomplete application, is moved to paragraph Sec. 208.3(c)(5) of the 
final rule. This definition also has been clarified to state that an 
application that is not returned to an applicant within 30 days of 
having been received by the INS shall be deemed complete.

7. Employment Authorization (Section 208.7)

    Proposed Rule: The proposed rule would have amended the regulations 
governing eligibility of asylum applicants for employment authorization 
in the following manner: An application for employment authorization 
(Form I-765) could be submitted to the INS no earlier than 150 days 
after the date on which a complete application for asylum was filed. If 
the asylum application was denied by an immigration judge or an asylum 
officer within the 150-day period, the applicant would not be eligible 
to apply for employment authorization. After 150 days, the INS would 
have 30 days from the date of the filing of the application for 
employment authorization to adjudicate the application for employment 
authorization. If the INS failed to adjudicate the application for 
employment authorization within the 30-day period, the applicant would 
be eligible for interim employment authorization. If the application 
for asylum was denied by an immigration judge or an asylum officer 
within this 30-day period, the application for employment authorization 
would be denied. The 150- and 180-day periods would be extended by any 
delay sought or caused by the applicant. The proposed rule also would 
have prohibited an applicant for asylum who has been convicted of an 
aggravated felony from applying for or being granted employment 
authorization. If an applicant who has been convicted of an aggravated 
felony has previously been granted employment authorization, the 
employment authorization would be revoked. Finally, an applicant who 
inexcusably failed to appear for a scheduled interview before an asylum 
officer or a hearing before the immigration judge would not be granted 
employment authorization. The proposed rule also would have amended the 
current rule by requiring a fee for the filing of an initial 
application for employment authorization.
    Comments: A few comments supported these proposals as an 
appropriate balance between meeting the needs of asylum applicants 
while discouraging frivolous claims. A greater number of comments 
criticized these provisions for imposing economic hardship on asylum 
applicants. The comments stated that many applicants arrive in the 
United States with few belongings, no money, and no network of family 
or friends to provide them assistance. Furthermore, the United States 
does not provide public assistance benefits to most people who apply 
for asylum. As a result, asylum applicants would be forced to work 
illegally in jobs where they would be underpaid and treated poorly, but 
would have no means of redress because of the fear of reprisals. Other 
comments claimed that the rule would violate the right to work of 
asylum applicants and is inconsistent with the 1951 Convention Relating 
to the Status of Refugees, 189 U.N.T.S. 150, 19 U.S.T. 6260, T.I.A.S. 
6577, and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, 606 
U.N.T.S. 267, 19 U.S.T. 6223, T.I.A.S. 6577, because it creates an 
obstacle to the filing of an asylum application. Comments also stated 
that the rule would deny due process to asylum applicants because they 
would be unable to afford attorneys to represent them. Numerous other 
comments claimed that the rule would impose new burdens on social 
service organizations and state and local governments because asylum 
applicants unable to work will turn to these sources for assistance.
    One comment specifically observed that a greater number of Cubans 
and Haitians will apply for cash and medical benefits under the Refugee 
Education Assistance Act of 1980, 8 U.S.C. 1522 note, and suggested 
that Cubans and Haitians be exempt from the employment authorization 
limitations under 8 CFR 208.7(a). Another comment contended that 
applicants paroled into the United States to file asylum claims will 
lose their work authorization under the proposed rule, which would be 
unjust because many such parolees have been recognized by the INS to 
have credible asylum claims.
    Some comments indicated that the proposed rule is confusing because 
it does not specify that persons granted asylum are immediately 
eligible for work authorization and does not provide sufficient detail 
on how the 150-day waiting period will be measured. Other comments 
expressed doubt that asylum applicants would actually receive work 
authorization 180 days after the filing of their applications because 
of difficulty and confusion in applying the 150-day waiting period.
    Many comments advocated eliminating the waiting period and 
maintaining the current rule, which allows immediate applications for 
employment authorization and issuance within 90 days. Some comments 
suggested a decrease in the waiting period with one specifically 
stating that employment authorization valid for 3 to 6 months should be 
granted at the time of the interview or within 90 days, except for 
cases deemed ``frivolous'' or ``manifestly unfounded.'' Another comment 
advised providing exceptions to the waiting period by granting 
employment authorization immediately or within 90 days to applicants 
who demonstrate hardship or economic need (such as those with no 
relatives in the United States or who have small children). Another 
comment advocated issuing employment authorization at the time of the 
interview or hearing because it would ensure that applicants appear for 
their interview or hearing and allow the applicant to receive 
employment authorization sooner.
    A number of comments suggested clarification of the 150-day waiting 
period. One comment noted that the 150-day period should begin when the 
application is received by the INS, rather than when the application is 
actually processed. Some comments argued that the INS should notify the 
applicant in writing of the date of receipt and whether the application 
is complete. Other comments criticized the provision for an extension 
of the 150-day period in the case of delays caused by the applicant, 
and one comment recommended that this aspect be eliminated. Another 
comment suggested, however, that the applicant be notified when 
additional information is required and the waiting period be extended 
only if the additional information is not provided. Other comments 
asked for clarification as to what actions serve to extend the waiting 
period, and one comment requested that a mechanism to contest the 
extension be provided.
    Finally, some comments opposed the inability of the applicant to 
obtain work authorization during the appeal period if his or her claim 
is denied by the immigration judge within the 180-day period. One 
comment noted that the applicant's access to counsel will be 
jeopardized on appeal while another observed that negative decisions 
frequently are reversed. A comment stated that such an applicant may 
face the choice of either starving or returning to a country where he 
or she faces persecution. Comments also stated that a decrease in 
appeals will hinder proper interpretation of the law by preventing the 
presentation of novel legal issues. These comments suggested that 
employment authorization be granted to applicants during the appeal 
process or that an exception for economic necessity be provided.
    Response and Disposition: The Department strongly believes that the 
asylum process must be separated from the employment authorization 
process. This rule will discourage applicants from filing meritless 
claims solely as a means to obtain employment authorization. More 
important, the rule provides legitimate refugees with lawful employment 
authorization. When the system is fully operational, asylum officers 
are expected to grant or refer affirmative claims within about 60 days. 
Thus, persons with bona fide asylum claims would get work authorization 
in approximately the same time as the current 90-day period for 
adjudicating work authorization applications. All applicants could have 
work authorization after 180 days, unless their claims have been denied 
by an immigration judge. Under existing authority, work authorization 
may be granted to persons who are paroled into the United States by the 
INS. 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(11). This provision, which can be employed in the 
case of asylum applicants seeking admission at a port of entry to the 
United States and paroled into the country, is not changed in this 
rule.
    The comments presented on this issue have been carefully 
considered. Particular attention was given to the recommendations that 
alternative means be established to adjudicate employment authorization 
on the basis of the merits of the claim or on the economic situation of 
the asylum applicant. Either alternative would invite a large number of 
applications, thus diverting resources and undermining the goals of 
asylum reform. Using a merit-based standard would require the INS to 
adjudicate asylum applications for work authorization eligibility 
either through a paper evaluation or a separate work authorization 
interview. A need-based standard would impose a similar administrative 
burden. Given that the vast majority of those deserving asylum will 
promptly receive their decisions and, hence, their employment 
authorization, this burden would not be justified by the results 
achieved.
    The Department also considered the claim that asylum applicants 
will disregard the law and work without authorization. While this is 
possible, it also is true that unlawful employment is a phenomenon not 
limited to asylum applicants, but is found among many categories of 
persons who have illegally entered or remained in the United States. 
The Department does not believe that the solution to this problem is to 
loosen eligibility standards for employment authorization. This is 
particularly so because of the evidence that many persons apply for 
asylum primarily as a means of being authorized to work. These rules 
will discourage applications filed for such reasons and thus will 
enable the INS to more promptly grant asylum--and provide work 
authorization--to those who merit this relief.
    These provisions of the proposed rule also are in keeping with 
United States obligations under international law. Article 17 of the 
1951 Convention provides that a ``[c]ontracting State shall accord to 
refugees lawfully staying in their territory the most favourable 
treatment accorded to nationals of a foreign country in the same 
circumstances, as regards the right to engage in wage-earning 
employment.'' Under this rule, refugees--i.e., persons granted asylum--
are immediately eligible to apply for and receive employment 
authorization. Article 17 imposes no further obligations on access to 
employment authorization for those who are applying for asylum.
    The Department also has carefully considered the comments directed 
to the impact that new rules on employment authorization would have 
upon the states. These concerns are addressed under heading 3.
    Consistent with its decision to remove the requirement for an 
asylum application fee, the Department will not adopt in this final 
rule a requirement that asylum applicants pay a fee to accompany an 
initial application for employment authorization under 8 CFR 274a.13. 
The fee requirement will be retained for applications to renew 
employment authorization.
    The provisions of the proposed rule are adopted with several 
amendments in the final rule. Sections 208.3(c)(5) and 208.7(a)(1) of 
the final rule will be amended to provide that the 150-day period shall 
commence upon the receipt by the INS of a complete application for 
asylum. The filing of an incomplete application shall not commence the 
150-day period provided that the INS has returned the application by 
mailing it within 30 days in accordance with 8 CFR 208.3(c)(5). Section 
208.7(a)(4) also will be amended to specify that an applicant's failure 
without good cause to appear for an interview under section 208.9(a) 
precludes the applicant from receiving employment authorization under 
section 274a.12(c)(8). Failure to appear without good cause to receive 
the decision of the asylum officer under section 208.9(d) shall be 
treated as delay caused by the applicant and shall toll the 150-day 
period. A new paragraph 208.7(a)(5) will be added to specify that the 
new rules governing eligibility for employment authorization do not 
apply to persons whose asylum applications have been filed prior to 
January 4, 1995. Finally, section 208.2(b) will be amended to state 
that an immigration judge may permit a referred applicant to file an 
amended application, but that any delay caused by such a request shall 
extend the period within which the applicant may not apply for 
employment authorization.

8. Renewal of Employment Authorization (Section 208.7(d))

    Proposed Rule: Section 208.7(d) would be amended to require that in 
order for employment authorization to be renewed before its expiration, 
an application must be received by the INS at least 90 days before the 
employment authorization expires. Under current regulations, 
applications for renewal must be received at least 60 days prior to 
expiration.
    Comment: Several comments criticized this proposal for placing an 
unfair and unnecessary burden upon applicants for renewal. The comments 
stated that the INS should be able to process renewals within 60 days. 
Some comments stated that renewal of work authorization should be 
assigned to INS District Offices, and not to the INS Service Centers, 
because the District Offices are more likely to have access to 
information regarding the alien's status. One comment approved of the 
practice of charging a fee for renewal of work authorization.
    Response and Disposition: Under 8 CFR 274a.13(d), the INS district 
director shall adjudicate the application for renewal of employment 
authorization within 90 days of receipt.
    The lack of uniformity between the current 60-day rule for filing 
renewal applications and the 90-day rule for adjudicating such 
applications led to disagreements between applicants and the INS. The 
INS believes that fewer disputes will result if these periods are 
uniform. The INS agrees that many such applications can be adjudicated 
in significantly less than 90 days, and will continue to work for 
improvements in this area. Due to the workloads involved in processing 
a large volume of employment authorization requests, however, the 
Department believes that it would not be prudent to establish a shorter 
mandatory period for the adjudication of such requests. Accordingly, 
these provisions of the proposed rule will be adopted without amendment 
in the final rule.

9. Interview and Procedure (Section 208.9(a))

a. Mandatory vs. Discretionary Interview

    Proposed Rule: Current regulations require that for each 
application for asylum within the jurisdiction of an asylum officer, an 
interview shall be conducted by that officer. The proposed rule would 
provide that interviews on asylum applications are discretionary.
    Comments: Many comments opposed making interviews discretionary. 
Some rested their objections in part on constitutional grounds; these 
concerns have been addressed above in subheading 2. The comments also 
expressed concern that direct referral of claims without an interview 
to an immigration judge is inappropriate because the written 
application often is not a reliable indicator of the strength or 
weakness of the applicant's claim. The comments argued that a system of 
discretionary interviews and direct referrals would be unfair because 
many applicants are unable fully to articulate their claim in writing 
due to language barriers, lack of understanding of the laws governing 
asylum, or innocent reliance on unscrupulous paid preparers of asylum 
applications. These comments argued as well that the asylum interview 
is of significant benefit because it allows the applicant to present 
the facts of the case in a nonadversarial manner and compels the asylum 
officer to consider the full range of facts, including all relevant 
country conditions, before making a determination in the case. While 
many comments acknowledged the advantages of adversarial proceedings 
before an immigration judge in eliciting the facts of an asylum claim, 
the commentators generally felt that the value of an asylum interview 
should be given greater weight.
    Several comments stated that the proposed rule would be contrary to 
the legislative intent behind section 208 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1158, 
because Congress contemplated that asylum determinations would be made 
independent of exclusion and deportation proceedings.
    Several comments claimed that the system of discretionary referrals 
would actually make the process less efficient because applicants would 
be forced to present their claims in a longer, more formal hearing 
before an immigration judge. The comments claimed that this would 
increase overall expense to the Government, exacerbate the problem of 
delay in asylum adjudications, and undermine the intent of the proposed 
rule to streamline the asylum system.
    The vast majority of the comments directed to this question stated 
that asylum interviews should be mandatory. However, a large number of 
these comments also suggested that, as an alternative, direct referral 
without interview should take place only in circumstances where the 
written application indicates that the claim is frivolous or manifestly 
unfounded. Some comments criticized the proposed rule for making it 
appear that the granting of interviews to asylum applicants will be the 
exception, not the rule. The comments also stated that applicants 
deserve to know the standard under which the INS will determine whether 
or not to grant an interview.
    Response and Disposition: The Department has carefully considered 
these comments and determined that the goal of streamlining asylum 
adjudications can be met without changing the present rule that 
mandates the opportunity for an interview of each asylum applicant. 
Accordingly, the present rule is retained and there is no provision for 
immediate referral of cases, without an interview, to an immigration 
judge. The rule is clarified to state that an interview will be granted 
for applications that are complete within the meaning of 
Sec. 208.3(c)(5). Section 208.10 also is amended to provide that the 
failure without good cause of an applicant to appear for a scheduled 
interview under Sec. 208.9(a) may be deemed to constitute a waiver of 
the right to an interview with an asylum officer or, in the case of an 
applicant who is a stowaway, alien crewman, alien temporarily 
excludable under section 235(c) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1225, or in 
current lawful immigration status, may be deemed to constitute an 
abandonment of the application.

b. Procedural Issues

    Proposed Rule: The proposed rule would have amended 8 CFR 208.9 (b) 
and (c) to require the applicant to provide full identifying 
information at the time of the application. Section 208.9(d) would have 
been amended to require that, at the conclusion of the interview, the 
applicant be notified that he or she must appear in person to receive 
the written decision of the asylum officer. A new section 208.9(g) 
would have been added to specify rules regarding the use of 
interpreters during interviews.
    Comment: One comment stated that the proposed rule is unclear on 
whether witnesses could testify at the interview because section 
208.9(b) of the rule states that the applicant ``may . . . submit 
affidavits of witnesses'' while section 208.9(g) refers to live 
witnesses.
    Response and Disposition: An asylum applicant may present live 
witness testimony at the time of his or her interview. In the final 
rule, section 208.9(b) is amended to clarify this point.
    Comment: Several comments criticized the requirement in the 
proposed rule that the applicant be informed that he or she must appear 
in person to acknowledge receipt of the written decision of the asylum 
officer. The comments stated that this requirement would be inefficient 
and would result in applicants having to make an unnecessary return 
trip to the Asylum Office, where they may have to wait for a long 
period of time. A comment also questioned whether those who are 
interviewed in ``circuit ride'' locations would be able to go to those 
locations, or would be required to travel to the more distant Asylum 
Office with jurisdiction over their cases. Several comments suggested 
that written decisions be served by certified mail or that mail service 
be used in cases where the applicant has an attorney or registered 
representative.
    Response and Disposition: In order to streamline asylum 
adjudications, there must be a reliable system to accomplish and verify 
service of the decision to grant, refer, or deny the claim and, if 
applicable, service of the charging document. The INS experience with 
certified mail under the current rule demonstrates that this may not be 
the most effective method to meet this goal. If the applicant has 
provided an invalid address or has moved without notifying the INS, 
delivery most often will not be accomplished. In addition, postal 
delays and difficulties in processing return receipt cards detract from 
the INS's ability to confirm timely delivery. It may be somewhat 
inconvenient to make a return trip to the Asylum Office; however, under 
this system, the applicant will receive his or her decision promptly. 
If the decision is to grant the claim, the applicant will be able to 
apply more quickly for employment authorization and other benefits. If 
the decision is to refer the claim, the applicant will receive a 
charging document that will state the date and time of required 
appearance in immigration court, and will be able to plan for that 
proceeding. Finally, both the asylum adjudications and removal 
proceedings systems will benefit if there are fewer disputes regarding 
the service of decisions and charging documents. In cases where the 
applicant has failed to appear at the appointed time to receive his or 
her decision, certified mail will be used in lieu of personal service 
to deliver the decision.
    The INS has carefully considered whether the rule should be amended 
to permit the use of mail service in the case of applicants who have an 
attorney or registered representative. The Department has declined to 
adopt that proposal at this time, chiefly because of concerns that an 
attorney retained for the asylum application process may not remain as 
the applicant's attorney in exclusion or deportation proceedings. 
However, as this final rule is implemented, the INS will work with 
attorneys and advocacy organizations to consider this and other 
proposals relating to service of decisions.
    These provisions of the proposed rule have been adopted with an 
amendment to clarify that an applicant's failure to appear to receive 
and acknowledge receipt of the decision of the asylum officer shall be 
treated as delay caused by the applicant for purposes of 8 CFR 
208.7(a)(3) and shall extend the period within which the applicant may 
not apply for employment authorization by the number of days until the 
applicant does appear to receive the decision or until the applicant 
appears before an immigration judge in response to the issuance of a 
charging document under 8 CFR 208.14(b).
    Comment: Several comments addressed the proposed rule's provisions 
governing the use of interpreters (8 CFR 208.9(g)). Some comments 
criticized the requirement, also contained in current regulations, that 
the applicant who does not wish to proceed in English provide an 
interpreter for the asylum interview. These comments stated that this 
will impose a financial burden on applicants and that it may be 
difficult for applicants to find competent interpreters, particularly 
for certain languages. Other comments recommended that the rule be 
amended to specifically permit immediate family members to serve as 
interpreters. Some comments suggested that the rule be more lenient in 
cases where the applicant has failed to provide an interpreter. One 
comment stated that the proposed rule should be amended to prohibit 
representatives, as well as attorneys and immediate family members, 
from serving as interpreters.
    Response and Disposition: The requirement that asylum applicants 
wishing to proceed in a language other than English provide an 
interpreter is currently enforced by the INS as an operations policy. 
Any other rule would impose an undue financial burden on the 
Government. Currently, asylum applicants may use a family member, 
friend, or volunteer from the community, or may hire a professional 
interpreter. The proposed rule was intended to adopt this policy into 
the regulations. The recommendation that a registered representative, 
as well as an attorney, be prohibited from serving as an interpreter 
will be adopted in the final rule; an advocate should not be called 
upon to serve two distinct roles in the course of a proceeding. 
However, the final rule does not prohibit an employee of the 
applicant's attorney or registered representative, such as a paralegal, 
from serving as the applicant's interpreter. Finally, while an 
applicant's failure without good cause to provide an interpreter may be 
considered as a failure without good cause to appear for the asylum 
interview itself, the asylum officer has discretion in applying this 
sanction. If the failure to provide an interpreter is justified by good 
cause, the INS will not consider the applicant to have waived his or 
her right to an interview or to have abandoned his or her asylum 
application.
    These provisions of the proposed rule are retained with appropriate 
amendments in the final rule.

10. Failure to Appear (Section 208.10)

    New Amendment: The proposed rule would have made no amendment to 8 
CFR 208.10. However, in the course of reviewing the comments regarding 
the interview of asylum applicants, it was concluded that this section 
should be clarified to modify the provision that an applicant who fails 
to appear for a scheduled interview may be deemed to have abandoned his 
or her application for asylum. The final rule will modify this section 
to provide that failure without good cause to appear for a scheduled 
interview may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to an 
interview or, in the case of an alien crewman, stowaway, person 
excludable under section 235(c) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1225, or person in 
current lawful immigration status, may be deemed to constitute an 
abandonment of the application. The final rule also will amend 8 CFR 
208.14(b) to provide that an applicant who is deemed to have waived the 
right to his or her asylum interview in accordance with this section 
may be referred to an immigration judge for adjudication in the course 
of exclusion or deportation proceedings.

11. Comments From the Department of State (Section 208.11)

    Proposed Rule: As amended by the proposed rule, 8 CFR 208.11 would 
retain the practice of submitting asylum applications to the Department 
of State but would eliminate the mandatory period during which asylum 
officers and immigration judges must await the receipt of State 
Department comments in individual cases. The State Department could 
provide such comments, but the intent of the rule is to change the role 
of the State Department to one of providing detailed and current 
country conditions information.
    Comments: Comments supported this change. Several comments stated 
that applicants should have access to the country conditions 
information provided by the State Department and relied upon by INS, 
and that applicants should continue to receive copies of case-specific 
comments from the State Department. Some comments stated that the 
applicant should be given 30 days to respond to any such comments from 
the State Department.
    Response and Disposition: Under section 208.11(c) of the rule, 
applicants will receive copies of case-specific comments provided by 
the Department of State. Immigration judges will have discretion to 
grant an appropriate time period, if necessary, for rebuttal. A uniform 
and mandatory waiting period will not be beneficial because it would 
add unnecessary delay to the process. Copies of generic country 
conditions information relied upon by immigration judges also will 
become part of the record available to the applicant. The INS currently 
is considering means by which country conditions information used by 
asylum officers may be made more generally available and will continue 
to work with attorneys, advocacy groups, and other interested members 
of the public in accomplishing this goal. This provision of the 
proposed rule is adopted in the final rule with amendments to clarify 
the text and eliminate unnecessary words.

12. Elimination of Notice of Intent to Deny (Section 208.12(a))

    Proposed Rule: The proposed rule, section 208.12(a), would have 
eliminated the requirement that an asylum officer provide the applicant 
an opportunity to inspect, explain, or rebut the material relied upon 
to find that the applicant's claim has not been approved. This is 
commonly referred to as a Notice of Intent to Deny, or NOID.
    Comments: Many comments criticized this proposal, arguing that the 
NOID requirement protects the rights of applicants and promotes more 
accurate decisions by asylum officers. Comments characterized the NOID 
as useful to clear up misunderstandings or incorrect applications of 
the law before cases reach the immigration court. As discussed 
previously, some comments also felt that the proposed rule would 
violate the due process rights of applicants by denying them an 
opportunity to give a meaningful response to material other than the 
interview and the application relied upon by the asylum officer.
    Other comments praised elimination of the NOID requirement as a 
means to expedite the asylum process. Some comments proposed that a 
balance be struck by maintaining the NOID requirement but reducing the 
time period in which the applicant can respond.
    Response and Disposition: The Department gives high priority to all 
efforts to improve the fairness, quality, and accuracy of decisions 
made by asylum officers and immigration judges. However, the 
requirements in 8 CFR 208.12(a) are not necessary to meet these goals, 
and modification of this section is pivotal to the streamlining of the 
asylum process. Applicants who are not granted asylum by the asylum 
officer will have a full opportunity to present their claim to an 
immigration judge, with all the procedural protections of a full 
adversarial proceeding. This includes, of course, the right to examine 
and rebut all evidence and materials that are introduced in opposition 
to the asylum claim. The NOID system is, at best, an imperfect 
approximation of this hearing process and one that adds unnecessary 
time and expense to the process, thus making it more difficult to 
adjudicate claims in a timely manner. The Department has considered 
seriously the objections stated to this proposal but believes that the 
interests of all asylum applicants will best be served by eliminating 
the NOID requirement. Accordingly, this provision of the proposed rule 
is retained without amendment in the final rule. The Department will, 
however, continue to issue Notices of Intent to Deny in the cases of 
persons whose asylum applications can be denied by asylum officers, 
including stowaways, crewmen, and persons with a lawful immigration 
status.

13. Referrals to an Immigration Judge (Section 208.14(b))

    Proposed Rule: The proposed rule would have added a new paragraph 
208.14(b) to state that if an asylum officer does not grant an 
application, and the applicant appears to be deportable or excludable, 
the asylum officer shall refer the application to an immigration judge 
for adjudication in exclusion or deportation proceedings. The asylum 
officer would no longer deny the application in writing, as required 
under current regulations. The asylum officer would issue a written 
denial in cases where the applicant has a current legal immigration 
status not derived from his or her asylum application.
    Comments: Several comments stated that the rule should be amended 
to state specific guidelines that asylum officers must follow in 
deciding whether to refer cases to an immigration judge. According to 
these comments, it is unclear whether the application will be judged 
under the standard of well-founded fear of persecution set forth in 
section 101(a)(42) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1101(a)(42), or under some 
other discretionary standard. Some comments also stated that asylum 
officers may rely on improper factors such as instinct, prejudice, or 
misinformation in making referral decisions. The comments suggested 
that a written record of the reasons for referral, provided to the 
applicant, would be fairer to applicants and would increase confidence 
in the referral system.
    Several comments also criticized the provision for automatic 
referral of the asylum application to an immigration judge. The 
comments argued that in the course of exclusion or deportation 
proceedings, the asylum application is defensive in nature, and the 
applicant should be able to decide whether to use the application in 
the proceedings. The comments also stated that initial asylum 
applications are often erroneous or incomplete, not because the 
applicant intends to commit fraud, but because the applicant does not 
know English and has used a preparer who did not complete the 
application correctly. The comments suggested that the applicant 
referred to an immigration judge be able to submit an entirely new 
application.
    Response and Disposition: The proposed rule does not change the 
legal standard for granting asylum set forth in sections 101(a)(42) and 
208(a) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42) and 1158(a), and 8 CFR 208.13 
and 208.14: asylum officers will continue to abide by this standard. 
Those who have met the burden of proof to establish that they are 
refugees will continue to be granted asylum. Those who have not met 
their burden of proof will be referred to an immigration judge or, in 
the case of those with a current lawful immigration status, will be 
issued a denial letter. The rule should create no reason for concern 
that factors other than those set forth in the law and regulations will 
influence the decisions of asylum officers. Accordingly, there is no 
reason to provide any additional regulatory guidelines for asylum 
officer decisions.
    We have declined to adopt the recommendation that the applications 
of referred applicants not be forwarded to an immigration judge. A 
referred applicant may decline to seek asylum in the course of 
exclusion or deportation proceedings and, if so, can simply move to 
withdraw the application. However, if the applicant desires to proceed 
with the application, he or she should be held accountable for the 
information that has been provided on the initial application. During 
the immigration court proceedings, the applicant can provide additional 
information and explain any errors or inconsistencies in the 
application. In addition, section 208.2(b) of this rule has been 
amended to provide that an immigration judge, as a matter of 
discretion, may permit the applicant to amend the I-589 prior to the 
hearing on the merits.
    The proposed rule would have provided that the INS inform an 
applicant by letter of the decision to refer his or her case, 
accompanied by a charging document. The INS will consider the 
recommendation that the letter state briefly the reasons why the 
application has not been granted. However, the INS believes that a 
regulatory standard mandating the contents of the referral letter is 
not necessary to preserve the procedural rights of applicants and may 
impede the flexibility that will be necessary to ensure that applicants 
receive their decisions in a prompt manner. The INS will continue to 
work with attorneys, advocacy groups, and other interested members of 
the public on this question.
    This provision of the proposed rule will be adopted in the final 
rule with one substantive amendment. The amendment will specify that an 
application may be referred to an immigration judge for adjudication in 
exclusion or deportation proceedings if, in accordance with 8 CFR 
208.10, the applicant is deemed to have waived his or her right to an 
interview on the application under 8 CFR 208.9(a). In addition, this 
paragraph has been reorganized and sub-divided for clarity.

14. Eligibility Restrictions for Persons Convicted of Aggravated 
Felonies (Sections 208.14(d)(4) and 208.16(c)(2)(ii))

    Proposed Rule: The proposed rule would have added a new paragraph 
208.14(d)(4) that would bar individuals who have been convicted of an 
aggravated felony from applying for or being granted asylum. Proposed 8 
CFR 208.16(c)(2)(ii) would bar such individuals from applying for or 
being granted withholding of deportation.
    Comments: Several comments proposed that this portion of the rule 
be amended. Some comments stated that the effect of the rule is too 
harsh and that those convicted of an aggravated felony should be able 
to present their asylum claims. The INS should then balance the 
likelihood and seriousness of persecution against the gravity of the 
crime committed by the individual. These comments stated that this 
approach is supported by the United Nations High Commissioner for 
Refugees. Some comments also argued that the rule should apply only to 
convictions entered after November 19, 1988, the date of enactment of 
the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100-690, which added section 
101(a)(43) to the Act to define ``aggravated felony.'' See 8 U.S.C. 
1101(a)(43). These comments argued that application of the aggravated 
felony ban to convictions entered on or before November 19, 1988, is 
inconsistent with the holding in Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 114 S. 
Ct. 1483 (1994).
    Several comments also criticized the proposed rule for barring 
persons with aggravated felony convictions from eligibility for 
withholding of deportation. The comments argued that the preclusion in 
section 243(h)(2)(B) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1253(h)(2)(B), which bars a 
grant of withholding to a person who, ``having been convicted of a 
particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community,'' 
requires a two-pronged finding: that the alien was convicted of a 
particularly serious crime and that the alien constitutes a danger to 
the community. The comments stated that the INS should not presume that 
every aggravated felony is a particularly serious crime or that every 
person convicted of such a crime is also a danger to the community.
    Response and Disposition: These provisions of the rule are mandated 
by the congressional enactments regarding limitations on the granting 
of relief to criminal aliens. The definition of ``aggravated felony'' 
in section 101(a)(43) of the Act was added by section 7342 of the Anti-
Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100-690, 102 Stat. 4181, 4469 (November 
18, 1988). The Immigration Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-649, 104 Stat. 4978 
(November 29, 1990) (1990 Act) defined additional crimes as aggravated 
felonies and added further disabling provisions. E.g., 1990 Act 
Sec. 501, 104 Stat. at 5048. In addition, section 515(a)(1) of the 1990 
Act created section 208(d) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1158(d), which states 
that an alien convicted of an aggravated felony ``may not apply for or 
be granted asylum.'' 104 Stat. at 5053. Section 515(a)(2) of the 1990 
Act amended section 243(h)(2) of the Act, 8 USC 1253(h)(2), to require 
that, for purposes of the statutory bar to withholding of deportation, 
``an alien who has been convicted of an aggravated felony shall be 
considered to have committed a particularly serious crime.'' 104 Stat. 
at 5053.
    Neither section 208(d) nor section 243(h)(2) of the Act provides 
for a ``balancing test'' to be employed in the case of a person 
convicted of an aggravated felony. Such a person is barred from relief 
without regard to the merits of his or her claim. Inclusion of 
aggravated felonies as ``particularly serious crimes'' also is 
consistent with the long-standing administrative interpretation of the 
Act that crimes such as armed robbery, robbery, burglary, embezzlement, 
and possession for sale of cocaine and heroin are ``particularly 
serious crimes.'' Moreover, the Attorney General, through the Board of 
Immigration Appeals, consistently has held that section 243(h)(2)(B) 
compels the finding that an alien constitutes a danger to the community 
if he or she has been convicted of a particularly serious crime. Matter 
of A-A-, Interim Dec. 3176 (BIA 1992); Matter of K-, Interim Dec. 3163 
(BIA 1991); Matter of Carballe, 19 I&N Dec. 357 (BIA 1986), modified on 
other grounds, Matter of Gonzalez, 19 I&N Dec. 682 (BIA 1988). Federal 
courts have affirmed this position. See, e.g., Crespo-Gomez v. Richard, 
780 F.2d 932 (11th Cir. 1986); Ramirez-Ramos v. INS, 814 F.2d 1394 (9th 
Cir. 1987).
    To the extent these provisions have a retroactive effect, such 
effect clearly was intended by Congress and thus is permissible. 
Landgraf, 114 S.Ct. at 1496. In enacting section 7342 of the Anti-Drug 
Abuse Act of 1988, Congress defined certain crimes as aggravated 
felonies without regard to the date of conviction. Section 515(b) of 
the 1990 Act was amended by the Miscellaneous and Technical Immigration 
and Naturalization Amendments of 1991, Pub. L. 102-232, December 12, 
1991, 105 Stat. 1733, 1752, to mandate that the statutory bar in 
section 208(d) of the Act applies to convictions entered before, on, or 
after November 29, 1990, the effective date of the 1990 Act, and 
applies to all applications for asylum made on or after the same date. 
Congress also expressly limited the application of certain disabling 
provisions (e.g., the deportation ground under section 241(a)(4) of the 
Act and the ineligibility for voluntary departure under section 244(e) 
of the Act), to an alien ``convicted, on or after the date of enactment 
of [the 1988] Act, of an aggravated felony.'' Pub. L. 100-690 
Secs. 7343(c) and 7344(b), 102 Stat. at 4470, 4471. If the term 
``aggravated felony'' were to be interpreted to apply only to 
convictions occurring on or after November 18, 1988, then the 
prospective language that placed limits on the retroactivity of 
specific sections of the 1988 Act would be redundant, in violation of 
the maxim that no provision of a law should be construed to render a 
word or clause surplus. Matter of A-A-, Interim Dec. 3176 (BIA 1992) at 
8-10 and n.13.
    It is clear that Congress intended to prohibit an alien who has 
been convicted of an aggravated felony from applying for or being 
granted asylum or withholding of deportation. Therefore, these 
provisions of the proposed rule are adopted without amendment in the 
final rule.

15. Discretionary Denial of Asylum (Section 208.14(e))

    Proposed Rule: The proposed rule would have added a new section 
208.14(e) to provide that an applicant who is otherwise eligible may be 
denied asylum in the discretion of the Attorney General if the 
applicant can and will be deported or returned to a country in which 
the applicant would not face harm or persecution and would have access 
to a full and fair asylum procedure, in accordance with bilateral or 
multilateral arrangements with the United States governing such 
matters.
    Comments: A few comments endorsed this proposal. One comment noted 
that the proposed rule would prevent ``country shopping'' and encourage 
potential refugees to seek protection in the first country of refuge. 
Another comment agreed that the proposed rule will be beneficial, 
provided that a treaty or other formal agreement designate the ``safe 
country.'' Another comment recommended that the proposed rule be 
amended to prohibit an asylum application from a person applying for 
admission at a Port of Entry and who departed for the United States or 
is coming from a country which is signatory to either the 1951 
Convention or the 1967 United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status 
of Refugees, and in which the alien would not face harm or persecution 
and would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining his 
or her asylum claim.
    However, most comments opposed giving asylum officers and 
immigration judges the authority to deny asylum as a matter of 
discretion on this ground to an otherwise qualified applicant. Several 
comments claimed that these provisions do not establish acceptable 
standards for refugee safety or due process in the receiving country, 
and thus do not fulfill the requirements for a proposed rule under the 
Administrative Procedure Act. Another comment warned that the ability 
to determine what is a fair procedure for asylum should not be left to 
the discretion of governmental agencies where political considerations 
may play a large role.
    A number of comments stated that refugees have the right to seek 
protection in the country of choice and that many asylum-seekers choose 
the United States because the countries through which they travel do 
not offer adequate protection from discrimination or home-country 
persecutors. Comments also argued that applicants may be deported to a 
country in which they had never been present. Furthermore, courts have 
held that an asylum-seeker may not be deported to a third country where 
there are no assurances that the asylum seeker would not be indirectly 
returned to the persecuting country, citing Amanullah v. Cobb, 862 F.2d 
362 (1st Cir. 1988), vacated as moot, 872 F.2d 11 (1st Cir. 1989). 
Under the proposed rule, an asylee also would be required to obtain 
travel documents from his or her country of origin, which might 
endanger the applicant or the applicant's family.
    Other comments questioned how the United States would ascertain 
that the asylee would be protected in the ``safe country.'' One comment 
advocated that a careful and open review be conducted to determine that 
procedures in the designated first country of asylum are carried out in 
the same manner and with the same safeguards as asylum determinations 
made within the United States. In addition, this commenter suggested, 
there should be verifiable assurances that the denied applicant will be 
treated by the ``safe country'' in a manner consistent with United 
States legal obligations. Other comments expressed the opinion that a 
``safe country'' may forcibly repatriate an asylee to the country of 
persecution or that the asylee will be transferred from country to 
country. Several comments stated that current rules regarding ``firm 
resettlement'' adequately prevent forum shopping.
    Other comments recommended modifications to the proposed rule. One 
comment advocated that additional factors such as the presence of 
family members in the United States, the applicant's ties (if any) to 
the receiving country, and whether the applicant has a criminal record, 
be used to determine whether or not to exercise the discretion to deny. 
Another comment stated that only immigration judges should be 
authorized to deny asylum under the proposed rule because only they 
have the power to order aliens deported.
    Response and Disposition: These comments have been considered 
carefully. It must be emphasized that the discretionary authority 
referred to in this provision is contingent upon bilateral or 
multilateral agreements with other nations, and that no such agreements 
now exist. In the absence of such agreements, discretionary authority 
under this section cannot be exercised. Prior to the implementation of 
any such agreement by the Department, public notice will be provided. 
The Department is satisfied that the basic standard set forth in this 
section is sufficient to protect the rights and interests of persons 
entitled to protection from persecution in the event that the United 
States enters such an agreement. In the meantime, most of the concerns 
presented in the comments relate to how the discretionary authority 
would be exercised. These concerns and others will be taken into 
account if and when a bilateral or multilateral agreement on this 
subject is made. This provision is retained in the final rule with an 
amendment to clarify that the alien may be returned only to a country 
through which the alien actually traveled en route to the United 
States.

16. Issuance of Employment Authorization to Asylees (Section 
208.20)

    Proposed Rule: The proposed rule would have amended section 208.20 
to provide that a person granted asylum who desires to work shall 
receive an employment authorization document (EAD) expeditiously upon 
application to the INS.
    Comments: A comment stated that an asylee should not be required to 
apply for an EAD, but should be issued an EAD along with notification 
of the asylum decision.
    Response and Disposition: The proposed amendments to section 208.20 
are designed to ensure that asylees receive their EAD promptly upon 
application. They do not create new requirements or obstacles for 
asylees seeking authorization to work. Asylees are among the categories 
of persons who are eligible for employment incident to their status but 
must nevertheless apply for an employment authorization document. 8 CFR 
274a.12(a)(5). Among others in this category are those aliens who are 
admitted as refugees, granted withholding of deportation, or granted 
Temporary Protected Status. Since authorization for employment is a 
discretionary immigration benefit, the INS will continue to require 
that persons in these categories file a separate application for an 
EAD. Accordingly, this provision of the proposed rule will be retained 
in the final rule with an amendment for clarity.

17. Aliens in Exclusion or Deportation Proceedings (Sections 
236.3(a) and 242.17(c)(2))

    Proposed Rule: These provisions require that in the case of an 
alien in exclusion or deportation proceedings who expresses a fear of 
harm or persecution upon return to his or her country of origin or 
country of deportation, the immigration judge shall advise the alien 
that he or she may apply for asylum or withholding of deportation and 
shall make available the appropriate application forms. The proposed 
rule would have amended these provisions to exempt situations where the 
alien already has filed an asylum application and that application has 
been referred to the immigration judge in accordance with the proposed 
amendments to 8 CFR 208.14(b).
    Comments: Several comments, all of which also criticized the direct 
referral of asylum applications under 8 CFR 208.14(b), stated that 
there should be no exception for situations where an asylum applicant 
has been referred to an immigration judge. The comments argued that as 
a result of this change, referred asylum applicants will receive less 
procedural protection than other persons in removal proceedings.
    Response and Disposition: These changes do not deny any substantive 
procedural protection to asylum applicants. An applicant referred under 
8 CFR 208.14(b) already has made an application for asylum, and thus 
need not be advised of a right he or she has exercised. Referred 
applicants will enjoy all the procedural rights accorded to other 
persons in proceedings before an immigration judge. Accordingly, these 
provisions of the proposed rule are adopted in the final rule, with 
section 236.3(a) amended for clarity.

18. Use of Information in Application to Establish Deportability 
(Section 242.17(e))

    Proposed Rule: The proposed rule would have amended section 
242.17(e) to expressly permit the INS to use information supplied in an 
application for asylum as the basis for issuance of an Order to Show 
Cause under 8 CFR 242.1 and thus initiate deportation proceedings.
    Comments: A few comments criticized this amendment, stating that it 
violates confidentiality by exposing the claims of applicants in 
immigration court and violates due process by shifting the burden of 
proof to establish deportability away from the INS. The comments stated 
that this subsection would be an obstacle to the right to apply for 
asylum because if the applicant's claim is denied, he or she faces 
immediate deportation based on evidence provided in the application. 
Some deserving applicants will avoid this risk and choose not to apply.
    Response and Disposition: This aspect of the proposed rule is 
necessary to promptly refer cases to an immigration judge for decision. 
Often, the asylum application is the only source of information 
available to the Service to initiate proceedings before the immigration 
judge. Persons who choose not to file asylum applications for this 
reason may forego their opportunity for consideration of their claim by 
an asylum officer; if they are apprehended by the INS and placed 
directly in proceedings, the immigration judge will have exclusive 
jurisdiction over their cases. Immigration regulations need not be 
designed to protect the ability of a person to remain unlawfully in the 
United States without detection.
    At the advice of the public, this provision will be amended for 
clarity to provide that it applies to applications for asylum or 
withholding of deportation filed on or after January 4, 1995.
    The final rule will further amend section 242.17(e) to state that 
an application made under section 242.17 may constitute an admission of 
alienage or deportability if the alien has been properly served with 
notice of the hearing before an immigration judge even in cases in 
which the applicant has failed without excuse to appear for the 
hearing. This amendment is necessary to enable the entry of orders of 
deportation against aliens who are not lawfully present in the United 
States, have been properly served with an Order to Show Cause, and fail 
to appear for their hearing.

19. Employment Authorization for Persons in Proceedings (Section 
274a.12(c)(13))

    Proposed Rule: The proposed rule would eliminate 8 CFR 
274a.12(c)(13), which provides that a person in exclusion or 
deportation proceedings who is not detained and not subject to a final 
order of deportation may apply for employment authorization.
    Comments: Several comments opposed this change on the ground that 
persons in deportation proceedings who have filed no applications for 
relief, but who contest their exclusion or deportation on other 
grounds, will have no other basis to obtain employment authorization 
and support themselves.
    Response and Disposition: As stated in the supplementary 
information to the proposed rule, virtually all persons who are not 
detained and are subject to exclusion or deportation proceedings are 
eligible to apply for employment authorization under other provisions 
of 8 CFR 274.12(c). Retaining this paragraph would be inconsistent with 
the intent of this rule to limit access to employment authorization to 
asylum applicants whose cases are granted or whose cases are not 
decided promptly. Accordingly, this portion of the proposed rule is 
adopted without amendment in the final rule.

20. Fee for Applications for Employment Authorization (Section 274a.13)

    Proposed Rule: The proposed rule would have amended section 274a.13 
to provide that an applicant for employment authorization under section 
274a.12(c)(8) (relating to asylum applicants) must pay a fee upon both 
the initial application and applications for renewal of work 
authorization.
    Comments: Numerous comments criticized the proposal for imposing a 
filing fee upon asylum applicants. These comments are summarized under 
heading 4. We consider these comments to be directed as well to the 
proposal to charge a filing fee for initial applications for employment 
authorization.
    Response and Disposition: The Department has determined that the 
final rule will require payment of a fee only upon application for 
replacement or renewal of an employment authorization document. This is 
consistent with the decision not to charge a fee for the filing of an 
application for asylum. It also is reasonable to charge a renewal fee 
to those who have previously been granted employment authorization. As 
part of an ongoing comprehensive economic analysis of its entire fee 
structure, the INS will examine alternative sources of funding for 
employment authorization adjudications, including the possibility of a 
user fee.
    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Attorney General certifies 
that this rule will not have a significant adverse economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, based upon the following factors. 
This rule principally affects the adjudication of individual claims for 
asylum and withholding of deportation and thus would have no 
significant economic impact on small businesses, organizations, or 
state or local governmental agencies. The amendments to regulations 
concerning the issuance and renewal of employment authorization 
documents could have a small and indirect impact upon business entities 
by withholding employment authorization in certain cases.
    The Department of Justice considers this rule to be a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, and 
accordingly submitted this rule to the Office of Management and Budget 
for review.
    The proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the 
states, on the relationship between the national government and the 
states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive 
Order 12612, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient 
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism 
Assessment.
    The Attorney General has reviewed this rule in light of section 
2(c) of Executive Order 12778 and finds that the rule meets the 
applicable standards provided in section 2(b) of the order.
    The information collection requirements contained in this rule have 
been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act. Clearance numbers for these 
collections are contained in 8 CFR 299.5, Display of Control Numbers.
    The interim rule's amendments to 8 CFR 208.3(a) and 208.4(a) are 
superseded by amendments made by this final rule. The interim rule's 
amendments to 8 CFR 208.4(b) are adopted without amendment as part of 
this final rule.

List of Subjects

8 CFR Part 208

    Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Immigration, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

8 CFR Part 236

    Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Immigration.

8 CFR Part 242

    Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens.

8 CFR Part 274a

    Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Employment, 
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

8 CFR Part 299

    Immigration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Accordingly, chapter I of title 8 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 208--PROCEDURES FOR ASYLUM AND WITHHOLDING OF DEPORTATION

    1. The authority citation for part 208 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1158, 1226, 1252, 1282; 31 U.S.C. 
9701; 8 CFR part 2.

    2. Section 208.1 is amended by:
    a. Revising in paragraph (a) the first sentence;
    b. Removing in paragraph (a), in the second and fourth sentences, 
the phrase ``October 1, 1990'' and adding in its place ``January 4, 
1995'';
    c. Adding to paragraph (a) a new sentence at the end of the 
paragraph;
    d. Revising in paragraph (b) the second sentence; and
    e. Removing in paragraph (c) the phrase ``assist the Deputy 
Attorney General and the Director of the Asylum Policy and Review Unit, 
in coordination'' and adding in its place the word ``coordinate'', to 
read as follows:


Sec. 208.1  General.

    (a) This part shall apply to all applications for asylum or 
withholding of deportation, whether before an asylum officer or an 
immigration judge, that are filed on or after January 4, 1995 or 
pending as of January 4, 1995. * * * The provisions of this part 
relating to a person convicted of an aggravated felony, as defined in 
section 101(a)(43) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43), shall apply to 
applications for asylum or withholding of deportation that are filed on 
or after November 29, 1990.
    (b) * * * These shall include a corps of professional asylum 
officers who are to receive special training in international human 
rights law, conditions in countries of origin, and other relevant 
national and international refugee laws. * * *
* * * * *
    3. Section 208.2 is amended by:
    a. Removing in paragraph (a) the second sentence and adding in its 
place three new sentences; and
    b. Removing in paragraph (b) the second and third sentences and 
adding in their place three new sentences, to read as follows:


Sec. 208.2  Jurisdiction.

    (a) * * * An application that is complete within the meaning of 
Sec. 208.3(c)(5) shall be either adjudicated or referred by asylum 
officers under this part in accordance with Sec. 208.14. With the 
exception of cases involving crewmen, stowaways, or aliens temporarily 
excluded under section 235(c) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1225(c), which are 
within the jurisdiction of an asylum officer pursuant to Sec. 253.1(f) 
of this chapter, an asylum officer shall not decide whether an alien is 
entitled to withholding of deportation under section 243(h) of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. 1253(h). An application that is incomplete within the meaning 
of Sec. 208.3(c)(5) shall be returned to the applicant.
    (b) * * * The immigration judge shall make a determination on such 
claims. In cases where the adjudication of an application has been 
referred in accordance with Sec. 208.14, that application shall be 
forwarded with the charging document to the Office of the Immigration 
Judge by the Asylum Office. As a matter of discretion, the immigration 
judge may permit the applicant to amend the application, but any delay 
caused by such a request shall extend the period within which the 
applicant may not apply for employment authorization in accordance with 
Sec. 208.7(a).
    4. Section 208.3 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and adding a 
new paragraph (c), to read as follows:


Sec. 208.3  Form of application.

    (a) An application for asylum or withholding of deportation shall 
be made on Form I-589 (Application for Asylum and for Withholding of 
Deportation) and shall be submitted, together with any additional 
supporting material, in triplicate, meaning the original plus two 
copies. The applicant's spouse and children as defined in section 101 
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(35) and 1101(b)(1), may be included on the 
application if they are in the United States. One additional copy of 
the principal applicant's I-589 must be submitted for each dependent 
listed on the principal's application. An application shall be 
accompanied by one completed Form FD-258 (Fingerprint Card) for every 
individual included on the application who is 14 years of age or older. 
Forms I-589 and FD-258 are available from the INS and from the Offices 
of Immigration Judges. The application for asylum or withholding of 
deportation also shall be accompanied by a total of two photographs of 
each applicant and two photographs of each dependent included on the 
application.
* * * * *
    (c) The application (Form I-589) shall be filed under the following 
conditions and shall have the following consequences, as shall be noted 
in the instructions on the application:
    (1) Information provided in completing the application may be used 
as a basis for the institution of, or as evidence in, exclusion 
proceedings in accordance with part 236 of this chapter or deportation 
proceedings in accordance with part 242 of this chapter;
    (2) Information provided in the application may be used to satisfy 
the burden of proof of the INS in establishing the applicant's 
deportability under part 242 of this chapter;
    (3) Mailing to the address provided by the applicant on the 
application or the last change of address form (INS Form AR-11), if 
any, received by the INS shall constitute adequate service of all 
notices or other documents, except a Notice to Alien Detained for 
Hearing by an Immigration Judge (Form I-122), service of which is 
governed by Sec. 235.6 of this chapter, and an Order to Show Cause 
(Form I-221), service of which is governed by section 242B(a)(1) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. 1252b(a)(1);
    (4) The applicant and anyone other than an immediate relative who 
assists the applicant in preparing the application must sign the 
application under penalty of perjury. The applicant's signature is 
evidence that the applicant is aware of the contents of the 
application. A person other than an immediate relative who assists the 
applicant in preparing the application also must provide his or her 
full mailing address;
    (5) An application for asylum and for withholding of deportation 
that does not include a response to each of the questions contained in 
the Form I-589, that is unsigned, or that is unaccompanied by the 
required materials specified in paragraph (a) of this section is 
incomplete. An application that is incomplete shall be returned by mail 
to the applicant within 30 days of the receipt of the application by 
the INS. The filing of an incomplete application shall not commence the 
150-day period after which the applicant may file an application for 
employment authorization in accordance with Sec. 208.7(a)(1). If an 
application has not been mailed to the applicant within 30 days, it 
shall be deemed complete; and
    (6) Knowing placement of false information on the application may 
subject the person placing that information on the application to 
criminal penalties under title 18 of the United States Code and to 
civil penalties under section 274C of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1324c. 5. 
Section 208.4 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:


Sec. 208.4  Filing the application.

* * * * *
    (a) With the Service Center by mail. Except as provided in 
paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, applications for asylum or 
withholding of deportation shall be filed directly by mail with the 
Service Center servicing the Asylum Office with jurisdiction over the 
place of the applicant's residence or, in the case of an alien without 
a United States residence, the applicant's current lodging or the land 
border port of entry through which the alien seeks admission to the 
United States. The addresses of the Service Centers shall be made 
available through the local INS Information Unit. Upon receipt of the 
application, except in the case of an alien who has been convicted of 
an aggravated felony, the Service Center shall forward a copy of the 
application to the Department of State.
* * * * *
    6. Section 208.7 is amended by:
    a. Revising the section heading;
    b. Revising paragraph (a);
    c. Revising in paragraph (b) the introductory text;
    d. Adding a new paragraph (b)(3);
    e. Removing, wherever it appears in the introductory text to 
paragraph (c), the phrase ``Asylum Officer'' and adding in its place 
the phrase ``asylum officer'';
    f. Removing, wherever it appears in the introductory text to 
paragraph (c), the phrase ``District Director'' and adding in its place 
the phrase ``district director'';
    g. Removing in the introductory text to paragraph (c) the phrase 
``Immigration Judge'' and adding in its place the phrase ``immigration 
judge'';
    h. Removing in paragraph (c)(1) the phrase ``before the Immigration 
Judge'' and adding in its place the phrase ``before the immigration 
judge'';
    i. Removing in paragraph (c)(2) the phrase ``by the Immigration 
Judge'' and adding in its place the phrase ``by the immigration 
judge''; and
    j. Removing in paragraph (d) the word ``sixty'' and adding in its 
place ``ninety'', to read as follows:


Sec. 208.7  Employment authorization.

    (a) (1) An applicant for asylum who has not been convicted of an 
aggravated felony shall be eligible pursuant to Secs. 274a.12(c)(8) and 
274a.13(a) of this chapter to submit an Application for Employment 
Authorization (Form I-765). The application shall be submitted no 
earlier than 150 days after the date on which a complete application 
for asylum submitted in accordance with Secs. 208.3 and 208.4 of this 
part has been received. If an application for asylum has been returned 
as incomplete in accordance with Sec. 208.3(c)(5), the 150-day period 
will commence upon receipt by the INS of a complete application for 
asylum. An applicant whose application for asylum has been denied by an 
asylum officer or by an immigration judge within the 150-day period 
shall not be eligible to apply for employment authorization. After the 
expiration of the 150-day period, the INS shall have 30 days from the 
date of filing of an initial application for employment authorization 
to grant or deny that application. If the INS fails to adjudicate the 
asylum application within that period, the alien shall be eligible for 
interim employment authorization under this chapter. If an application 
for asylum is denied by an immigration judge or an asylum officer 
within the 30-day period, but prior to a decision on the application 
for employment authorization, the application for employment 
authorization shall be denied.
    (2) An applicant who has been convicted of an aggravated felony 
shall not be granted employment authorization. In cases where an 
applicant has previously received employment authorization and his or 
her application for asylum or withholding of deportation is denied 
because the applicant has been convicted of an aggravated felony, the 
employment authorization shall terminate as of the date of the denial.
    (3) For purposes of this paragraph (a), the time periods within 
which the alien may not apply for employment authorization and within 
which the INS must respond to any such application shall begin when the 
alien has filed a complete asylum application in accordance with 
Secs. 208.3 and 208.4. Any delay requested or caused by the applicant 
shall not be counted as part of these time periods. Such time periods 
also shall be extended by the equivalent of the time between issuance 
of a request for evidence under Sec. 103.2(b)(8) of this chapter and 
the receipt of the applicant's response to such request.
    (4) An applicant who fails without good cause to appear for a 
scheduled interview before an asylum officer or a hearing before an 
immigration judge shall not be granted employment authorization 
pursuant to Sec. 274a.12(c)(8) of this chapter.
    (5) The provisions of paragraphs (a) (1), (3), and (4) of this 
section shall apply to persons who have filed an application for asylum 
or withholding of deportation on or after January 4, 1995.
    (b) Subject to the restrictions in paragraph (b)(3) of this 
section, employment authorization shall be renewable, in increments to 
be determined by the Commissioner, for the continuous period of time 
necessary for the asylum officer or immigration judge to decide the 
asylum application and, if necessary, for final adjudication of any 
administrative or judicial review.
* * * * *
    (3) If an application for asylum filed on or after November 29, 
1990 is denied pursuant to Sec. 208.14(c)(4) or Sec. 208.16(c)(2)(ii) 
because the applicant has been convicted of an aggravated felony, any 
employment authorization previously issued under Sec. 208.7(a) shall 
automatically terminate as of the date of the denial.
* * * * *
    7. Section 208.8 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 208.8  Limitations on travel outside the United States.

    An applicant who leaves the United States pursuant to advance 
parole granted under 8 CFR 212.5(e) shall be presumed to have abandoned 
his application under this section if he returns to the country of 
claimed persecution unless the applicant is able to establish 
compelling reasons for such return.
    8. Section 208.9 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e);
    b. Removing from paragraph (f) the phrase ``Bureau of Human Rights 
and Humanitarian Affairs of the'' and the phrase ``, the Asylum Policy 
and Review Unit of the Department of Justice,''; and
    c. Adding a new paragraph (g), to read as follows:


Sec. 208.9  Interview and procedure.

    (a) For each application for asylum or withholding of deportation 
that is complete within the meaning of Sec. 208.3(c)(5) and that is 
within the jurisdiction of the Office of Refugees, Asylum, and Parole, 
an interview shall be conducted by an asylum officer, either at the 
time of the application or at a later date to be determined by the 
Asylum Office. Applications within the jurisdiction of an immigration 
judge are to be adjudicated under the rules of procedure established by 
the Executive Office for Immigration Review in parts 3, 236, and 242 of 
this chapter.
    (b) The asylum officer shall conduct the interview in a 
nonadversarial manner and, at the request of the applicant, separate 
and apart from the general public. The purpose of the interview shall 
be to elicit all relevant and useful information bearing on the 
applicant's eligibility for the form of relief sought. At the time of 
the interview, the applicant must provide complete information 
regarding his or her identity, including name, date and place of birth, 
and nationality, and may be required to register this identity 
electronically or through any other means designated by the Attorney 
General. The applicant may have counsel or a representative present, 
may present witnesses, and may submit affidavits of witnesses and other 
evidence.
    (c) The asylum officer shall have authority to administer oaths, 
verify the identity of the applicant (including through the use of 
electronic means), verify the identity of any interpreter, present and 
receive evidence, and question the applicant and any witnesses.
    (d) Upon completion of the interview, the applicant or his 
representative shall have an opportunity to make a statement or comment 
on the evidence presented. The asylum officer, in his or her 
discretion, may limit the length of such statement or comment and may 
require their submission in writing. Upon completion of the interview, 
the applicant shall be informed that he or she must appear in person to 
receive and to acknowledge receipt of the decision of the asylum 
officer and any other accompanying material at a time and place 
designated by the asylum officer. An applicant's failure to appear to 
receive and acknowledge receipt of the decision shall be treated as 
delay caused by the applicant for purposes of Sec. 208.7(a)(3) and 
shall extend the period within which the applicant may not apply for 
employment authorization by the number of days until the applicant does 
appear to receive and acknowledge receipt of the decision or until the 
applicant appears before an immigration judge in response to the 
issuance of a charging document under Sec. 208.14(b).
    (e) The asylum officer shall consider evidence submitted by the 
applicant together with his or her asylum application, as well as any 
evidence submitted by the applicant before or at the interview. As a 
matter of discretion, the asylum officer may grant the applicant a 
brief extension of time following an interview during which the 
applicant may submit additional evidence. Any such extension shall 
extend by equivalent time the periods specified by Sec. 208.7 for the 
filing and adjudication of employment authorization applications.
* * * * *
    (g) An applicant unable to proceed with the interview in English 
must provide, at no expense to the INS, a competent interpreter fluent 
in both English and the applicant's native language. The interpreter 
must be at least 18 years of age. Neither the applicant's attorney or 
representative of record nor a witness testifying on the applicant's 
behalf may serve as the applicant's interpreter. Failure without good 
cause to comply with this paragraph may be considered a failure without 
good cause to appear for the interview for purposes of Sec. 208.10.
    9. Section 208.10 is amended by:
    a. Revising the first sentence; and
    b. Removing, wherever it appears in the second and third sentences, 
the phrase ``Asylum Officer'' and adding in its place the phrase 
``asylum officer'', to read as follows:


Sec. 208.10  Failure to appear.

    The failure without good cause of an applicant to appear for a 
scheduled interview under Sec. 208.9(a) may be deemed to constitute a 
waiver of the right to an interview with an asylum officer or, in the 
case of an alien crewman, stowaway, alien temporarily excludable under 
section 235(c) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1225, or alien currently in lawful 
immigration status, may be deemed to constitute an abandonment of the 
application. * * *
    10. Section 208.11 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 208.11  Comments from the Department of State.

    (a) At its option, the Department of State may provide detailed 
country conditions information addressing the specific conditions 
relevant to eligibility for refugee status according to the grounds 
specified in section 101(a)(42) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42). Any 
such information relied upon by an immigration judge in deciding a 
claim for asylum or withholding of deportation shall be made part of 
the record and the parties shall be provided an opportunity to review 
and respond to such information prior to the issuance of a decision.
    (b) At its option, the Department of State also may comment on an 
application it receives pursuant to Sec. 208.4(a), Sec. 236.3, or 
Sec. 242.17 of this chapter by providing:
    (1) An assessment of the accuracy of the applicant's assertions 
about conditions in his or her country of nationality or habitual 
residence and his or her particular situation;
    (2) Information about whether persons who are similarly situated to 
the applicant are persecuted in his or her country of nationality or 
habitual residence and the frequency of such persecution;
    (3) Such other information as it deems relevant.
    (c) Asylum officers and immigration judges may request specific 
comments from the Department of State regarding individual cases or 
types of claims under consideration, or such other information as they 
deem appropriate. Any such comments shall be made part of the record. 
Unless the comments are classified under Executive Order 12356 (3 CFR, 
1982 Comp., p. 166), the applicant shall be provided an opportunity to 
review and respond to such comments prior to the issuance of an adverse 
decision.


Sec. 208.12  [Amended]

    11. In Sec. 208.12, paragraph (a) is amended by:
    a. Removing the phrase ``the Asylum Policy and Review Unit,'';
    b. Removing the phrase ``Asylum Officer'' and adding in its place 
the phrase ``asylum officer'';
    c. Removing the phrase ``District Director'' and adding in its 
place the phrase ``district director''; and
    d. Removing the second sentence.


Sec. 208.13  [Amended]

    12. Sec. 208.13 is amended by:
    a. Removing in paragraph (b)(1)(ii), the last sentence, the 
citation ``Sec. 208.14(c)'' and adding in its place the citation 
``Sec. 208.14(d)'';
    b. Removing in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) the phrase ``Asylum Officer'' 
and adding in its place the phrase ``asylum officer''; and
    c. Removing in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) the phrase ``Immigration 
Judge'' and adding in its place the phrase ``immigration judge''.
    13. Section 208.14 is amended by:
    a. Revising the section heading;
    b. Removing in paragraph (a) the phrase ``Immigration Judge'' and 
adding in its place the phrase ``immigration judge'';
    c. Removing in paragraph (a) the words ``or Asylum Officer'';
    d. Removing in paragraph (a) the phrase ``paragraph (c)'' and 
adding in its place the phrase ``paragraph (d)'';
    e. Removing in paragraph (b) the phrase ``paragraph (c)'' and 
adding in its place the phrase ``paragraph (d)'';
    f. Redesignating paragraphs (b) and (c) as paragraphs (c) and (d) 
respectively;
    g. Adding a new paragraph (b);
    h. Removing in redesignated paragraph (d)(2) the word ``or'' at the 
end of the paragraph;
    i. Removing in redesignated paragraph (d)(3) the ``.'' at the end 
of the paragraph and adding in its place ``; or'';
    j. Adding a new paragraph (d)(4); and
    k. Adding a new paragraph (e), to read as follows:


Sec. 208.14  Approval, denial, or referral of application.

* * * * *
    (b) (1) An asylum officer may grant asylum in the exercise of 
discretion to an applicant who qualifies as a refugee under section 
101(a)(42) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42), unless otherwise 
prohibited by paragraph (d) of this section.
    (2) In the case of an alien (other than a crewman, stowaway, or 
alien temporarily excluded under section 235(c) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
1225(c)) who shall appear to be deportable under section 241 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. 1251, or excludable under section 212 of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. 1182, the asylum officer shall either grant asylum or refer the 
application to an immigration judge for adjudication in deportation or 
exclusion proceedings commenced in accordance with part 236 or part 242 
of this chapter. An asylum officer may refer such an application after 
an interview conducted in accordance with Sec. 208.9 or if, in 
accordance with Sec. 208.10, the applicant is deemed to have waived his 
or her right to an interview.
    (3) In the case of a crewman, stowaway, or alien temporarily 
excluded under section 235(c) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1225(c), the asylum 
officer may grant or deny asylum in accordance with the procedures set 
forth in Sec. 253.1(f) of this chapter. In addition, where an 
application filed by such a person is not granted, the asylum officer 
shall issue a Notice of Intent to Deny to the applicant stating the 
reasons why the application would be denied. The applicant shall be 
given a period not less than 10 days to rebut the Notice of Intent to 
Deny.
    (4) In the case of a person other than described in paragraphs (b) 
(2) and (3) of this section, the asylum officer may grant or deny 
asylum.
    (5) No application for asylum or withholding of deportation shall 
be subject to denial under the authority contained in Sec. 103.2(b) of 
this chapter.
* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (4) The alien has been convicted of an aggravated felony, as 
defined in section 101(a)(43) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43).
    (e) Discretionary denials. An application from an alien may be 
denied in the discretion of the Attorney General if the alien can and 
will be deported or returned to a country through which the alien 
traveled en route to the United States and in which the alien would not 
face harm or persecution and would have access to a full and fair 
procedure for determining his or her asylum claim in accordance with a 
bilateral or multilateral arrangement with the United States governing 
such matter.
    14. Sec. 208.16 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (a);
    b. Removing in paragraph (b)(4) the phrase ``Asylum Officer'' and 
adding in its place the phrase ``asylum officer'';
    c. Removing in paragraph (b)(4) the phrase ``Immigration Judge'' 
and adding in its place the phrase ``immigration judge''; and
    d. Revising paragraph (c)(2)(ii), to read as follows:


Sec. 208.16  Entitlement to withholding of deportation.

    (a) Consideration of application for withholding of deportation. 
With the exception of cases that are within the jurisdiction of an 
asylum officer pursuant to Sec. 253.1(f) of this chapter, an asylum 
officer shall not decide whether an alien is entitled to withholding of 
deportation under section 243(h) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1253(h). If the 
application for asylum is granted, no decision on withholding of 
deportation will be made unless and until the grant of asylum is later 
revoked or terminated, and exclusion or deportation proceedings at 
which a new request for withholding of deportation is made are 
commenced. In such proceedings, an immigration judge may adjudicate 
both a renewed asylum claim and a request for withholding of 
deportation simultaneously whether or not asylum is granted.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) The alien, having been convicted by a final judgment of a 
particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of 
the United States. An alien who has been convicted of an aggravated 
felony shall be considered to have committed a particularly serious 
crime and to constitute a danger to the community of the United States;
* * * * *
    15. Section 208.17 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 208.17  Decision.

    The decision of an asylum officer to grant or to deny asylum or 
withholding of deportation, or to refer an application in accordance 
with Sec. 208.14(b), shall be communicated in writing to the applicant, 
to the Assistant Commissioner, Refugees, Asylum, and Parole, and to the 
district director having jurisdiction over the place of the applicant's 
residence or over the port of entry from which the applicant sought 
admission to the United States. A letter communicating denial of the 
application shall state why asylum or withholding of deportation was 
denied. The letter also shall contain an assessment of the applicant's 
credibility, unless the application was denied pursuant to 
Sec. 208.14(d)(4) or Sec. 208.16(c)(2)(ii).
    Pursuant to Sec. 208.9(d), an applicant must appear in person to 
receive and to acknowledge receipt of the decision.
    16. In Sec. 208.18, paragraphs (a) and (b) are revised to read as 
follows:


Sec. 208.18  Review of decisions and appeal.

    (a) The Assistant Commissioner, Office of Refugees, Asylum, and 
Parole, may review decisions by asylum officers. Parties shall have no 
right of appeal to or right to appear before the Assistant Commissioner 
in the course of such review.
    (b) Except as provided in Sec. 253.1(f) of this chapter, there 
shall be no appeal from a decision of an asylum officer. In a case 
referred to an immigration judge in accordance with Sec. 208.14(b), the 
supervisory asylum officer, pursuant to the authority set forth in 
Secs. 235.6(a) and 242.1(a) of this chapter, shall issue respectively a 
Notice to Applicant for Admission Detained for Hearing Before 
Immigration Judge (Form I-122) or an Order to Show Cause (Form I-221).
* * * * *
    17. Section 208.20 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 208.20  Approval and employment authorization.

    An alien granted asylum and eligible derivative family members are 
authorized to be employed in the United States pursuant to 
Sec. 274a.12(a)(5) of this chapter and if intending to be employed, 
must apply to the INS for a document evidencing such authorization. The 
INS shall issue such document within 30 days of the receipt of the 
application therefor.
    18. Section 208.21 is amended by:
    a. Revising the introductory text in paragraph (a);
    b. Redesignating paragraph (a)(3) as paragraph (a)(4);
    c. Removing at the end of paragraph (a)(2) the word ``or''; and
    d. Adding a new paragraph (a)(3), to read as follows:


Sec. 208.21  Admission of asylee's spouse and children.

    (a) Eligibility. A spouse, as defined in section 101(a)(35) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(35), or child, as defined in section 
101(b)(1)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), or (F) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 
1101(b)(1)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E), or (F), also may be granted asylum 
if accompanying or following to join the principal alien who was 
granted asylum, unless it is determined that:
* * * * *
    (3) The spouse or child has been convicted of an aggravated felony, 
as defined in section 101(a)(43) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43); or
* * * * *
    19. Section 208.24 is amended by:
    a. Revising the heading and introductory text in paragraph (a);
    b. Revising the introductory text in paragraph (b);
    c. Revising paragraph (c);
    d. Removing in paragraph (a)(3) the citation ``208.14(c)'' and 
adding in its place the citation ``208.14(d)'';
    e. Removing paragraph (f); and
    f. Redesignating paragraph (g) as paragraph (f), to read as 
follows:


Sec. 208.24  Revocation of asylum or withholding of deportation.

    (a) Revocation of asylum by the Assistant Commissioner, Office of 
Refugees, Asylum, and Parole. Upon motion by the Assistant Commissioner 
and following an interview by an asylum officer, the grant to an alien 
of asylum made under the jurisdiction of an asylum officer or a 
district director may be revoked if, by a preponderance of the 
evidence, the INS establishes that: * * *
    (b) Revocation of withholding of deportation by the Assistant 
Commissioner, Office of Refugees, Asylum, and Parole. Upon motion by 
the Assistant Commissioner and following an interview by an asylum 
officer, the grant to an alien of withholding of deportation made under 
the jurisdiction of an asylum officer or a district director may be 
revoked if, by a preponderance of the evidence, the INS establishes 
that:
* * * * *
    (c) Notice to applicant. Upon motion by the Assistant Commissioner 
to revoke asylum status or withholding of deportation, the alien shall 
be given notice of intent to revoke, with the reason therefore, at 
least thirty days before the interview by the asylum officer. The alien 
shall be provided the opportunity to present evidence tending to show 
that he or she is still eligible for asylum or withholding of 
deportation. If the asylum officer determines that the alien is no 
longer eligible for asylum or withholding of deportation, the alien 
shall be given written notice that asylum status or withholding of 
deportation along with employment authorization are revoked. 
Notwithstanding any provision of this section, an alien granted asylum 
or withholding of deportation who is subject to revocation because he 
or she has been convicted of an aggravated felony is not entitled to an 
interview before an asylum officer.
* * * * *

PART 236--EXCLUSION OF ALIENS

    20. The authority citation for part 236 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1182, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1362.

    21. Section 236.3 is amended by:
    a. Revising the introductory text in paragraph (a);
    b. Removing from the first sentence in paragraph (b) the citation 
``Sec. 208.4(b)'' and adding in its place the citation 
``Sec. 208.4(c)'';
    c. Revising the second sentence in paragraph (b);
    d. Removing, wherever it appears in paragraph (c), the phrase 
``Immigration Judge'' and adding in its place the phrase ``immigration 
judge'';
    e. Removing, wherever it appears in paragraph (c)(4), the phrase 
``Trial Attorney'' and adding in its place the phrase ``trial 
attorney'';
    f. Removing in paragraph (d) the phrase ``Immigration Judge'' and 
adding in its place the phrase ``immigration judge''; and
    g. Removing in paragraph (d) the phrase ``Trial Attorney'' and 
adding in its place the phrase ``trial attorney'', to read as follows:


Sec. 236.3  Applications for asylum or withholding of deportation.

    (a) If the alien expresses fear of persecution or harm upon return 
to his or her country of origin or to a country to which the alien may 
be deported after a determination of excludability from the United 
States pursuant to part 237 of this chapter, and the alien has not been 
referred to the immigration judge by an asylum officer in accordance 
with Sec. 208.14(b) of this chapter, the immigration judge shall: * * *
    (b) * * * Upon receipt of an application that has not been referred 
by an asylum officer, the Office of the Immigration Judge shall forward 
a copy to the Department of State pursuant to Sec. 208.11 of this 
chapter and shall calendar the case for a hearing. * * *
* * * * *

PART 242--PROCEEDINGS TO DETERMINE DEPORTABILITY OF ALIENS IN THE 
UNITED STATES: APPREHENSION, CUSTODY, HEARING, AND APPEAL

    22. The authority citation for part 242 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1182, 1186a, 1251, 1252, 1252 note, 
1252b, 1254, 1362; 8 CFR part 2.

    23. 242.17 is amended by:
    a. Removing, wherever it appears in paragraph (c)(1), the phrase 
``Immigration Judge'' and adding in its place the phrase ``immigration 
judge'';
    b. Revising the introductory text in paragraph (c)(2);
    c. Removing from the first sentence in paragraph (c)(3) the 
citation ``Sec. 208.4(b)'' and adding in its place the citation 
``Sec. 208.4(c)'';
    d. Revising the second sentence in paragraph (c)(3);
    e. Removing from the third sentence in paragraph (c)(3) the phrase 
``Trial Attorney'' and adding in its place the phrase ``trial 
attorney'';
    f. Removing, wherever it appears in paragraph (c)(4), the phrase 
``Immigration Judge'' and adding in its place the phrase ``immigration 
judge'';
    g. Removing in paragraph (c)(4)(iv) the phrase ``Trial Attorney'' 
and adding in its place the phrase ``trial attorney'';
    h. Removing in paragraph (c)(5) the phrase ``Immigration Judge'' 
and adding in its place the phrase ``immigration judge'';
    i. Removing in paragraph (c)(5) the phrase ``Trial Attorney'' and 
adding in its place the phrase ``trial attorney''; and
    j. Adding in paragraph (e) a new sentence immediately after the 
first sentence, to read as follows:


Sec. 242.17  Ancillary matters, applications.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) If the alien expresses fear of persecution or harm upon return 
to any of the countries to which the alien might be deported pursuant 
to paragraph (c)(1) of this section, and the alien has not previously 
filed an application for asylum or withholding of deportation that has 
been referred to the immigration judge by an asylum officer in 
accordance with Sec. 208.14(b) of this chapter, the immigration judge 
shall: * * *
    (3) * * * Upon receipt of an application that has not been referred 
by an asylum officer, the Office of the Immigration Judge shall forward 
a copy to the Department of State pursuant to Sec. 208.11 of this 
chapter and shall calendar the case for a hearing. * * *
* * * * *
    (e) * * * However, nothing in this section shall prohibit the INS 
from using information supplied in an application for asylum or 
withholding of deportation submitted to an asylum officer pursuant to 
Sec. 208.2 of this chapter on or after January 4, 1995 as the basis for 
issuance of an Order to Show Cause under Sec. 242.1 or to establish 
alienage or deportability in a case referred to an immigration judge 
under Sec. 208.14(b) of this chapter.
    24. Sec. 242.18 is amended by:
    a. Revising the section heading;
    b. Removing, wherever it appears in paragraph (a), the phrase 
``special inquiry officer'' and adding in its place the phrase 
``immigration judge'';
    c. Removing, wherever it appears in paragraph (b), the phrase 
``special inquiry officer'' and adding in its place the phrase 
``immigration judge'';
    d. Revising the heading in paragraph (c); and
    e. Removing, wherever it appears in paragraph (c), the phrase 
``special inquiry officer'' and adding in its place the phrase 
``immigration judge'', to read as follows:


Sec. 242.18  Decision of the immigration judge.

* * * * *
    (c) Order of the immigration judge. * * *

PART 274a--CONTROL OF EMPLOYMENT OF ALIENS

    25. The authority citation for part 274a continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1324a; 8 CFR part 2.

    26. Section 274a.12 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (c)(8);
    b. Revising the first sentence in paragraph (c)(10);
    c. Removing in paragraph (c)(11) the word ``emergent'' and adding 
in its place the word ``emergency''; and
    d. Removing and reserving paragraph (c)(13), to read as follows:


Sec. 274a.12  Classes of aliens authorized to accept employment.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (8) An alien who has filed a complete application for asylum or 
withholding of deportation pursuant to part 208 of this chapter, whose 
application has not been decided, and who is eligible to apply for 
employment authorization under Sec. 208.7 of this chapter because the 
150-day period set forth in that section has expired. Employment 
authorization may be granted according to the provisions of Sec. 208.7 
of this chapter in increments to be determined by the Commissioner and 
shall expire on a specified date;
* * * * *
    (10) An alien who has filed an application for suspension of 
deportation pursuant to part 244 of this chapter, if the alien 
establishes an economic need to work. * * *
* * * * *
    (13) [Reserved].
* * * * *
    27. Sec. 274a.13 is amended by revising paragraph (a), and the 
first sentence in paragraph (d), to read as follows:


Sec. 274a.13  Application for employment authorization.

    (a) General. Aliens authorized to be employed under 
Sec. 274a.12(a)(3)-(8) and (10)-(13) must file an Application for 
Employment Authorization (Form I-765) in order to obtain documentation 
evidencing this fact.
    (1) Aliens who may apply for employment authorization under 
Sec. 274a.12(c) of this part, except for those who may apply under 
Sec. 274a.12(c)(8), shall file a Form I-765 with the district director 
having jurisdiction over the applicant's residence, or the district 
director having jurisdiction over the port of entry at which the alien 
applies, or with such other INS office as the Commissioner may 
designate. The approval of applications filed under Sec. 274a.12(c) of 
this part, except for Sec. 274a.12(c)(8), shall be within the 
discretion of the district director. Where economic necessity has been 
identified as a factor, the alien must provide information regarding 
his or her assets, income, and expenses in accordance with instructions 
on Form I-765.
    (2) An initial application for employment authorization (Form I-
765) filed under Sec. 274a.12(c)(8) of this part shall be filed in 
accordance with the instructions on or attached to Form I-765, with the 
appropriate Service Center or with such other INS office as the 
Commissioner may designate. The applicant also must submit a copy of 
the underlying application for asylum or withholding of deportation, 
together with evidence that the application has been filed in 
accordance with Secs. 208.3 and 208.4 of this chapter. An application 
for an initial employment authorization filed in relation to a pending 
claim for asylum shall be adjudicated in accordance with Sec. 208.7 of 
this chapter. An application for renewal or replacement of employment 
authorization submitted in relation to a pending claim for asylum, as 
provided for in Sec. 208.7 of this chapter, shall be filed, with fee or 
with application for waiver of such fee, in accordance with the 
instructions on or attached to Form I-765, with the appropriate Service 
Center or with such other INS office as the Commissioner may designate. 
The Service Center shall adjudicate the application within 30 days of 
receipt.
* * * * *
    (d) Interim employment authorization. The district director shall 
adjudicate the application within 90 days from the date of receipt of 
the application by the INS, except in the case of an initial 
application for employment authorization under Sec. 274a.12(c)(8), 
which is governed by paragraph (a)(2) of this section. * * *

PART 299--IMMIGRATION FORMS

    28. The authority citation for Part 299 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103; 8 CFR part 2.
    29. The table in Sec. 299.5 is amended by revising the entry for 
form I-589 to read as follows:


Sec. 299.5  Display of control numbers.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Currently
                                                               assigned 
INS form No.                  INS form title                      OMB   
                                                                control 
                                                                  No.   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
                                  *****                                 
I-589.......  Application for Asylum and for Withholding of     115-0086
               Deportation.                                             
                                                                        
                                  *****                                 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: November 29, 1994.
Janet Reno,
Attorney General.
[FR Doc. 94-29724 Filed 12-2-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-P