[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 243 (Monday, December 19, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 92346-92373]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29726]



[[Page 92345]]

Vol. 81

Monday,

No. 243

December 19, 2016

Part VII





Department of Justice





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





Executive Office for Immigration Review





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





8 CFR Parts 1001, 1003, 1103, et al.





Recognition of Organizations and Accreditation of Non-Attorney 
Representatives; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 243 / Monday, December 19, 2016 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 92346]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Executive Office for Immigration Review

8 CFR Parts 1001, 1003, 1103, 1212, and 1292

[EOIR Docket No. 176; A.G. Order No. 3783-2016]
RIN 1125-AA72


Recognition of Organizations and Accreditation of Non-Attorney 
Representatives

AGENCY: Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

DATES: This rule is effective on January 18, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean King, General Counsel, Executive 
Office for Immigration Review, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2600, Falls 
Church, Virginia 22041, telephone (703) 305-0470 (not a toll-free 
call).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Public Participation
II. Regulatory Background
III. Comments and Responses
    A. Transfer of R&A Program From the Board to OLAP
    B. Recognition and Accreditation
    C. Administrative Termination of Recognition and Accreditation
    D. Sanctioning Recognized Organizations and Accredited 
Representatives
    E. Filings and Communications
    F. Request for Reconsideration and Administrative Review
    G. Recognition and Accreditation for Practice Before DHS
IV. Other Revisions
V. Notice and Comment
VI. Regulatory Requirements
    A. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
    D. Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 (Regulatory 
Planning and Review)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform
    G. Paperwork Reduction Act

I. Public Participation

    On October 1, 2015, the Department published in the Federal 
Register a rule proposing to amend the regulations governing the 
requirements and procedures for authorizing representatives of non-
profit religious, charitable, social service, or similar organizations 
to represent persons in proceedings before the Executive Office for 
Immigration Review (EOIR) and the Department of Homeland Security 
(DHS). 80 FR 59514 (Oct. 1, 2015). The rule also proposed amendments to 
the regulations concerning EOIR's disciplinary procedures. Id. The 
Department received 63 comments from various sources, including non-
profit organizations, bar associations, government agencies, legal 
clinics, attorneys, and law students. Both in response to these 
comments and as a result of further consideration, the Department has 
decided to revise the proposed rule as discussed below. Except for 
those revisions, the proposed rule is adopted without change.

II. Regulatory Background

    The rule amends 8 CFR part 1292 by removing Sec.  1292.2, revising 
Sec. Sec.  1292.1, 1292.3, and 1292.6, and adding Sec. Sec.  1292.11 
through 1292.19. It amends 8 CFR 1001.1 and 8 CFR part 1003 at 
Sec. Sec.  1003.0, 1003.1, and 1003.101 through 1003.108, and it adds 
Sec. Sec.  1003.110 and 1003.111. The rule also amends 8 CFR part 1103 
at Sec.  1103.3 and 8 CFR part 1212 at Sec.  1212.6. The rule transfers 
the administration of the Recognition and Accreditation (R&A) program 
within EOIR from the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) to the Office 
of Legal Access Programs (OLAP) (8 CFR 1003.0); amends the 
qualifications for recognition of organizations and accreditation of 
their representatives (8 CFR 1292.11 and 1292.12); institutes 
administrative procedures to enhance the management of the R&A roster 
(8 CFR 1292.13 through 1292.19); and updates the disciplinary process 
to make recognized organizations, in addition to accredited 
representatives, attorneys, and other practitioners, subject to 
sanctions for conduct that contravenes the public interest (8 CFR 
1003.101 et seq.).

III. Comments and Responses

    As noted above, the Department received sixty-three comments in 
response to the proposed rule. Twenty-nine comments were from 
currently-recognized non-profit organizations and other non-profit 
organizations. Three comments were from bar associations, 11 comments 
were from private individuals, 19 comments were anonymously submitted, 
and 1 comment came from a government entity.
    In response to the comments, the Department changed a number of 
provisions. First, the final rule makes a number of changes to the 
requirements for recognition. The final rule retains the requirement 
that organizations must have an accredited representative to be 
recognized or renewed if the organization is seeking recognition for 
the first time or is a currently recognized organization without an 
accredited representative on the effective date of the rule. However, 
once an organization is recognized, the organization will not have its 
recognition administratively terminated if it no longer has an 
accredited representative. Such organizations will be placed on 
inactive status. The final rule details the rules and procedures for 
inactive status. (Section III.B.1.a.) The final rule removes the 
substantial amount standard for recognition and the associated waiver 
provision set forth in the proposed rule. (Section III.B.1.d.) Instead, 
the focus in the recognition process is placed on whether organizations 
are non-profit, federally tax-exempt religious, charitable, social 
service, or similar organizations and whether they are providing 
immigration legal services primarily to low-income and indigent clients 
in the United States. The final rule provides that these requirements 
will be considered together. (Section III.B.1.e.)
    Second, the final rule makes no changes to the character and 
fitness provision for accreditation. Therefore, immigration status 
remains a factor in that determination. However, further clarification 
and guidance regarding why and how immigration status may be used as a 
factor is provided in the supplementary information. (Section 
III.B.2.a.)
    Third, as mentioned above, the final rule unlinks recognition and 
accreditation, which allows the validity period for recognition to be 
increased to six years and to run independent of the three-year period 
of accreditation for an organization's representatives. Accordingly, 
organizations and their representatives will seek renewal of 
recognition and accreditation separately at the conclusion of their 
respective recognition and accreditation cycles. (Section III.B.5.)
    Fourth, the final rule amends the reporting requirement in the 
proposed rule. The final rule renames the annual report as the ``annual 
summary of immigration legal services provided'' to avoid confusion 
with other annual

[[Page 92347]]

reports that organizations may prepare. More significantly, the 
information required to be submitted has shifted to focus on the legal 
services provided by the organization as a whole, rather than by its 
accredited representatives individually. (Section III.B.8.)
    Fifth and finally, the final rule includes the following additional 
changes: Removes the requirement of renewal for all other organizations 
recognized at the effective date of the final rule if they seek 
extension of recognition or accreditation of a new representative 
(Section III.B.6); adds provisions that give OLAP the ability to permit 
electronic communications and filings among OLAP, prospective and 
current organizations, DHS, the EOIR disciplinary counsel, and the 
anti-fraud officer (Section III.E.); and adds provisions that enable 
organizations to request reconsideration of OLAP determinations that 
disapprove requests for recognition or accreditation or that 
administratively terminate recognition or accreditation and that permit 
organizations to seek administrative review of denied reconsideration 
requests before the Director (Section III.F).
    Below, the Department summarizes in greater detail the comments 
received and explains the changes, if any, that the Department has made 
in response. Note that because some comments overlap and commenters 
raised multiple subjects, the comments are generally addressed by topic 
rather than by reference to a specific commenter.

A. Transfer of R&A Program From the Board to OLAP

    The Department received nine comments addressing the transfer of 
the administration of the R&A Program within EOIR from the Board to 
OLAP. Six comments from non-profit organizations, bar associations, and 
a government body supported the transfer as ``well-placed and 
appropriate'' because of OLAP's mission to facilitate access to legal 
representation and counseling and its record in doing so. Two of these 
commenters expressed concern that the public and DHS staff may be 
confused by the change in administrator, and another commenter stated 
that the transfer may cause confusion because advocates have educated 
the public about ``BIA recognized organizations'' and ``BIA accredited 
representatives.'' However, all three commenters that had concerns 
asserted that the confusion may be alleviated through clear public 
guidance from OLAP on its role and responsibilities and the use of a 
commonly recognized term, such as ``DOJ recognized organization'' or 
``DOJ accredited representative.''
    Three commenters opposed the transfer based on concerns about 
whether OLAP's current staffing and resources are adequate to enable 
OLAP to take on the new duties and responsibilities provided by the 
rule.
    The Department has made no change to the proposed rule and 
accordingly the administration of the R&A Program will be transferred 
from the Board to OLAP. See final rule at 8 CFR 1003.0. The Department 
is committed to providing OLAP with sufficient resources to 
successfully administer its new duties and responsibilities under this 
rule. As suggested by the commenters, the Department will endeavor to 
engage in significant education and outreach with the public and 
government stakeholders regarding the R&A program, the changes in this 
rule, and OLAP's role. Furthermore, the effective date of the final 
rule on January 18, 2017, leaves considerable time after the date of 
publication to provide time for public awareness and outreach and to 
effectively and efficiently manage the transfer of the program. See 80 
FR at 59523 n. 70 (``At the effective date of the final rule, a pending 
application for initial recognition, initial accreditation, or renewal 
of accreditation before the Board would be transferred to OLAP to 
review. Organizations with such pending applications would have to meet 
the new requirements of the final rule to be approved for recognition 
or accreditation. OLAP will provide organizations with pending 
applications the opportunity to amend the applications, if necessary, 
to conform to the new requirements of the final rule. Further guidance 
will be provided prior to the effective date of the final rule'').

B. Recognition and Accreditation

1. Recognition Qualifications
a. Accredited Representative Required and Inactive Status
    The Department received 20 comments regarding the requirement that 
an organization have at least one accredited representative to be 
recognized, to maintain recognition, and to have its recognition 
renewed. Of the 20 comments received, one supported the requirement, 
eight generally supported the requirement, and 11 opposed the 
requirement. The commenters that opposed the requirement and those that 
generally supported it were primarily concerned that an organization 
could have its recognition terminated if it lost its accredited 
representative at any time during the validity period or if it did not 
have one on staff at renewal because of the linking of recognition and 
accreditation in the proposed rule. The commenters suggested that if 
recognition and accreditation must be linked, the rule should provide a 
grace period to give recognized organizations time to replace their 
only accredited representative when the representative leaves the 
organization or is otherwise terminated. The commenters asserted that 
the grace period could come through the inactive status provision but 
asked for clarification regarding whether placement on inactive status 
was automatic or required an organization to request this status and 
how long an organization could be permitted to remain on inactive 
status. Commenters also raised a concern that one year after the 
effective date of the final rule would not be sufficient time for 
organizations that are currently recognized without an accredited 
representative to obtain an accredited representative and come into 
compliance with the rule.
    The final rule retains the accredited representative requirement 
for organizations to be recognized or renewed if the organization is 
seeking recognition for the first time or is a currently recognized 
organization without an accredited representative on the effective date 
of the rule. See final rule at 8 CFR 1292.11(a)(3). The Department 
believes that the requirement is a foundational element of the rule 
because the purpose of recognizing an organization is to allow for the 
accreditation of non-attorney representatives. The Department believes 
that currently recognized organizations without an accredited 
representative on the effective date of the rule will have sufficient 
time to hire, train, and seek accreditation for a new representative, 
given that the rule provides such organizations with an additional year 
beyond the effective date to submit their application for renewal of 
their recognition under this rule.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This provision also applies to currently recognized 
organizations that only have attorneys on staff on the effective 
date of the rule, January 18, 2017. Such organizations will have one 
year from January 18, 2017, to seek accreditation for a new 
representative and submit an application for renewal of recognition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the comments, however, the Department recognizes that a 
rigid requirement that an organization have an accredited 
representative at all times does not account for the practical 
realities that organizations face with limited budgets, the hiring 
process, and employee turnover. In this regard, once an organization is 
recognized, the final rule has unlinked recognition and

[[Page 92348]]

accreditation so that an organization will not have its recognition 
administratively terminated if it no longer has an accredited 
representative. Recognized organizations that lose their only 
accredited representative will be placed on inactive status, which is 
clarified in the final rule at 8 CFR 1292.16(i), and they will be 
allowed a reasonable amount of time to obtain a new accredited 
representative before risking termination of recognition.
    The final rule moves the regulatory text regarding inactive status 
from proposed Sec.  1292.17(e) to 8 CFR 1292.16(i) and revises it so 
that organizations are placed on inactive status when they have no 
currently approved accredited representative on staff and they have 
promptly notified OLAP of that situation as mandated by the reporting 
requirements.\2\ Inactive status provides the organization with a grace 
period of two years from the date the organization was placed on 
inactive status to apply for and have approved at least one accredited 
representative. The grace period provided by inactive status prevents 
an organization from having its recognition administratively terminated 
and gives it sufficient time to obtain a new representative. Under the 
final rule, the OLAP Director has the discretion to extend an 
organization's time on inactive status when warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A recognized organization on inactive status would remain on 
the R&A roster with a designation that it has no accredited 
representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule makes clear that organizations on inactive status 
must request renewal of recognition if their renewal period occurs 
while on inactive status. See final rule at 8 CFR 1292.16(i). The OLAP 
Director has the discretion to renew an inactive organization's 
recognition without a currently approved accredited representative as 
long as the organization otherwise meets the requirements for renewal 
and attests that it intends to apply for and have approved a new 
representative within two years of renewal. See final rule at 8 CFR 
1292.11(a)(3), 1292.16(a), (i). If the renewal request is granted under 
such circumstances, the organization will remain on inactive status and 
have 2 years from the date of renewal to obtain a new accredited 
representative.
    Organizations on inactive status remain subject to administrative 
termination of recognition under 8 CFR 1292.17. Specifically, their 
recognition may be administratively terminated when they do not request 
renewal of recognition while on inactive status or do not have an 
individual approved for accreditation during the time period specified 
at 8 CFR 1292.16(i).
    Finally, an organization on inactive status is not authorized to 
provide immigration legal services, unless it has at least one attorney 
on staff. See final rule at 8 CFR 1292.16(i). Organizations on inactive 
status that continue to provide immigration legal services without an 
attorney on staff may be subject to disciplinary sanctions for the 
unauthorized practice of law. The final rule adds a ground of 
discipline for organizations at 8 CFR 1003.110(b)(5), if the 
organization provides immigration legal services without an attorney or 
accredited representative on staff.
b. Federal Tax-Exempt Status
    The Department received 19 comments regarding the proposed 
requirement that an organization establish that it is federally tax-
exempt. The Department asked for comment on this requirement and 
specifically asked whether the requirement would be too restrictive and 
whether Federal tax-exempt status should be limited to organizations 
exempted under 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3). See 80 FR at 59528.
    Fourteen commenters supported the requirement, one commenter 
generally supported the provision, and four commenters did not support 
the provision. The majority of the fourteen commenters who supported 
the provision urged that the final rule be as broad as possible to 
extend to social service or similar organizations that do not fall 
within the section 501(c)(3) Federal tax-exemption. Commenters asked 
that a range of documents suffice to prove Federal tax-exempt status. 
The commenter that expressed general support for the Federal tax-
exemption requirement stated that waivers of the requirement should be 
given sparingly. Three of the commenters against the requirement 
asserted that the burden of cost and time associated with seeking 
Federal tax-exempt status would discourage capacity building. The 
fourth comment in opposition stated that the requirement was too 
stringent because it excluded certain institutions from becoming 
recognized like public schools and libraries.
    The final rule retains the requirement that organizations be 
federally tax-exempt to be recognized,\3\ while changing the proof 
required to show Federal tax-exempt status to include a variety of 
supporting documents. See final rule at 8 CFR 1292.11(a)(2), (c). The 
rule modifies the proof required to include an organization's currently 
valid Internal Revenue Service tax exemption letter (under 26 U.S.C. 
501(c)(3) or some other section of the Federal tax code),\4\ 
alternative documentation to establish Federal tax-exempt status, or 
proof that it has applied for Federal tax-exempt status. See final rule 
at 8 CFR 1292.11(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In addition to establishing Federal tax-exempt status, as 
discussed in section III.B.1.e below, an organization must also 
establish that it is a non-profit religious, charitable, social 
service, or similar organization that provides immigration legal 
services primarily to low-income and indigent clients within the 
United States in order to qualify for recognition.
    \4\ Government entities, such as libraries, schools, or local 
government offices, may provide a government information letter from 
the Internal Revenue Service to show that the entity is exempt from 
Federal taxes. This letter can be requested from the IRS free-of-
charge. Government Information Letter, Internal Revenue Service 
(Jan. 26, 2016), https://www.irs.gov/Government-Entities/Federal,-State-&-Local-Governments/Governmental-Information-Letter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As under the proposed rule, if an organization has not yet received 
an IRS tax-exemption determination letter at the time it applies for 
recognition, it may satisfy this requirement by submitting proof that 
it has applied for Federal tax-exempt status. 80 FR at 59517. The final 
rule, however, clarifies at 8 CFR 1292.11(f) that such organizations 
will be granted conditional recognition. Conditional recognition allows 
these organizations to begin providing services while their 
applications for tax exemptions are pending and gives OLAP the 
opportunity to evaluate the organizations at an earlier renewal date to 
ensure that they have become federally tax-exempt and otherwise meet 
the requirements for recognition. See generally 80 FR at 59524.
c. Elimination of Nominal Charges Requirement
    The Department received 22 comments regarding the elimination of 
the ``nominal charges'' requirement. Eighteen comments supported the 
elimination of the requirement that a recognized organization charge 
only a nominal fee for its immigration legal services because it tended 
to impede the ability of organizations to serve greater numbers of 
individuals in need and discouraged new organizations from seeking 
recognition. Three commenters were against the elimination of the 
requirement because they believed that it would place recognized 
organizations in financial competition with private attorneys and could 
lead to market-rate fees. The fourth comment against the change opposed 
it because of concerns that the proposed substantial amount standard 
would be even more burdensome for organizations than the ``nominal 
charges'' requirement. This sentiment was shared by many of the 
commenters who expressed support for

[[Page 92349]]

the elimination of the nominal charges requirement and is addressed 
more fully in the next section.
    The final rule eliminates the ``nominal charges'' requirement, as 
proposed. The Department believes, as noted by the commenters, that the 
elimination of the nominal charges requirement for recognition is 
supported by the rule's other requirements that ensure that 
organizations are non-profit, federally tax-exempt religious, 
charitable, social service, or similar organizations that are primarily 
serving low-income or indigent clients. These requirements mandate that 
any ``[l]egal fees, membership dues, or donations charged or requested 
by a recognized organization are expected to be at a rate meaningfully 
less than the cost of hiring competent private immigration counsel in 
the same geographic area,'' so that low-income and indigent clients are 
able to access the organization's immigration legal services. 80 FR at 
59519.
d. Substantial Amount of Budget Is Not Derived From Client Charges
    The Department received 30 comments on the requirement that 
organizations demonstrate that a substantial amount of its immigration 
legal services budget is derived from sources other than funds provided 
by or on behalf of immigration clients themselves, such as legal fees, 
donations, or membership dues. The Department specifically requested 
public comment on the substantial amount standard.
    Twenty-four commenters opposed the substantial amount requirement. 
The commenters objected to the standard because it placed an 
impractical reliance on outside funding sources of revenue that was 
unreflective of the diversity of ways in which organizations provide 
immigration legal services or of the availability of outside funding. 
They stated that many organizations depend on fees to provide legal 
services and that even when they may have outside funding sources, 
those funds may only be applied to certain legal services while other 
services must be supported by fees. The commenters criticized the 
requirement as being just as burdensome for organizations as the 
nominal fee restriction because it lacked enough specificity for the 
organizations to understand or OLAP to implement with ease or 
consistency. They speculated that regardless of the percentage of 
outside funding applied the requirement could lead organizations to 
provide less services and volume of service in order to reduce their 
fee revenue and meet the standard. Three commenters who supported the 
requirement even noted that a too-stringent focus on outside sources of 
funding could lead to organizations being unable to meet the standard 
or a greater need for waivers of the requirement to the point that the 
requirement would have no meaning. The commenters in opposition 
recommended that the Department remove the substantial amount standard 
from the final rule and shift the focus to whether organizations are 
non-profit, federally tax-exempt religious, charitable, social service, 
or similar organizations that are primarily providing immigration legal 
services to low-income and indigent clients in the United States.
    The final rule removes the substantial amount standard for 
recognition and the associated waiver provision set forth in the 
proposed rule. The Department agrees with the concerns of commenters 
who opposed the standard that a requirement that an organization have 
outside sources of funding would be unduly burdensome and act as a 
potential deterrent to capacity building. The proper focus in the 
recognition process is whether organizations are non-profit, federally 
tax-exempt religious, charitable, social service, or similar 
organizations that are primarily providing immigration legal services 
to low-income and indigent clients in the United States. Accordingly, 
as discussed below, the funding sources of an organization are one of 
several relevant factors in that assessment.
e. Serving Primarily Low-Income and Indigent Persons and Non-Profit 
Status
    The Department received 16 comments on the proposed provision 
requiring that an organization provide immigration legal services 
primarily to low-income and indigent clients within the United States. 
The Department specifically requested comment on this provision and the 
corresponding requirement that, if an organization charges fees, the 
organization has a written policy for accommodating clients unable to 
pay for immigration legal services.
    Ten commenters generally supported the requirements that recognized 
organizations primarily serve low-income and indigent clients and have 
a written policy to accommodate those unable to pay for immigration 
legal services. However, these commenters and two additional commenters 
stated that the proof required to demonstrate that organizations 
primarily serve low-income and indigent clients was too burdensome. In 
particular, commenters objected to producing guidelines to determine 
whether individuals are low-income and indigent because of the 
difficulty in verifying the income of clients with unconventional work 
circumstances or inadequate documentation. They asserted that 
organizations target the low-income and indigent communities as part of 
their mission without defining the terms low-income and indigent. The 
commenters recommended, as they did above regarding the substantial 
amount standard, that the Department focus on an organization's non-
profit status, mission, and all of its other charitable reporting 
duties to the Federal Government or local donors.
    Four commenters stated that the final rule should set a standard or 
provide guidance for what constitutes low-income and indigent. One 
commenter recommended the Federal poverty standard, whereas another 
commenter suggested a standard of household assets less than $10,000, 
excluding the value of the client's residence and vehicle. A third 
commenter stated that the rule should require organizations to show 
that clients who are not low-income or indigent fall within some 
multiple of the low-income standard. The last commenter stated that an 
income percentage should be set so that organizations would know who 
they may serve in order to be recognized.
    The final rule retains the requirements that recognized 
organizations primarily serve low-income and indigent clients and have 
a written policy to accommodate those unable to pay for immigration 
legal services and joins it with the requirement that the organization 
be a non-profit religious, charitable, social service, or similar 
organization. See final rule at 8 CFR 1292.11(a)(1). As discussed in 
the proposed rule, these requirements are related. See 80 FR at 59518 
(``In order to avoid recognizing organizations with for-profit motives 
and to advance the requirement that organizations have a religious, 
charitable, social service, or similar purpose, the proposed rule would 
require an organization to establish that it provides immigration legal 
services primarily to low-income and indigent clients.''). The 
Department has determined that they should be considered together in 
the final rule and, accordingly, has combined and amended the proof 
required to satisfy these requirements. Under the final rule at 8 CFR 
1292.11(b), an organization must submit: a copy of its organizing 
documents, including a statement of its mission or purpose; a 
declaration from its authorized officer attesting that it serves 
primarily low-income and

[[Page 92350]]

indigent clients; a summary of the legal services to be provided; if it 
charges fees for legal services, fee schedules and organizational 
policies or guidance regarding fee waivers or reduced fees based on 
financial need; and its annual budget. The organization may also submit 
additional documentation to demonstrate non-profit status and service 
to primarily low-income and indigent individuals, such as tax filings, 
reports prepared for funders, or information about other free or low-
cost immigration-related services that it provides like educational or 
outreach events.
    These amendments to the proof required address the comments raised 
and more accurately and simply allow organizations to show whether they 
are non-profit religious, charitable, social service, or similar 
organizations that primarily serve low-income and indigent clients. As 
discussed in the proposed rule, the proof required to make this showing 
cannot be limited to demonstrating tax-exempt status under 26 U.S.C. 
501(c)(3) (concerning entities organized for religious, charitable, 
social service, or other specified purposes), because such a 
designation is for tax purposes and more significantly, organizations 
may be recognized that are tax-exempt under other sections of the 
Federal tax code. 80 FR at 59517. The rule thus requires an 
organization's charter, by-laws, articles of incorporation, or similar 
documents that show its religious, charitable, social service, or 
similar mission.
    The rule also includes as proof the organization's fee schedules 
and organizational policies or guidance regarding fee waivers or 
reduced fees based on financial need, if it charges fees for services. 
As stated in the proposed rule:

    Requiring recognized organizations to serve primarily low-income 
and indigent clients necessarily affects the magnitude of legal 
fees, membership dues, or donations, if any, that an organization 
may charge or request. Charging or requesting excessive fees, 
membership dues, or donations would not be consistent with the aim 
of serving primarily low-income and indigent clients. An 
organization that charges or requests such fees, dues, or donations 
would be less likely to primarily serve low-income and indigent 
clients, who have a limited ability to pay fees, and would be more 
likely to have an impermissible profit-seeking motive and prey upon 
vulnerable populations. Thus, while fees, dues, and donations for 
immigration legal services are not defined under the proposed rule, 
recognized organizations are expected to limit fees, dues, and 
donations charged or requested so that low-income and indigent 
clients are able to access the organization's immigration legal 
services . . . Legal fees, membership dues, or donations charged or 
requested by a recognized organization are expected to be at a rate 
meaningfully less than the cost of hiring competent private 
immigration counsel in the same geographic area.

80 FR at 59518-19. Thus, while the Department no longer intends to 
scrutinize these fee schedules under the final rule because the 
substantial amount requirement has been removed, the fee schedules may 
be used to evaluate whether an organization is serving primarily low-
income and indigent clients and serve as a baseline when a complaint is 
received about the fees charged by an organization. With respect to the 
organizational policies or guidance regarding fee waivers or reduced 
fees based on financial need, the Department does not require 
organizations to produce guidelines to determine whether individuals 
are low-income and indigent but it does expect that an organization's 
policies or guidance mention the factors or standards used when 
deciding to provide a fee waiver or reduced fees. Such information 
informs the Department's understanding of the organization's non-profit 
purpose to serve primarily low-income and indigent clients and gives 
the organization's clients some sense of the circumstances that would 
warrant fee waivers or reduced fees.
    Finally, the organization must include its annual budget for 
immigration legal services. Under the proposed rule, the budget was 
necessary for an analysis of the organization's funding under the 
substantial amount standard. Now, the budget will serve as further 
evidence that the organization is a non-profit that primarily serves 
low-income and indigent clients. The budget will show sources of 
revenue apart from fees, like grants and monetary or in-kind donations. 
To the extent that an organization cannot make such a showing of 
outside funding sources and is fee-dependent, the factors discussed 
above in addition to other documentation, such as its tax filing, 
letters of recommendation from the community, its annual report, or 
information about other free or low-cost immigration-related services 
that it provides, will be considered.
f. Knowledge and Experience
    Fifteen commenters sent the Department comments on the recognition 
requirement that an organization have ``access to adequate knowledge, 
information, and experience in all aspects of immigration law and 
procedure,'' 80 FR at 59538, and the related accreditation requirement 
that a proposed representative possess ``broad knowledge and adequate 
experience in immigration law and procedure,'' 80 FR at 59539. Both 
requirements are consistent with the Board's current decisions 
regarding the knowledge and experience sufficient to warrant 
recognition and accreditation. 80 FR at 59519-59520. For the reasons 
set forth below, the final rule retains the requirements for knowledge 
and experience for recognition and accreditation as stated in the 
proposed rule. See final rule at 8 CFR 1292.11(a)(4), 1292.12(a)(6).
    Four commenters expressed support for the recognition and 
accreditation requirements regarding knowledge and experience. Three of 
these commenters further stated that they appreciated that the rule 
allowed for flexibility in showing education, training, and experience 
by not mandating a specific number of formal training hours, specific 
courses, or testing.
    Eight commenters objected to the requirements because they lacked 
specificity regarding the knowledge and experience required for 
recognition and accreditation. They contended that the rule may fail to 
properly advise organizations as to the level of knowledge and 
experience required, or in the alternative, it could permit unqualified 
individuals to become accredited. Some of these commenters urged the 
Department to develop and administer a test for accreditation, or to 
require a minimum number of hours of on-the-job training or supervised 
practice before seeking accreditation. Others recommended that the 
Department develop a uniform, standardized training program on its own 
or in collaboration with DHS or other non-profit organizations, or 
require a specified number of immigration legal trainings per year. Two 
commenters stated that the Department should, as discussed in the 
proposed rule, make known, or even require completion of, recommended 
education, testing, training courses and hours, or internships that 
would satisfy the knowledge and experience requirements for 
accreditation.
    Five commenters asserted that the rule should require that 
organizations have attorney supervision or mentors in order to satisfy 
the knowledge and experience requirement to be recognized. According to 
these commenters, an attorney supervision or mentoring requirement 
would provide much needed oversight to avoid the improper handling of 
cases while also preventing unscrupulous individuals from attempting to 
obtain recognition and accreditation. Attorney supervision or mentoring 
could be achieved through

[[Page 92351]]

an attorney on staff or a formal arrangement with an attorney or 
another recognized organization with attorneys on staff. A waiver of 
the requirement could be provided when it was cost-prohibitive or not 
feasible due to a lack of attorneys in an area.
    While the Department understands the concerns raised regarding the 
need for attorney supervision or mentoring and more specific testing or 
training requirements, such requirements would not advance the rule's 
goal to increase capacity because they would result in increased costs 
for non-profit organizations. The flexible approach adopted by the rule 
allows organizations to meet the knowledge and experience requirements 
in a number of ways, and it is currently used by the Department in the 
recognition and accreditation process.
    Nonetheless, the Department recognizes that the knowledge and 
experience requirements would benefit from some parameters. As stated 
in the proposed rule, the Department intends to provide guidance on the 
knowledge and experience required for accreditation so that 
organizations are generally aware of the education, testing, training 
courses and hours, or internships that could satisfy the standard. 80 
FR at 59520. Similarly, the Department encourages, but does not 
require, organizations to have attorney supervision or mentors because 
attorney supervision or mentorship will likely show that an 
organization has access to adequate knowledge, information, and 
experience in order to be recognized. 80 FR at 59519.
    Furthermore, to the extent that an organization or representative 
engages in unscrupulous behavior or unprofessional conduct during the 
course of representation, the conduct may be remedied through the 
disciplinary process or the rule's other oversight procedures.
g. Authorized Officer
    The Department received eight comments regarding the recognition 
requirement that an organization designate an authorized officer who is 
empowered to act on its behalf for all matters related to recognition 
and accreditation. All of the comments supported the requirement, and 
the only concern raised was that organizations did not want to be 
unduly penalized because staff turnover leads an organization to lack 
an authorized officer briefly. The Department acknowledges that 
organizations and their appointed authorized officer may change over 
time, and the final rule requires organizations to promptly report such 
changes pursuant to 8 CFR 1292.14(a). The Department believes that 30 
days will generally be sufficient time for organizations to appoint 
someone to act in the capacity of an authorized officer until a 
replacement is designated, if they cannot designate a permanent 
replacement within that time, and to notify the OLAP Director of the 
change. The final rule without change adopts the requirement for an 
organization to designate an authorized officer. See final rule at 8 
CFR 1292.11(a)(5).
2. Accreditation Qualifications
a. Character and Fitness
    The Department received a number of comments on the replacement of 
the requirement that an accredited representative be a person of good 
moral character, with the requirement that a proposed representative 
possess the ``character and fitness'' to represent clients before the 
immigration courts, the Board, or DHS. The Department specifically 
asked for comments on the change and what factors may be relevant to 
the character and fitness assessment. In relation to the factors, the 
Department asked whether current immigration status should be a factor 
and to what extent EOIR should consider whether the individual has 
employment authorization, has been issued a notice of intent to revoke 
or terminate an immigration status (or other relief), such as asylum or 
withholding of removal or deportation, or is in pending deportation, 
exclusion, or removal proceedings.
    The Department received 16 comments on the change from good moral 
character to character and fitness. Eleven of the comments expressed 
opposition to the change, although two of the comments voiced 
opposition to the change without any stated reason. One comment in 
opposition was expressly adopted by five other commenters and 
reiterated by two other commenters. The commenters objected to the 
character and fitness requirement because it is the same requirement 
applied to attorneys in order for them to practice law. The commenters 
claimed that the requirement is not appropriate for accredited 
representatives because they differ from attorneys in that they can 
only provide immigration legal services and can only do so through a 
recognized organization. Three commenters also raised a concern that 
the character and fitness requirement may increase administrative 
burdens for the organization in the accreditation process. In 
particular, they recommended that the organization's attestation of 
good moral character and letters of recommendation, rather than 
background check documentation, should be sufficient to demonstrate 
good moral character.
    Five commenters expressed support for the change to the character 
and fitness requirement. Two of these commenters stated that the 
character and fitness requirement was appropriate because it would 
align the accreditation process with the process for attorneys to be 
admitted to their State bars to practice law. In contrast, one 
commenter asserted that while a general character and fitness standard 
was appropriate, the standard should not be identical to the standard 
applied to attorneys.
    The final rule retains the character and fitness requirement for 
accreditation. The Department agrees with the commenters who supported 
the requirement. Accredited representatives should be held to a similar 
standard of character and fitness as attorneys for the admission to 
practice law because accreditation allows an individual to provide 
immigration legal services. The fact that accredited representatives 
are limited to providing immigration legal services and are required to 
work through a recognized organization is immaterial because they are 
permitted to perform a function that is generally limited to attorneys 
held to the character and fitness standard.
    Additionally, the Department does not believe that the character 
and fitness requirement will create administrative burdens for 
organizations because organizations would not have to submit the 
extensive documentation that attorneys submit to obtain admission to a 
State bar. In fact, the same documents that may be used under the 
current regulation to show good moral character may be used to show 
character and fitness. Board of Immigration Appeals, Frequently Asked 
Questions about the Recognition and Accreditation Program 22 (Sept. 
2015), https://www.justice.gov/eoir/recognition-and-accreditation-faqs/download. The character and fitness requirement may be satisfied 
through attestations of the authorized officer of the organization and 
the proposed representative and letters of recommendation or favorable 
background checks. 80 FR at 59520. Additional documentation beyond this 
would only be necessary if the proposed representative has an issue in 
the proposed representative's record regarding the proposed 
representative's honesty, trustworthiness, diligence, professionalism, 
or reliability. 80 FR at 59520 & n.42.

[[Page 92352]]

    The Department received 29 comments regarding whether immigration 
status should be considered as a factor in the character and fitness 
assessment. Twenty-five commenters objected to the use of immigration 
status as a factor, and three other commenters expressed general 
concerns about how immigration status as a factor would negatively 
affect the ability to provide legal services through immigrants or 
volunteers. The 25 comments in objection generally rejected the 
proposition that there was an ``inherent conflict in having accredited 
representatives represent individuals before the same agencies before 
whom they are actively appearing in their personal capacities.'' 80 FR 
at 59520. Seventeen commenters stressed that a representative's 
personal immigration experience enhances the representative's ability 
to effectively represent others and guide them through the process. 
Four of the seventeen commenters further noted that they employed 
accredited representatives who are immigrants and had not witnessed or 
dealt with any conflict of interest during these representatives' 
representation of other immigrants as a result of their own personal 
immigration experience. Eight commenters stated that attorneys are not 
restricted from appearing in a professional capacity before courts in 
which they may have a personal matter pending and that immigrants are 
not typically excluded from the legal profession because of their 
immigration status alone. The commenters concluded that individuals 
should not be excluded from eligibility for accreditation based on 
their immigration status alone, regardless of whether they have 
employment authorization, are in removal proceedings, or are recipients 
of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, because immigration status 
does not create an inherent conflict. They argued that immigration 
status is not related to the character and fitness assessment as it has 
no bearing on an individual's honesty, trustworthiness, diligence, or 
professionalism and that considering it would potentially reduce 
capacity by excluding a segment of individuals who are likely to become 
representatives.
    Six commenters also rejected the proposition that an individual's 
immigration status would have any more effect on the continuity of 
representation than any other factor. They asserted that the same 
concern could be raised by other circumstances unrelated to immigration 
status, such as a new job, an illness, or maternity leave. Two 
commenters noted that the rule's goal of increasing capacity would be 
best served by allowing willing and capable individuals to become 
accredited representatives, even if they may be unable to represent a 
client on occasion or to completion of the client's matter.
    Five commenters that opposed immigration status as a factor offered 
suggestions for dealing with potential conflicts of interest or 
disruption in representation. One stated that the potential conflicts 
could be addressed through existing safeguards, such as the Rules of 
Professional Conduct for Practitioners. Another commenter asserted that 
potential conflicts should be handled on a case-by-case basis, rather 
than a categorical rule disqualifying individuals from accreditation. 
In this same regard, two commenters suggested that if a representative 
was in active removal proceedings, the representative could withdraw or 
EOIR could disqualify the representative from cases before the 
Immigration Judge hearing the representative's case. The fifth 
commenter suggested that a representative could name another person to 
continue the representation if the representative is removed from the 
United States while representing other persons.
    One commenter suggested that immigration status could be a factor 
in the character and fitness determination, acknowledging that an 
individual's immigration status may present a conflict of interest. The 
commenter stated that the level of immigration status required to 
satisfy the character and fitness standard depends on an examination of 
the individual's employment relationship with the organization, the 
resources of the organization, and the type of accreditation sought.
    After considering the comments received, the Department has 
determined that no change will be made to the proposed rule and that 
immigration status may be considered as a factor in the character and 
fitness determination for accreditation in certain circumstances. See 
final rule at 8 CFR 1292.12(a)(1). The Department recognizes that 
individuals who have been through the immigration system can provide 
valuable insight and assistance to others going through the system. 
However, as with any applicant for accreditation, not all individuals 
are fit to be accredited by the Department to provide immigration legal 
services. The Department has and will continue to consider issues 
relating to immigration status in determining whether an immigration 
practitioner is fit to appear before DHS and EOIR.\5\ Thus, the 
Department will make case-by-case assessments regarding accreditation, 
but as suggested by some commenters, the Department will likely not 
accredit individuals who are in active deportation, exclusion, or 
removal proceedings or who have been issued a notice of intent to 
revoke or terminate an immigration status (or other relief) until the 
matter is concluded.\6\ In these circumstances, the Department, through 
OLAP, will make the case-by-case assessment of whether an individual's 
immigration status presents an actual or perceived conflict of interest 
after such information arises that calls into question the individual's 
fitness to appear as a representative and, as the rule provides, the 
organization is given the opportunity to respond to the information. 
Similarly, individuals who are under an order of removal will generally 
not be eligible for accreditation unless they have received, for 
example, temporary protected status or Deferred Enforced Departure.\7\ 
The rule, however, does not require an organization to present proof of 
any immigration status during the application process.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See, e.g., Matter of Ravindra Singh Kanwal, D2009-053 (OCIJ 
July 8, 2009), and Matter of Noel Peter Mpaka Canute, D2010-124 
(OCIJ Mar. 16, 2011), available at https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/eoir/legacy/2014/02/03/CanuteMpakaNoelPeter_FinalOrder.pdf (last visited June 28, 2016).
    \6\ For purposes of this rule, individuals whose proceedings 
have been administratively closed would not be considered to be in 
active proceedings.
    \7\ This restriction does not apply to individuals who have been 
granted withholding of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3) or 
the Convention Against Torture, although under an order of removal.
    \8\ We note that when an accredited representative is an 
employee of the organization, the organization has an independent 
obligation to verify that its accredited representative employee is 
authorized to work in the United States. 8 U.S.C. 1324a; see also 80 
FR at 59520 n.43. Therefore, the Department will not consider 
employment authorization in its character and fitness assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Employee or Volunteer
    The Department received four comments on the requirement that a 
proposed representative for accreditation be an employee or volunteer 
of an organization so that the representative would be subject to the 
direction and supervision of the organization. The four comments all 
supported the requirement and stressed that the rule's explicit 
permission for volunteers to become accredited representatives would 
help increase capacity.\9\ The final rule retains without

[[Page 92353]]

change the requirement that the proposed representative be an employee 
or volunteer of an organization to be accredited. See final rule at 8 
CFR 1292.12(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ UFW Foundation, although in agreement with the employee/
volunteer requirement, suggested that the rule should permit an 
individual to become an accredited representative even though that 
individual may not be an employee or volunteer of an organization 
provided that the individual has adequate supervision and direction 
from a recognized organization. UFW Foundation posited that this 
circumstance would likely occur in rural communities where two 
organizations partner--one provides legal oversight and supervision 
and the other provides staff and space--in order to create a legal 
service infrastructure that neither could provide alone. The rule 
does not directly address such a circumstance, and as a result, 
contrary to UFW Foundation's assertion, it may be permissible in 
some form. For instance, a recognized organization may be able to 
extend its recognition and provide legal services through its own 
accredited representative at a location of another non-recognized 
organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. No Attorneys, No Orders Restricting Practice of Law or 
Representation, No Serious Crimes
    The Department received three comments on the provision that 
precludes attorneys, individuals under an order restricting their 
practice of law, and individuals convicted of a serious crime from 
being accredited. The first comment supported the restriction from 
accreditation of attorneys and those under an order restricting their 
practice of law. The other comments objected to the bar to 
accreditation of an individual convicted of a serious crime because it 
conflicts with the character and fitness requirement and may prevent 
otherwise qualified individuals from becoming accredited.
    The final rule does not change the restriction against 
accreditation of attorneys, individuals under an order restricting 
their practice of law, and individuals convicted of a serious crime. 
See final rule at 8 CFR 1292.12(a)(3)-(5). Regarding those convicted of 
a serious crime, this prohibition supplements the character and fitness 
requirement, as the Department has determined that individuals with 
serious crimes are not qualified to be accredited. Unlike with 
attorneys permitted to appear before EOIR and DHS, the Department has 
the authority to decide whether non-lawyers should be accredited and 
permitted to provide immigration legal services in the first instance 
and need not be limited to pursuing discipline against them based on a 
serious crime after they have been accredited.
3. Applying for Recognition and Accreditation
    The Department received four comments related to the provisions 
governing the application process for recognition and accreditation. 
The four comments conveyed general support for the application process 
but expressed some concerns. One commenter stated that EOIR should have 
a formal process for training and communicating with United States 
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Department of Homeland 
Security, regarding its role in the recommendation process for 
recognition and accreditation. Relatedly, another commenter stated that 
the process for service on the USCIS district director in the 
jurisdictions where the organization offers or intends to offer legal 
services should be simplified. This commenter asserted that the current 
EOIR Form-31 only has space to indicate service on one USCIS district 
director and suggested that service should be limited to the USCIS 
district director who is located in the jurisdiction of the proposed 
representative's primary office. This commenter also requested that a 
list of contact information for USCIS district directors be made 
available. Two commenters asserted seemingly opposing concerns about 
the length of the application process due to the ability of OLAP to 
request more information from an organization in order to avoid adverse 
determinations. One commenter worried that the procedure could lead to 
increased processing times, whereas the other commenter suggested that 
organizations should have at least 90 days to respond to requests for 
information.
    The final rule adopts the application procedures as proposed, 
except for changes that allow an organization to request 
reconsideration of a disapproved request,\10\ and that permit OLAP to 
allow requests, notifications, recommendations, and determinations in 
the application process to be done electronically.\11\ See final rule 
at 8 CFR 1292.13(a). As mentioned above, the Department intends upon 
publication of the final rule to engage in significant education and 
outreach with government stakeholders like USCIS so that they are aware 
of its implementation and their role in the process. The Department has 
not amended the service procedure in the final rule, as recommendations 
from all USCIS offices where an organization provides or intends to 
provide services ensures consideration of the greatest possible amount 
of information about an organization and its proposed representatives. 
The updated EOIR Form-31 for recognition-related requests and EOIR Form 
31-A for accreditation requests should simplify the procedure for 
service, as they include several lines to indicate service has been 
made on multiple USCIS offices. The Department will also publicize a 
list of USCIS offices that is readily available.\12\ The Department has 
not included a specified time period for organizations to respond to a 
request for information from OLAP, but OLAP will ensure that the 
response times are reasonable. See 80 FR at 59521 n.54 (stating that 
EOIR intends to regularly make available average processing time for 
recognition and accreditation applications). Additionally, for timely-
filed requests for renewal, the recognition of an organization and the 
accreditation of representatives remain valid pending OLAP's 
consideration of the renewal request. See final rule at 8 CFR 
1292.16(b)(3). Accordingly, the processing times for renewal requests 
will not prejudice organizations or their representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See infra section III.F. (``Request for Reconsideration and 
Administrative Review'') (discussing requests for reconsideration).
    \11\ See infra section III.E. (``Recognition and Accreditation 
for Practice Before DHS'') (regarding electronic requests, 
notifications, recommendations, and determinations).
    \12\ See USCIS Office of Public Engagement, USCIS District 
Offices (Dec. 2011), available at https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Outreach/Notes%20from%20Previous%20Engagements/2011/December%202011/District%20Office%20Mailing%20Addresses.pdf 
(last visited Feb. 29, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Extending Recognition and Accreditation
    The Department received 20 comments regarding the provision that 
permits OLAP the discretion to extend an organization's recognition and 
the accreditation of its representatives from a headquarters or other 
designated office to other offices or locations where the organization 
provides immigration legal services. Nineteen commenters overwhelmingly 
supported this provision as a means of increasing capacity and reducing 
the administrative burden on organizations to file a separate 
application for recognition and accreditation at each location offering 
legal services. One commenter opposed the provision, unless an 
organization had attorney supervision of its accredited 
representatives.\13\ The final rule adopts the provision as proposed 
and adds that OLAP may permit requests for extension of recognition and 
accreditation and determinations on the requests to be made 
electronically. See final rule at 8 CFR 1292.15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See supra section III.B.1.f. (``Knowledge and experience'') 
(stating that attorney supervision is encouraged but not required to 
be recognized).

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

[[Page 92354]]

5. The Validity Period, Renewal of Recognition and Accreditation
    Twenty-one commenters provided input regarding the three-year 
validity period for both recognition and accreditation and renewal 
thereof. The commenters generally supported or did not mention the 
three-year validity period and renewal process for accredited 
representatives. Instead, the comments were directed in opposition to 
the three-year validity period for recognition and concurrent renewal 
of recognition and accreditation. The commenters generally did not 
oppose a validity period and renewal process for recognized 
organizations in order to improve oversight, but they contended that 
the proposed three-year period was too short and recommended a period 
of up to nine years. They claimed that the three-year period was 
unnecessarily burdensome in that organizations do not change in 
substantial ways in a three-year period and because the renewal process 
would require organizations to shift resources away from providing 
immigration legal services in order to comply with the renewal 
requirements, such as the annual report. The commenters noted that the 
burden would be compounded because organizations and their 
representatives would have to seek renewal concurrently every three 
years. The commenters also asserted that concurrent renewal of 
recognition and accreditation may serve as a disincentive to apply for 
accreditation if the organization's recognition period was set to 
expire in a short period of time. The majority of commenters urged the 
Department to un-link the validity periods for recognition and 
accreditation and to provide a longer validity period for recognized 
organizations.
    After considering the comments, the Department has decided to 
retain the three-year validity period for accredited representatives 
but to modify the validity period for recognized organizations. See 
final rule at 8 CFR 1292.12(d); 8 CFR 1292.11(f). Under the final rule, 
recognition will be valid for a period of six years, unless the 
organization has been granted conditional recognition, which is valid 
only for two years, or the organization has its recognition 
administratively terminated or is disciplined (through revocation or 
termination) prior to the conclusion of its recognition period. See 
final rule at 8 CFR 1292.11(f). An organization's six-year recognition 
period would run independently of the three-year period of 
accreditation for its representatives.\14\ Therefore, organizations and 
their representatives will seek renewal of recognition and 
accreditation separately at the conclusion of their respective 
recognition and accreditation cycles. See final rule at 8 CFR 
1292.16(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See supra section III.B.1.a. (``Accredited representative 
required & inactive status'') (addressing accredited representative 
requirement and inactive status).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule retains the renewal process for recognized 
organizations and accredited representatives, except for changes that 
allow an organization to request reconsideration of a disapproved 
request,\15\ and that authorize OLAP to allow requests, notifications, 
recommendations, and determinations in the application process to be 
made electronically.\16\ See final rule at 8 CFR 1292.16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See infra section III.F. (``Request for Reconsideration and 
Administrative Review'') (discussing requests for reconsideration).
    \16\ See infra section III.E. (``Filings and Communications'') 
(regarding electronic requests, notifications, recommendations, and 
determinations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Organizations and Representatives Recognized and Accredited Prior to 
the Effective Date of the Final Rule
    The Department received three comments regarding the provision 
governing when organizations and representatives recognized and 
accredited prior to the effective date of this final rule would have to 
seek renewal. The three comments generally opposed the provision that 
required recognized organizations without an accredited representative 
on staff at the effective date of the final rule to seek renewal and 
comply with the accredited representative requirement within one year 
of the effective date of the rule. These commenters also stated that 
the requirement that an organization would have to seek renewal of its 
recognition and the accreditation of its representatives if they sought 
to extend recognition to an additional office or location or to 
accredit a new representative would cause organizations to refrain from 
either action and discourage capacity building.
    The final rule, as discussed above, retains the requirement that 
recognized organizations without an accredited representative on staff 
at the effective date of the final rule request renewal within one year 
of the effective date of the rule.\17\ See final rule at 8 CFR 
1292.16(h)(2)(i). However, the Department agrees with the commenters 
and has removed the provision requiring renewal for all other 
organizations recognized at the effective date of the final rule if 
they seek extension of recognition or accreditation of a new 
representative. Consistent with the changes made elsewhere in the final 
rule, renewal of organizations and representatives recognized and 
accredited prior to the effective date of the rule has been de-coupled. 
Such organizations will only be subject to the renewal timelines as 
proposed and maintained in the final rule. See final rule at 8 CFR 
1292.16(h)(2)(ii), (iii). Accredited representatives, on the other 
hand, will have to seek renewal at the expiration of their three-year 
accreditation period under the current regulation. See final rule at 8 
CFR 1292.16(h)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See supra section III.B.1.a. (``Accredited representative 
required & inactive status'') (discussing accredited representative 
required requirement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Conditional Recognition
    The Department received 12 comments regarding the proposed rule's 
provision for conditional recognition of organizations that have not 
been previously recognized or that are recognized anew after having 
lost recognition due to an administrative termination or disciplinary 
sanctions. Conditional recognition provides a probationary period and 
requires the specified organizations to apply for renewal within two 
years of the date that OLAP granted conditional recognition. The 
Department specifically asked for public comment on conditional 
recognition and whether conditionally recognized organizations would be 
able to remove the conditional status after one year instead of two.
    Eleven commenters generally supported the provision, but the 
majority of these commenters wanted to exclude established, federally 
tax-exempt non-profit organizations that were adding immigration legal 
services to their service portfolio from conditional recognition. They 
sought to limit conditional recognition to organizations with pending 
Federal tax-exempt status and organizations reapplying after an 
administrative termination or disciplinary sanctions. One commenter in 
support of the provision stated that the public may view the 
designation of conditional recognition as a sign of mistrust or lack of 
ability, whereas another suggested that the time period for renewal 
should be shortened from two years to 18 months. The dissenting comment 
stated that conditional recognition was an unnecessary administrative 
burden and that all organizations should be treated equally.
    The final rule adopts the conditional recognition provision as 
proposed and

[[Page 92355]]

adds as clarification that it also applies to organizations whose 
Federal tax-exempt status is pending at the time of recognition. See 
final rule at 8 CFR 1292.11(f). While the Department appreciates the 
thoughtful comments on this issue, it has determined that because the 
final rule provides a six-year renewal period for established 
recognized organizations,\18\ a two-year initial renewal period is 
appropriate for organizations that have not been previously recognized, 
whose Federal tax-exempt status is pending at the time of recognition, 
or that have been previously administratively terminated or subject to 
disciplinary sanctions. These organizations, regardless of their 
history as non-profits, must show within two years of recognition that 
they can maintain the qualifications for recognition and establish a 
track record of offering immigration legal services through accredited 
representatives without issue. Any organization that has been 
conditionally recognized will not be identified as such on the R&A 
roster; rather, the roster will show that the organization's renewal 
date is in two years rather than six.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See supra section III.B.5 (``The Validity Period, Renewal 
of Recognition and Accreditation'') (discussing validity period of 
recognition and accreditation).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Posting Requirements
    The Department received 16 comments related to the reporting, 
recordkeeping, and posting requirements imposed on organizations by the 
proposed rule. One commenter supported all three requirements. Three 
other commenters stated their agreement with the posting requirement 
and none dissented. Seven commenters addressed the reporting 
requirements and stated general support for the duty to report changes. 
Six of these commenters, however, requested that the number and type of 
changes that need to be reported should be limited to changes that 
affect the R&A roster and that electronic submission of the changes 
should be permitted. The other commenter stated that changes should be 
reported in an annual report, unless OLAP requests an update at an 
earlier date. Fourteen commenters asserted concerns regarding the 
recordkeeping requirements. All of these commenters voiced concerns 
regarding the annual report because it would create a new burden in 
time and money for organizations and shift resources away from the 
provision of legal services. Some of the commenters stated that they do 
not currently track the information requested in the proposed rule for 
the annual report and that recordkeeping should be limited to documents 
that organizations already maintain, such as fee schedules, tax 
filings, and annual budgets. One commenter suggested that if the annual 
report would be required under the final rule, it should concern the 
immigration legal services of the organization as a whole. Eight of the 
commenters urged the Department to consider whether organizations 
should be required to compile and submit annual reports and fee 
schedules at the time of renewal. They recommended that organizations 
should only be required to submit such documentation with cause or 
while under investigation.
    The final rule adopts the posting requirement as proposed, see 
final rule at 8 CFR 1292.14(c), but amends the reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements. The final rule revises the duty to report 
to permit electronic notification of changes to be submitted to OLAP. 
See final rule at 8 CFR 1292.14(a). The Department has not otherwise 
modified the scope or timing of the duty to report because the scope 
has been appropriately limited to changes in information that would be 
listed on the R&A roster or that would affect an organization's or 
representative's eligibility to be recognized or accredited. Due to the 
nature of these types of changes, they must be reported promptly. 80 FR 
at 59524. The Department believes that 30 days will generally 
constitute prompt notification.
    The final rule revises but does not remove the recordkeeping 
requirement. See final rule at 8 CFR 1292.14(b). The Department 
understands the concerns raised by commenters regarding the 
recordkeeping requirement--in particular the annual report--but has 
retained the requirement because it provides OLAP with a means to 
monitor organizations and ensure compliance with the recognition 
requirements. An organization's annual report on the services provided 
assists in the evaluation of whether a recognized organization is 
actually providing immigration legal services and is a non-profit 
primarily serving low-income and indigent clients. Nonetheless, based 
on the comments received, the final rule renames the annual report as 
the ``annual summary of immigration legal services provided'' to avoid 
confusion with other annual reports that organizations may prepare. 
More significantly, the information required to be submitted is more 
concise and has shifted to a focus on the legal services provided by 
the organization as a whole, rather than by its accredited 
representatives individually. The annual summary of immigration legal 
services provided must include: The total number of clients served 
(whether through client intakes, applications prepared and filed with 
USCIS, cases in which the organization's attorneys or accredited 
representatives appeared before the Immigration Courts or, if 
applicable, the Board, or referrals to attorneys or other 
organizations) and clients to which it provided services at no cost; a 
general description of the immigration legal services and other 
immigration-related services (e.g., educational or outreach events) 
provided; a statement regarding whether services were provided pro bono 
or clients were charged in accordance with a fee schedule and 
organizational policies or guidance regarding fee waivers and reduced 
fees; and a list of the offices or locations where the immigration 
legal services were provided. The summary may include the total amount 
of fees, donations, and membership dues, if any, charged or requested 
of immigration clients. Organizations likely have such information for 
their own purposes because it tracks the work that they perform and it 
is information that they likely provide to funders and donors. If 
organizations do not compile such information presently, it should not 
be difficult to start because of its general nature. For organizations 
recognized at the time of the effective date of this rule, information 
would only be requested from the effective date of the rule (i.e., 
January 18, 2017).

C. Administrative Termination of Recognition and Accreditation

    The Department received nine comments on the provision regarding 
administrative termination of recognition and accreditation. Six 
commenters generally supported the administrative termination provision 
as a means for removing an organization or representative from the R&A 
roster for administrative, non-disciplinary reasons. However, these 
commenters recommended several changes to the provision. They stated 
that the OLAP Director should request information from an organization, 
representative, DHS, or EOIR prior to terminating recognition or 
accreditation. They also expressed concern that termination of 
recognition would lead to termination of a representative's 
accreditation and asserted that the representative should be given a 
limited amount of time to transfer to another recognized organization 
so that clients would not lose representation. Likewise, the commenters 
stated that an organization

[[Page 92356]]

should be placed on inactive status and given time to find a new 
representative if its only accredited representative is terminated, 
rather than have its recognition terminated, so that it would not have 
to go through the process of seeking recognition anew when it found a 
new individual to be accredited.
    One of the three remaining commenters stated that the Board should 
have authority for administrative termination of recognition and 
accreditation, instead of OLAP, because of the opportunity for a 
hearing. The two other commenters asserted that accreditation should 
only be terminated if there is an adverse determination.
    The Department has adopted the administrative termination provision 
of the proposed rule, except as modified to accommodate the changes 
made in relation to the request for reconsideration and inactive status 
provisions added to the rule and discussed above. The Department has 
not amended the regulatory text to require that the OLAP Director 
request information from an organization, representative, DHS, or EOIR 
prior to terminating recognition or accreditation because not all 
grounds for termination require OLAP to contact anyone. For example, if 
an organization or representative voluntarily requests termination of 
their recognition or accreditation, OLAP has no reason to contact the 
organization for further information. However, the Department notes 
that the rule specifically requires the OLAP Director to contact the 
organization and provide it with the opportunity to respond to certain 
deficiencies affecting eligibility for recognition or accreditation 
prior to determining whether to issue a termination notice. 80 FR at 
59525; see also final rule at 8 CFR 1292.17(b)(5), (6), (c)(6).
    The final rule addresses the concern that an organization could be 
administratively terminated through the inactive status provision added 
to the final rule and discussed above. The final rule, however, does 
not make any changes regarding the administrative termination of 
accreditation where the representative's organization has its 
recognition terminated. Accreditation is dependent on the supervision 
and resources of a recognized organization, and an accredited 
representative should not be permitted to maintain accreditation, even 
if time limited, if the representative no longer has a connection to a 
recognized organization.

D. Sanctioning Recognized Organizations and Accredited Representatives

    The Department received four comments regarding the rule's updates 
and additions to the disciplinary process, from three non-profit 
organizations and one bar association. Three of the commenters stated 
their general support for the provisions. The fourth commenter also 
expressed general agreement with the provisions but inquired into some 
aspects. In particular, the commenter stated that the rule adds a 
ground for organizational discipline for failure to adequately 
supervise its accredited representative but was unclear as to whether 
the EOIR disciplinary counsel or OLAP would be required to share 
complaints, warning letters, admonitions, or agreements in lieu of 
discipline in order to put the organization on notice of a 
representative's conduct and give it the opportunity to remedy the 
conduct. The commenter also inquired into the standards that would be 
applied to determining the appropriate sanction for organizations and 
suggested that the rule should impose a time period during which an 
adjudicating official would have to render a decision on a petition for 
an interim suspension due to the urgency of the possible situation.
    The Department has adopted the changes to the disciplinary 
provisions set forth in the proposed rule, except for the modifications 
discussed above regarding inactive status and below regarding a 
drafting error about reinstatement in the proposed rule. The Department 
acknowledges that the rule does not require the EOIR disciplinary 
counsel or OLAP to share information about accredited representatives 
with their organizations but clarifies that the EOIR disciplinary 
counsel will provide an organization with notice prior to taking 
disciplinary action against an organization for failure to supervise. 
80 FR at 59526; see also final rule at 8 CFR 1003.108(b). The rule also 
does not prescribe standards for the application of sanctions to 
organizations but would apply the same flexible framework that is 
applied to immigration practitioners when determining the level of 
sanction. Generally, adjudicators examine the type of misconduct that 
occurred, whether it was done intentionally, knowingly, or 
inadvertently, the harm caused, and any aggravating or mitigating 
factors.\19\ Finally, although the rule also does not impose a time 
period for an adjudicator's decision on a petition for interim 
suspension so as to not interfere with the adjudicator's discretion, it 
would be expected that a decision would be issued within a reasonable 
period of time based on the nature of the petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See ABA, Standards for Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (1992); 
see, e.g., Matter of Ramos, 23 I&N Dec. 843 (BIA 2005) (finding that 
expulsion was an appropriate sanction based on his disbarment from a 
state bar due to extensive unethical conduct).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Filings and Communications

    Six commenters recommended that the Department facilitate the duty 
to report changes by permitting electronic submissions. The Department 
agrees that electronic filings and communications would be beneficial. 
EOIR is considering, in the future, permitting the electronic 
submission of a wide range of documents related to the R&A program. 
Such documents could include: Requests for recognition and 
accreditation, renewal, and extension of recognition and accreditation; 
responses to inquiries and notices from EOIR; recommendations from DHS 
and the EOIR disciplinary counsel and anti-fraud officer, and responses 
thereto; reports and notifications of changes in organization 
information or status; and complaints against recognized organizations 
and accredited representatives. EOIR is also considering communicating 
electronically with prospective and current organizations, DHS, and the 
EOIR disciplinary counsel and anti-fraud officer. EOIR may 
electronically transmit documents such as: Decisions to approve or 
disapprove requests for recognition and accreditation, renewals, 
extensions of recognition and accreditation, extension of time 
requests; inquiries to organizations for additional information or 
disclosing unfavorable information; and determinations regarding 
inactive status and administrative termination of recognition and 
accreditation. In anticipation of such electronic filings and 
communications, the Department has revised Sec. Sec.  1292.13(a), 
1292.14(a), 1292.15, 1292.16(e), 1292.17(a), (d), (e), and (f), and 
1292.18(a). No notice-and-comment period is required for the revisions 
described in this paragraph, as they pertain to ``agency organization, 
procedure, or practice'' under 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

F. Request for Reconsideration and Administrative Review

    The proposed rule solicited comments on whether an opportunity for 
administrative review should be provided for adverse OLAP 
determinations regarding recognition

[[Page 92357]]

and accreditation, given that the prior regulation also had no such 
procedures. The solicitation further inquired as to the extent to and 
contexts in which such review should be provided, if it was deemed 
necessary. The Department received 10 comments, which all stated 
general support for an additional review process.
    Five commenters supported an appeal process for denied recognition 
and accreditation applications but provided no further explanation. One 
commenter suggested an appeal process for disapproved recognition and 
accreditation requests in order to provide additional information to 
overcome the disapproval or to identify information overlooked in 
requests that should have been approved. The commenter asserted that 
organizations should have 45 days to submit an appeal and that the 
process should be a prompt review, rather than the three or four months 
that it would take to reach a determination on a re-filed request. 
Similarly, a commenter stated that an appeal process for disapproved 
applications should only be established if it can avoid re-filing of 
requests for issues that can be fixed easily and it is less burdensome 
than the initial process for requests for recognition and 
accreditation. Another commenter suggested that the administrative 
review or appeal process should be completed within 60 days.
    Two commenters requested an administrative review process before 
the Board in the administrative termination context. Both commenters 
were concerned about terminations that may occur as organizations 
adjust to the new requirements of this rule or due to errors in 
eligibility determinations. One of these commenters recommended that 
organizations retain recognition during the review process.
    The final rule adopts the provisions of the proposed rule that 
afford an applicant an opportunity to be heard before the issuance of a 
determination on an initial or renewal application for recognition and 
accreditation or a determination on administrative termination based on 
deficiencies regarding the requirements for recognition or 
accreditation or reporting, recordkeeping, and posting. See final rule 
at 8 CFR 1292.13(a); 8 CFR 1292.16(e); 8 CFR 1292.17(b)(5), (b)(6), 
(c)(6). In keeping with the spirit and purpose of this rule to maintain 
and increase capacity, OLAP will take these opportunities to engage 
with organizations in order to limit adverse determinations so the 
concerns about adverse determinations arising from organizations being 
unable to adjust to the new requirements are unlikely. Nevertheless, 
the Department realizes that adverse determinations are likely to occur 
and that organizations may have the ability to correct any deficiencies 
that led to the adverse determination or otherwise point to an error in 
the determination. For these situations, the final rule adds further 
review in the form of a 30-day request for reconsideration of the OLAP 
Director's final determinations at 8 CFR 1292.13(e), 1292.16(f), and 
1292.17(d). The filing of a request for reconsideration automatically 
stays the OLAP Director's determination until a decision issues on the 
reconsideration request and allows recognized organizations and its 
accredited representatives to continue to provide immigration legal 
services during the reconsideration process. The reconsideration 
process should provide for a faster decision-making process and avoid 
the need for organizations to go through the potentially lengthy 
request process anew to correct the types of simple errors or issues 
raised by the commenters.
    Additionally, the final rule provides that organizations whose 
requests for reconsideration are denied may seek administrative review 
by the Director of EOIR. See final rule at 8 CFR 1292.18. This 
provision responds to concerns that OLAP would be the sole decision-
maker regarding recognition and accreditation and that another entity 
should be able to review OLAP's decisions. Like with requests for 
reconsideration, a request for administrative review stays the OLAP 
Director's determination until a decision issues on the review request 
and allows recognized organizations and their accredited 
representatives to continue to provide immigration legal services 
during the review process. See id. at 1292.18(a)(3).

G. Recognition and Accreditation for Practice Before DHS

    As the Department stated in the proposed rule, as of the effective 
date of this final rule, EOIR will apply the standards and procedures 
for recognition and accreditation set forth in this rule governing 
EOIR's activities, not the DHS regulations set forth in 8 CFR part 292. 
In addition, DHS has informed the Department that it plans to publish a 
rule relating to the same subject matter. Until DHS revises 8 CFR part 
292 to conform its recognition and accreditation provisions with this 
final rule, the regulations codified in this rule will govern to the 
extent that they are inconsistent with those DHS regulations.

IV. Other Revisions

    The final rule adds paragraph (b)(3) to 8 CFR 1003.107. This 
paragraph explains the decisions the Board may make in the early 
reinstatement context and was inadvertently omitted in the proposed 
rule. It is substantially similar to paragraph (b)(2) in the same 
section of the current regulation at 8 CFR 1003.107.

V. Notice and Comment

    The revisions to the proposed rule do not require a new notice-and-
comment period. The revisions pertaining to electronic filings and 
communications, at Sec. Sec.  1292.13(a), 1292.14(a), 1292.15, 
1292.16(e), and 1292.17(a), (d), (e), and (f), pertain to ``agency 
organization, procedure, or practice'' under 5 U.S.C. 553(b). The 
Department has ``good cause'' under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to add paragraph 
(b)(3) to 8 CFR 1003.107 because it is substantially similar to 
paragraph (b)(2) in the same section of the current regulation. The 
other provisions are logical outgrowths of those in the proposed rule. 
See, e.g., Envtl. Def. Ctr., Inc. v. EPA, 344 F.3d 832, 851-52 (9th 
Cir. 2003); Am. Water Works Ass'n v. EPA, 40 F.3d 1266, 1274 (D.C. Cir. 
1994).

VI. Regulatory Requirements

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Department 
certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities. See 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
    Currently, there are almost 1,000 recognized organizations and more 
than 1,900 accredited representatives. This rule seeks to increase the 
number of recognized organizations and accredited representatives that 
are competent and qualified to provide immigration legal services 
primarily to low-income and indigent persons. The Department, however, 
cannot estimate with certainty the actual increase in the number of 
recognized organizations and accredited individuals that may result 
from the rule. That figure is subject to multiple external factors, 
including changes in immigration law and policy and fluctuating needs 
for representation and immigration legal services.
    While EOIR does not keep statistics on the size of recognized 
organizations, many of these organizations and their accredited 
representatives may be classified as, or employed by, ``small 
entities'' as defined under 5 U.S.C. 601. In particular, recognized 
organizations, which are by definition non-profit entities, may also be 
classified as ``small

[[Page 92358]]

organizations'' and thus, as ``small entities'' under section 601.
    Although the exact number of recognized organizations that may be 
classified as ``small entities'' is not known, the Department certifies 
that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of these entities. The rule, like the prior 
regulations, does not assess any fees on an organization to apply for 
initial recognition or accreditation, to renew recognition or 
accreditation, or to extend recognition.
    The Department, however, acknowledges that organizations may incur 
some costs to apply for recognition or accreditation, renew recognition 
or accreditation, or extend recognition. Based on the most recent 
Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that state the median hourly wage 
for lawyers is $64.17, and the average burden hours to apply for 
recognition or accreditation, renew recognition or accreditation, or 
extend recognition, discussed below in the Paperwork Reduction Act 
section, see infra section VI.G, and in the proposed rule, the 
Department estimates the costs as follows. If an organization hires a 
lawyer to assist with the application process, the organization would 
incur costs of approximately $128.34 to apply for initial recognition 
($64.21 hour x 2 hours); $449.16 to renew recognition ($64.17 hour x 7 
hours), and $128.34 to apply for or to renew accreditation ($64.21 hour 
x 2 hours). For organizations that prepare their applications without a 
practitioner, there is an estimated cost of $10 per hour for completing 
the form (the individual's time and supplies) in lieu of the attorney 
cost such that those organizations would incur costs of approximately 
$20.00 to apply for initial recognition ($10.00/hour x 2 hours), $70.00 
to renew recognition ($10.00/hour x 7 hours), and $20.00 to apply for 
or to renew accreditation ($10.00/hour x 2 hours).
    The Department also recognizes that the rule imposes a new 
recordkeeping requirement on recognized organizations to compile and 
maintain fee schedules, if the organization charges any fees, and 
annual summaries of immigration legal services for a period of six 
years. However, the Department does not believe that the recordkeeping 
requirement will have a significant economic impact on recognized 
organizations. The annual summaries, as modified by this final rule, 
would be compiled from information already in the possession of 
recognized organizations, and based on the estimates from the Paperwork 
Reduction Act section below, the Department estimates that it would 
cost an organization approximately $64.21 per year to have a lawyer 
compile the annual summary, and $10.00 per year for a non-lawyer to do 
so.\20\ Maintaining the fee schedules and annual summaries after their 
creation for six years should not impose a significant economic impact 
on recognized organizations because such records may be retained in the 
normal course of business like other records, such as client files, 
that organizations are obligated to retain for State or Federal 
purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Note that the total average burden (and cost) for renewing 
recognition includes the burden (and cost) of compiling six annual 
summaries of immigration legal services provided.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Despite the costs mentioned above, the Department notes that the 
rule may economically benefit recognized organizations. The rule 
eliminates the requirement that recognized organizations assess only 
``nominal charges'' for their immigration legal services. The final 
rule shifts the primary focus of eligibility for recognition from the 
fees an organization charges its clients to an examination of whether 
it is a non-profit religious, charitable, social service, or similar 
organization that primarily serves low-income and indigent clients. 
This change is intended to provide organizations with flexibility in 
assessing fees, which should improve their financial sustainability and 
their ability to serve more persons.

B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, and 
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed 
necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
1995.

C. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

    This rule is not a major rule as defined in section 251 of the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. See 5 
U.S.C. 804. As discussed in the certification under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, organizations and representatives will not be assessed 
a fee to either apply for or seek renewal of recognition and 
accreditation, and the burden of seeking renewal of recognition has 
been reasonably mitigated. The Department recognizes, however, that the 
rule's elimination of the ``nominal charges'' restriction may affect 
competition and employment in the market for legal services because a 
recognized organization could charge higher fees (but less than market 
rates) to clients. The rule balances the elimination of the ``nominal 
charges'' restriction by also requiring that non-profit organizations 
primarily serve low-income and indigent persons. Legal fees charged by 
a non-profit organization are expected to be at a rate meaningfully 
less than the cost of hiring competent private immigration counsel in 
the same geographic area. Accordingly, this rule will not result in an 
annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, a major increase 
in costs or prices, or significant adverse effects on competition, 
employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of 
United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based 
enterprises in domestic and export markets.

D. Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 13563 (Regulatory Planning 
and Review)

    The rule is considered by the Department to be a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under section 3(f)(4) of Executive Order 12866. 
Accordingly, the regulation has been submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
    The Department certifies that this regulation has been drafted in 
accordance with the principles of Executive Order 12866, section 1(b), 
and Executive Order 13563. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct 
agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory 
alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory 
approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, 
environmental, public health, and safety effects, distributive impacts, 
and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of 
quantifying costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and 
promoting flexibility.
    The rule seeks to address the critical and ongoing shortage of 
qualified legal representation for underserved populations in 
immigration cases before Federal administrative agencies. Specifically, 
the rule would revise the eligibility requirements and procedures for 
recognizing organizations and accrediting their representatives to 
provide immigration legal services to underserved populations. To 
expand the availability of such legal services, the rule permits 
recognized organizations to extend their recognition and the 
accreditation of their representatives to

[[Page 92359]]

multiple offices or locations and to have flexibility in charging fees 
for services. The rule also imposes greater oversight over recognized 
organizations and their representatives in order to protect against 
potential abuse of vulnerable immigrant populations by unscrupulous 
organizations and individuals.
    The rule will greatly benefit organizations, DHS, EOIR, and most 
importantly, persons who need legal representation in immigration 
matters. The rule is expected to increase the availability of competent 
and qualified legal representation in underserved areas and 
particularly for indigent and low-income persons for whom there is an 
ongoing and critical shortage of such representation. For example, the 
elimination of the nominal fee restriction will allow organizations the 
flexibility to assess fees so that organizations will be able to 
sustain their operations and potentially expand them to serve more 
persons. In addition, the extension of recognition and accreditation to 
multiple offices or locations will permit organizations and their 
representatives, through mobile or technological means, to reach 
underserved persons who may currently have difficulty finding legal 
representation in remote or rural locations. These two provisions will 
greatly increase legal representation for persons in administrative 
cases before EOIR and DHS, and in turn, will substantially aid the 
administration of justice.
    The rule will provide EOIR with greater tools to manage and oversee 
the recognition and accreditation program. The rule requires 
organizations to renew their recognition every six years and the 
accreditation of their representatives every three years, and it 
imposes limited reporting, recordkeeping, and posting requirements on 
the organizations. The Department acknowledges that the new oversight 
provisions impose some burdens on organizations. However, the burdens 
on the organizations are necessary to protect vulnerable immigrant 
populations from unscrupulous organizations and individuals and to 
legitimize reputable organizations and representatives.
    Although the renewal requirement adds a new burden on recognized 
organizations, the Department has reasonably mitigated this burden. The 
rule maintains the same three-year renewal period for accredited 
representatives as under the current regulations and only requires 
organizations to seek renewal of recognition every six years. Also, at 
renewal, organizations would not be required to submit documentation 
previously submitted at initial recognition or accreditation, unless 
there have been changes that affect eligibility for recognition or 
accreditation. Organizations would only have to submit documentation 
that would support renewal of recognition and accreditation. The 
information and documentation required to renew recognition and 
accreditation should be in the possession of the organization in the 
normal course of its operations.
    The reporting requirement expands the reporting obligation of 
organizations under the current regulations, which only require 
organizations to report changes in the organization's name, address, or 
public telephone number, or in the employment status of an accredited 
representative. This final rule expands the current requirement so as 
to include any changes that would affect the organization's recognition 
(such as a merger), or a representative's accreditation (such as a 
change in the representative's name). The reporting requirement should 
not impose a significant cost to organizations because organizations 
may comply with the requirement by simply contacting EOIR to report 
such changes.
    The recordkeeping requirement will primarily aid EOIR in evaluating 
an organization's request to renew recognition. The recordkeeping 
requirement requires an organization to compile fee schedules, if it 
charges any fees, and annual summaries of immigration legal activities, 
and maintain them for a period of six years. The recordkeeping 
requirement is not unduly burdensome, as modified by the final rule, 
because organizations should have such information in their possession, 
and the six-year record retention requirement is consistent with the 
organization's obligation to retain records, such as client files, for 
State or Federal purposes.
    The posting requirement will require organizations to post public 
notices about the approval period of an organization's recognition and 
the accreditation of its representatives, the requirements for 
recognition and accreditation, and the process for filing a complaint 
against a recognized organization or accredited representative. EOIR 
will provide the notices to the organizations, and the organizations 
should not incur any tangible costs for the minimal burden of posting 
the notices. In fact, the public notices should greatly benefit 
organizations because the notices will legitimize organizations and 
notify the public that they are qualified to provide immigration legal 
services.
    As detailed above in section VI.A (``Regulatory Flexibility Act''), 
and below in section VI.G (``Paperwork Reduction Act''), EOIR 
anticipates that if an organization hires a lawyer to assist with the 
application process, the organization will incur costs of approximately 
$128.34 to apply for initial recognition, $449.16 to renew recognition, 
and $128.34 to apply for or to renew accreditation. If an organization 
prepares its applications on its own, the organization will incur costs 
of approximately $20.00 to apply for initial recognition, $70.00 to 
renew recognition, and $20.00 to apply for or to renew accreditation.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This rule may have federalism implications but, as detailed below, 
will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.
    The rule, like the current regulations it would replace, permits 
non-lawyer accredited representatives to provide immigration legal 
services in administrative cases before EOIR and DHS. The provision of 
immigration legal services by non-lawyers may constitute the 
unauthorized practice of law under some State laws and rules 
prohibiting the unauthorized practice of law. However, the Supreme 
Court's decision in Sperry v. Florida ex rel. Florida Bar, 373 U.S. 379 
(1963), provides that Federal agency laws and regulations authorizing 
the practice of law in administrative cases before Federal agencies 
preempt conflicting State laws that would otherwise prohibit authorized 
representatives from participating in those Federal administrative 
cases. \21\ This principle has long been applicable with respect to 
accredited representatives providing representative services in 
administrative cases before EOIR and DHS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Sperry held that a statute and implementing regulation 
authorizing non-lawyers to practice before the Patent Office 
preempted a contrary state law prohibition on the unauthorized 
practice of law to the extent that the state law prohibition was 
incompatible with the Federal rules. See 373 U.S. at 385.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Despite the preemptive effects of this rule, the federalism 
implications are minimal. The rule merely updates the current, well-
established regulations permitting non-lawyer accredited 
representatives to provide immigration legal services in administrative 
cases before EOIR and DHS. The rule does not alter or extend the scope 
of the limited authorization to provide immigration

[[Page 92360]]

legal services before Federal administrative agencies provided under 
the current regulations. In addition, following Sperry, States have 
expressly determined that non-lawyers providing immigration legal 
services before EOIR and DHS does not constitute the unauthorized 
practice of law under their State laws and rules.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. Sec.  12-2702(A)(4) (stating that 
an accredited representative is not engaging in the unauthorized 
practice of immigration law by proving immigration legal services); 
N.M. Stat. Ann. Sec.  36-3-4(A)(4) (same); N.J. Stat. Ann. Sec.  2 
C:21-31(d) (similar); Va. Unauthorized Practice R. 9-103 (similar); 
North Carolina State Bar, Preventing Unlicensed Legal Practice, 
http://www.ncbar.gov/public/upl.asp (last visited Sept. 15, 2015) 
(similar).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under these circumstances, in accordance with section 6 of 
Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have 
sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a 
federalism summary impact statement.

F. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) 
and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The Department received two comments in relation to its requests 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 to revise the currently 
approved information collections contained in this rule: (1) The form 
for non-profit religious, charitable, or social service organizations 
to apply for recognition (Form EOIR-31); (2) the form for recognized 
organizations to apply for accreditation of non-attorney 
representatives (Form EOIR-31A); and (3) the form for filing a 
complaint against an immigration practitioner (Form EOIR-44). These 
information collections were previously approved by OMB under the 
provisions of the PRA, and the information collections were assigned 
OMB Control Numbers 1125-0012 (EOIR-31), 1125-0013 (EOIR-31A), and 
1125-0007 (EOIR-44). The Department requested revisions to these 
information collections based on the proposed rule regarding the R&A 
program.
    The two commenters addressed the estimated average time to apply 
for recognition and accreditation using the Form EOIR-31 and Form EOIR-
31A. One commenter asserted that under the prior regulations it took an 
organization about 10 hours to prepare a Form EOIR-31. The other 
commenter stated that under the prior regulations, organizations needed 
three to four hours to prepare and complete a Form EOIR-31 or a Form 
EOIR-31A. The commenter acknowledged that most of the additional 
documentation required under the rule was standard non-profit 
documentation but that renewal of recognition under the proposed rule 
would require an additional amount of time because the annual report 
(in the final rule now called the summary of immigration legal services 
provided) was not routinely prepared by all organizations. The 
commenter estimated that the proposed annual report would take three to 
four hours to prepare each year. Based on the Department's amendments 
to the final rule as discussed in section III above and the two 
comments discussed here, the Department has made changes to the final 
Form EOIR-31 and Form EOIR-31A.
1. Request for Recognition, Renewal of Recognition, or Extension of 
Recognition for a Non-Profit, Federal Tax-Exempt Religious, Charitable, 
Social Service, or Similar Organization (Form EOIR-31)
    The Department has modified the final Form EOIR-31 and the 
instructions thereto for consistency with the changes in the final rule 
regarding the requirements for recognition and renewal of recognition. 
First, the final form does not require organizations to provide 
information regarding whether a substantial amount of their immigration 
legal services budget is from outside funding sources. Second, the 
instructions have been modified to say that the form will generally be 
used every six years (rather than three years) in connection with a 
request to renew recognition, and that the request need not be 
accompanied by a request for accreditation of a representative. Third 
and finally, the final form has been amended to reflect the changes to 
the annual reports required to be submitted at renewal. In the final 
rule, the annual report has been renamed the summary of immigration 
legal services provided. More significantly, the substance of the 
summary has been modified to include information already gathered for 
other purposes like funder reports or otherwise readily accessible to 
the organization, such as: The total number of clients served (whether 
through client intakes, applications prepared and filed with USCIS, 
cases in which the organization's attorneys or accredited 
representatives appeared before the Immigration Courts or, if 
applicable, the Board, or referrals to attorneys or other 
organizations) and clients to which it provided services at no cost; a 
general description of the immigration legal services and other 
immigration-related services (e.g., educational or outreach events) 
provided; a statement regarding whether services were provided pro bono 
or clients were charged in accordance with a fee schedule and 
organizational policies or guidance regarding fee waivers and reduced 
fees; and a list of the offices or locations where the immigration 
legal services were provided.
    The Department has determined that the estimated average time to 
review the form, gather necessary materials, complete the form, and 
assemble the attachments is 2 hours for initial recognition, which is 
the same as the current information collection. The current Form EOIR-
31 has been in use for several years, and the Department has not 
received any comments regarding the accuracy of this estimate. The 
Department has now received two comments in response to the proposed 
rule's revisions to the form suggesting that the time estimate may not 
be accurate. However, the commenters did not specifically address the 
revised form, as no individual requested it during the comment period. 
Notwithstanding the comments received, the Department has kept the 
estimated average total response time of 2 hours for initial 
recognition because initial recognition requires the same materials as 
the current information collection and the revised form provides much 
improved detail and specificity that will assist organizations in 
preparing and completing the form in a timely manner.
    For renewal of recognition, the Department clarifies that an 
organization will not be required to submit the information previously 
submitted at initial recognition, unless such information has changed 
since the initial recognition and it affects the organization's 
recognition. Instead, an organization will only be required to complete 
the form and submit fee schedules and six annual summaries of 
immigration legal services provided (formerly called the annual report 
in the proposed rule). The Department understands that these summaries, 
though simplified under the final rule, will place some additional 
burdens on organizations. Therefore, the Department has adjusted the 
estimated time to account for the burdens associated with preparation 
and retention of the summaries of immigration legal services provided. 
The Department estimates that the average time to review the form, 
gather necessary materials, complete the form, and assemble the 
attachments for each application to renew recognition will be 7 hours 
in total. The estimate includes

[[Page 92361]]

1 hour for review and completion of the form, and an additional 6 hours 
divided over 6 years to prepare the annual summaries of immigration 
legal services provided. This estimate and the one for initial 
recognition are minimized by the time saved from streamlining the 
recognition process to allow an organization to file a single 
application for multiple locations.
2. Request by Organization for Accreditation or Renewal of 
Accreditation of Non-Attorney (Form EOIR-31A)
    Based on changes in the final rule, the instructions to the final 
Form EOIR-31A have been modified to reflect that requests for renewal 
of accreditation must be requested every three years, and that requests 
for accreditation do not need to be submitted with requests for renewal 
of recognition, unless the renewal dates for both are the same.
    The Department finds no reason to adjust the estimated average time 
to complete Form EOIR-31A, despite the comments received about the time 
burden to request recognition and accreditation. The comments did not 
directly address the use of the revised form, as no individual 
requested the form. The comments generally concerned requests for 
accreditation, which may have related to the period in which there was 
no form to request accreditation. Even if the comments concerned the 
current information collection, the final form is improved in clarity 
and specificity such that organizations should be able to prepare and 
complete the form in an expeditious manner.
3. Immigration Practitioner Complaint Form (Form EOIR-44)
    The two comments received did not concern the revisions to the Form 
EOIR-44, which was updated to reflect that the public may use the form 
to file a complaint against a recognized organization in addition to an 
immigration practitioner. Therefore, the final rule adopts the 
revisions to the EOIR-44 as proposed.

List of Subjects

8 CFR Part 1001

    Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Immigration, 
Organizations and functions (Government agencies).

8 CFR Part 1003

    Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Immigration, Legal 
services, Organizations and functions (Government agencies).

8 CFR Part 1103

    Administrative practice and procedure, Authority delegations 
(Government agencies), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

8 CFR Part 1212

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

8 CFR Part 1292

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

    Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, 8 CFR parts 
1001, 1003, 1103, 1212, and 1292 are amended as follows:

PART 1001--DEFINITIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 1001 is revised to read as follows:

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

0
2. In Sec.  1001.1, add paragraphs (x) and (y) to read as follows:


Sec.  1001.1  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (x) The term OLAP means the Office of Legal Access Programs.
    (y) The term OLAP Director means the Program Director of the Office 
of Legal Access Programs.
* * * * *

PART 1003--EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW

0
3. The authority citation for part 1003 continues to read as follows:

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

0
4. In Sec.  1003.0, revise paragraphs (a) and (e)(1), redesignate 
paragraph (f) as paragraph (g), and add new paragraph (f), to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1003.0  Executive Office for Immigration Review.

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

0
5. In Sec.  1003.1, revise paragraph (b)(13), the first sentence of 
paragraph (d)(2)(iii), and paragraph (d)(5) to read as follows:


Sec.  1003.1  Organization, jurisdiction, and powers of the Board of 
Immigration Appeals.

* * * * *

[[Page 92362]]

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

0
6. In Sec.  1003.101, add paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  1003.101  General provisions.

* * * * *
    (c) The administrative termination of a representative's 
accreditation under 8 CFR 1292.17 after the issuance of a Notice of 
Intent to Discipline pursuant to Sec.  1003.105(a)(1) shall not 
preclude the continuation of disciplinary proceedings and the 
imposition of sanctions, unless counsel for the government moves to 
withdraw the Notice of Intent to Discipline and the adjudicating 
official or the Board grants the motion.

0
7. In Sec.  1003.102, revise paragraph (f)(2), remove the word ``or'' 
from the end of paragraph (t)(2), remove the period and add ``; or'' in 
its place at the end of paragraph (u), and add paragraph (v).
    The revision and addition read as follows:


Sec.  1003.102  Grounds.

* * * * *
    (f) * * *
    (2) Contains an assertion about the practitioner or the 
practitioner's qualifications or services that cannot be substantiated. 
A practitioner shall not state or imply that the practitioner has been 
recognized or certified as a specialist in immigration or nationality 
law unless such certification is granted by the appropriate State 
regulatory authority or by an organization that has been approved by 
the appropriate State regulatory authority to grant such certification. 
An accredited representative shall not state or imply that the 
accredited representative:
    (i) Is approved to practice before the Immigration Courts or the 
Board, if the representative is only approved as an accredited 
representative before DHS;
    (ii) Is an accredited representative for an organization other than 
a recognized organization through which the representative acquired 
accreditation; or
    (iii) Is an attorney.
* * * * *
    (v) Acts outside the scope of the representative's approved 
authority as an accredited representative.

0
8. In Sec.  1003.103, revise paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  1003.103  Immediate suspension and summary disciplinary 
proceedings; duty of practitioner or recognized organization to notify 
EOIR of conviction or discipline.

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

0
9. In Sec.  1003.104, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) Preliminary inquiry. Upon receipt of a disciplinary complaint 
or on its own initiative, the EOIR disciplinary counsel will initiate a 
preliminary inquiry. If a complaint is filed by a client or former 
client, the complainant thereby waives the attorney-client privilege 
and any other privilege relating to the representation to the extent 
necessary to conduct a preliminary inquiry and any subsequent 
proceedings based thereon. If the EOIR disciplinary counsel determines 
that a complaint is without merit, no further action will be taken. The 
EOIR disciplinary counsel may, in the disciplinary counsel's 
discretion, close a preliminary inquiry if the complainant fails to 
comply with reasonable requests for assistance, information, or 
documentation. The complainant and the practitioner shall be notified 
of any such determination in writing.
* * * * *

0
10. In Sec.  1003.105, revise the paragraph (a) subject heading and 
paragraph (a)(1), the first sentence of paragraph (c)(1), the last 
sentence of paragraph (c)(2), and paragraphs (c)(3), (d)(2) 
introductory text, and (d)(2)(ii) to read as follows:


Sec.  1003.105  Notice of Intent to Discipline.

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

[[Page 92363]]

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

0
11. In Sec.  1003.106, revise paragraph (a)(2) introductory text, 
paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iii), paragraph (a)(3) introductory text, 
and paragraphs (a)(3)(ii), (b), and (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  1003.106  Right to be heard and disposition.

    (a) * * *
    (2) The procedures set forth in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this 
section apply to cases in which the practitioner or recognized 
organization files a timely answer to the Notice of Intent to 
Discipline, with the exception of cases in which the Board issues a 
final order pursuant to Sec.  1003.105(d)(2) or Sec.  1003.106(a)(1).
    (i) The Chief Immigration Judge shall, upon the filing of an 
answer, appoint an Immigration Judge as an adjudicating official. At 
the request of the Chief Immigration Judge, the Chief Administrative 
Hearing Officer may appoint an Administrative Law Judge as an 
adjudicating official. The Director may appoint either an Immigration 
Judge or Administrative Law Judge as an adjudicating official if the 
Chief Immigration Judge or the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer 
does not appoint an adjudicating official or if the Director determines 
it is in the interest of efficiency to do so. An Immigration Judge or 
Administrative Law Judge shall not serve as the adjudicating official 
in any case in which the Judge is the complainant, in any case 
involving a practitioner who regularly appears before the Judge, or in 
any case involving a recognized organization whose representatives 
regularly appear before the Judge.
    (ii) Upon the practitioner's or, in cases involving a recognized 
organization, the organization's, request for a hearing, the 
adjudicating official may designate the time and place of the hearing 
with due regard to the location of the practitioner's practice or 
residence or of the recognized organization, the convenience of 
witnesses, and any other relevant factors. When designating the time 
and place of a hearing, the adjudicating official shall provide for the 
service of a notice of hearing, as the term ``service'' is defined in 
Sec.  1003.13, on the practitioner or the authorized officer of the 
recognized organization and the counsel for the government. The 
practitioner or the recognized organization shall be afforded adequate 
time to prepare a case in advance of the hearing. Pre-hearing 
conferences may be scheduled at the discretion of the adjudicating 
official in order to narrow issues, to obtain stipulations between the 
parties, to exchange information voluntarily, and otherwise to simplify 
and organize the proceeding. Settlement agreements reached after the 
issuance of a Notice of Intent to Discipline are subject to final 
approval by the adjudicating official or, if the practitioner or 
organization has not filed an answer, subject to final approval by the 
Board.
    (iii) The practitioner or, in cases involving a recognized 
organization, the organization, may be represented by counsel at no 
expense to the government. Counsel for the practitioner or the 
organization shall file the appropriate Notice of Entry of Appearance 
(Form EOIR-27 or EOIR-28) in accordance with the procedures set forth 
in this part. Each party shall have a reasonable opportunity to examine 
and object to evidence presented by the other party, to present 
evidence, and to cross-examine witnesses presented by the other party. 
If the practitioner or the recognized organization files an answer but 
does not request a hearing, then the adjudicating official shall 
provide the parties an opportunity to submit briefs and evidence to 
support or refute any of the charges or affirmative defenses.
* * * * *
    (3) Failure to appear in proceedings. If the practitioner or, in 
cases involving a recognized organization, the organization, requests a 
hearing as provided in Sec.  1003.105(c)(3) but fails to appear, the 
adjudicating official shall then proceed and decide the case in the 
absence of the practitioner or the recognized organization in 
accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, based on the available 
record, including any additional evidence or arguments presented by the 
counsel for the

[[Page 92364]]

government at the hearing. In such a proceeding the counsel for the 
government shall submit to the adjudicating official proof of service 
of the Notice of Intent to Discipline as well as the Notice of the 
Hearing. The practitioner or the recognized organization shall be 
precluded thereafter from participating further in the proceedings. A 
final order imposing discipline issued pursuant to this paragraph shall 
not be subject to further review, except that the practitioner or the 
recognized organization may file a motion to set aside the order, with 
service of such motion on counsel for the government, provided:
* * * * *
    (ii) The practitioner's or the recognized organization's failure to 
appear was due to exceptional circumstances (such as serious illness of 
the practitioner or death of an immediate relative of the practitioner, 
but not including less compelling circumstances) beyond the control of 
the practitioner or the recognized organization.
    (b) Decision. The adjudicating official shall consider the entire 
record and, as soon as practicable, render a decision. If the 
adjudicating official finds that one or more grounds for disciplinary 
sanctions enumerated in the Notice of Intent to Discipline have been 
established by clear and convincing evidence, the official shall rule 
that the disciplinary sanctions set forth in the Notice of Intent to 
Discipline be adopted, modified, or otherwise amended. If the 
adjudicating official determines that the practitioner should be 
suspended, the time period for such suspension shall be specified. If 
the adjudicating official determines that the organization's 
recognition should be revoked, the official may also identify the 
persons affiliated with the organization who were directly involved in 
the conduct that constituted the grounds for revocation. If the 
adjudicating official determines that the organization's recognition 
should be terminated, the official shall specify the time restriction, 
if any, before the organization may submit a new request for 
recognition. Any grounds for disciplinary sanctions enumerated in the 
Notice of Intent to Discipline that have not been established by clear 
and convincing evidence shall be dismissed. The adjudicating official 
shall provide for service of a written decision or memorandum 
summarizing an oral decision, as the term ``service'' is defined in 
Sec.  1003.13, on the practitioner or, in cases involving a recognized 
organization, on the authorized officer of the organization and on the 
counsel for the government. Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2) of 
this section, the adjudicating official's decision becomes final only 
upon waiver of appeal or expiration of the time for appeal to the 
Board, whichever comes first, and does not take effect during the 
pendency of an appeal to the Board as provided in Sec.  1003.6. A final 
order imposing discipline against an accredited representative or 
recognized organization shall take effect immediately.
    (c) Appeal. Upon issuance of a decision by the adjudicating 
official, either party or both parties may appeal to the Board to 
conduct a review pursuant to Sec.  1003.1(d)(3). Parties must comply 
with all pertinent provisions for appeals to the Board, including 
provisions relating to forms and fees, as set forth in Part 1003, and 
must use Form EOIR-45. The decision of the Board is the final 
administrative order as provided in Sec.  1003.1(d)(7), and shall be 
served upon the practitioner or, in cases involving a recognized 
organization, the organization, as provided in Sec.  1003.1(f). With 
the exception of cases in which the Board has already imposed an 
immediate suspension pursuant to Sec.  1003.103 or cases involving 
accredited representatives or recognized organizations, any final order 
imposing discipline shall not become effective sooner than 15 days from 
the date of the order to provide the practitioner opportunity to comply 
with the terms of such order, including, but not limited to, 
withdrawing from any pending immigration matters and notifying 
immigration clients of the imposition of any sanction. A final order 
imposing discipline against an accredited representative or recognized 
organization shall take effect immediately. A copy of the final 
administrative order of the Board shall be served upon the counsel for 
the government. If disciplinary sanctions are imposed against a 
practitioner or a recognized organization (other than a private 
censure), the Board may require that notice of such sanctions be posted 
at the Board, the Immigration Courts, or DHS for the period of time 
during which the sanctions are in effect, or for any other period of 
time as determined by the Board.
* * * * *

0
12. In Sec.  1003.107, revise paragraphs (a) and (b), redesignate 
paragraph (c) as paragraph (d), and add new paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  1003.107  Reinstatement after disbarment or suspension.

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

[[Page 92365]]

passed, whichever is greater, provided that notwithstanding the 
suspension, the practitioner otherwise meets the definition of attorney 
or representative as set forth in Sec.  1001.1(f) and (j), 
respectively, of this chapter. A copy of such a petition shall be 
served on the EOIR disciplinary counsel. In matters in which the 
practitioner was ordered disbarred or suspended from practice before 
DHS, a copy of such petition shall be served on the DHS disciplinary 
counsel.
    (2) A practitioner seeking early reinstatement must demonstrate by 
clear and convincing evidence that the practitioner possesses the moral 
and professional qualifications required to appear before the Board, 
the Immigration Courts, or DHS, and that the practitioner's 
reinstatement will not be detrimental to the administration of justice. 
The EOIR disciplinary counsel and, in matters in which the practitioner 
was ordered disbarred or suspended from practice before DHS, the DHS 
disciplinary counsel, may reply within 30 days of service of the 
petition in the form of a written response to the Board, which may 
include, but is not limited to, documentation or evidence of the 
practitioner's failure to comply with the terms of the disbarment or 
suspension or of any complaints filed against the disbarred or 
suspended practitioner subsequent to the practitioner's disbarment or 
suspension.
    (3) If a practitioner cannot meet the definition of attorney or 
representative, the Board shall deny the petition for reinstatement 
without further consideration. If the petition for reinstatement is 
found to be otherwise inappropriate or unwarranted, the petition shall 
be denied. Any subsequent petitions for reinstatement may not be filed 
before the end of one year from the date of the Board's previous denial 
of reinstatement, unless the practitioner is otherwise eligible for 
reinstatement under paragraph (a). If the petition for reinstatement is 
determined to be timely, the practitioner meets the definition of 
attorney or representative, and the petitioner has otherwise 
established by the requisite standard of proof that the practitioner 
possesses the qualifications set forth herein, and that reinstatement 
will not be detrimental to the administration of justice, the Board 
shall grant the petition and reinstate the practitioner. The Board, in 
its discretion, may hold a hearing to determine if the practitioner 
meets all of the requirements for reinstatement.
    (c) Accredited representatives. (1) An accredited representative 
who has been suspended for a period of time greater than the remaining 
period of validity of the representative's accreditation at the time of 
the suspension is not eligible to be reinstated under Sec.  1003.107(a) 
or (b). In such circumstances, after the period of suspension has 
expired, an organization may submit a new request for accreditation 
pursuant to 8 CFR 1292.13 on behalf of such an individual.
    (2) Disbarment. An accredited representative who has been disbarred 
is permanently barred from appearing before the Board, the Immigration 
Courts, or DHS as an accredited representative and cannot seek 
reinstatement.
* * * * *

0
13. In Sec.  1003.108, revise paragraph (a) introductory text, 
paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iv), and paragraph (a)(2)(v), add 
paragraph (a)(3), and revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:


Sec.  1003.108  Confidentiality.

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

0
14. Add Sec. Sec.  1003.110 and 1003.111 to read as follows:


Sec.  1003.110   Sanction of recognized organizations.

    (a) Authority to sanction. (1) An adjudicating official or the 
Board may impose disciplinary sanctions against a recognized 
organization if it is in the public interest to do so. It will be in 
the public interest to impose disciplinary sanctions if a recognized 
organization has engaged in the conduct described in paragraph (b) of 
this section. In accordance with the disciplinary proceedings set forth 
in this subpart, an adjudicating official or the Board may impose the 
following sanctions:
    (i) Revocation, which removes the organization and its accredited 
representatives from the recognition and accreditation roster and 
permanently bars the organization from future recognition;

[[Page 92366]]

    (ii) Termination, which removes the organization and its accredited 
representatives from the recognition and accreditation roster but does 
not bar the organization from future recognition. In terminating 
recognition under this section, the adjudicating official or the Board 
may preclude the organization from submitting a new request for 
recognition under 8 CFR 1292.13 before a specified date; or
    (iii) Such other disciplinary sanctions, except a suspension, as 
the adjudicating official or the Board deems appropriate.
    (2) The administrative termination of an organization's recognition 
under 8 CFR 1292.17 after the issuance of Notice of Intent to 
Discipline pursuant to Sec.  1003.105(a)(1) shall not preclude the 
continuation of disciplinary proceedings and the imposition of 
sanctions, unless counsel for the government moves to dismiss the 
Notice of Intent to Discipline and the adjudicating official or the 
Board grants the motion.
    (3) The imposition of disciplinary sanctions against a recognized 
organization does not result in disciplinary sanctions against that 
organization's accredited representatives; disciplinary sanctions, if 
any, against an organization's accredited representatives must be 
imposed separately from disciplinary sanctions against the 
organization. Termination or revocation of an organization's 
recognition has the effect of terminating the accreditation of 
representatives of that organization, but such individuals may retain 
or seek accreditation through another recognized organization.
    (b) Grounds. It shall be deemed to be in the public interest for an 
adjudicating official or the Board to impose disciplinary sanctions 
against any recognized organization that violates one or more of the 
grounds specified in this paragraph, except that these grounds do not 
constitute the exclusive grounds for which disciplinary sanctions may 
be imposed in the public interest. A recognized organization may be 
subject to disciplinary sanctions if it:
    (1) Knowingly or with reckless disregard provides a false statement 
or misleading information in applying for recognition or accreditation 
of its representatives;
    (2) Knowingly or with reckless disregard provides false or 
misleading information to clients or prospective clients regarding the 
scope of authority of, or the services provided by, the organization or 
its accredited representatives;
    (3) Fails to adequately supervise accredited representatives;
    (4) Employs, receives services from, or affiliates with an 
individual who performs an activity that constitutes the unauthorized 
practice of law or immigration fraud; or
    (5) Engages in the practice of law through staff when it does not 
have an attorney or accredited representative.
    (c) Joint disciplinary proceedings. The EOIR disciplinary counsel 
or DHS disciplinary counsel may file a Notice of Intent to Discipline 
against a recognized organization and one or more of its accredited 
representatives pursuant to Sec.  1003.101 et seq. Disciplinary 
proceedings conducted on such notices, if they are filed jointly with 
the Board, shall be joined and referred to the same adjudicating 
official pursuant to Sec.  1003.106. An adjudicating official may join 
related disciplinary proceedings after the filing of a Notice of Intent 
to Discipline.


Sec.  1003.111  Interim suspension.

    (a) Petition for interim suspension--(1) EOIR Petition. In 
conjunction with the filing of a Notice of Intent to Discipline or at 
any time thereafter during disciplinary proceedings before an 
adjudicating official, the EOIR disciplinary counsel may file a 
petition for an interim suspension of an accredited representative. 
Such suspension, if issued, precludes the representative from 
practicing before the Board and the Immigration Courts during the 
pendency of disciplinary proceedings and continues until the issuance 
of a final order in the disciplinary proceedings.
    (2) DHS Petition. In conjunction with the filing of a Notice of 
Intent to Discipline or at any time thereafter during disciplinary 
proceedings before an adjudicating official, the DHS disciplinary 
counsel may file a petition for an interim suspension of an accredited 
representative. Such suspension, if issued, precludes the 
representative from practicing before DHS during the pendency of 
disciplinary proceedings and continues until the issuance of a final 
order in the disciplinary proceedings.
    (3) Contents of the petition. In the petition, counsel for the 
government must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the 
accredited representative poses a substantial threat of irreparable 
harm to clients or prospective clients. An accredited representative 
poses a substantial threat of irreparable harm to clients or 
prospective clients if the representative committed three or more acts 
in violation of the grounds of discipline described at Sec.  1003.102, 
when actual harm or threatened harm is demonstrated, or engages in any 
other conduct that, if continued, will likely cause irreparable harm to 
clients or prospective clients. Counsel for the government must serve 
the petition on the accredited representative, as provided in Sec.  
1003.105, and send a copy of the petition to the authorized officer of 
the recognized organization at the address of the organization through 
which the representative is accredited.
    (4) Requests to broaden scope. The EOIR disciplinary counsel or DHS 
disciplinary counsel may submit a request to broaden the scope of any 
interim suspension order such that an accredited representative would 
be precluded from practice before the Board, the Immigration Courts, 
and DHS.
    (b) Response. The accredited representative may file a written 
response to the petition for interim suspension within 30 days of 
service of the petition.
    (c) Adjudication. Upon the expiration of the time to respond to the 
petition for an interim suspension, the adjudicating official will 
consider the petition for an interim suspension, the accredited 
representative's response, if any, and any other evidence presented by 
the parties before determining whether to issue an interim suspension. 
If the adjudicating official imposes an interim suspension on the 
representative, the adjudicating official may require that notice of 
the interim suspension be posted at the Board and the Immigration 
Courts, or DHS, or all three authorities. Upon good cause shown, the 
adjudicating official may set aside an order of interim suspension when 
it appears in the interest of justice to do so. If a final order in the 
disciplinary proceedings includes the imposition of a period of 
suspension against an accredited representative, time spent by the 
representative under an interim suspension pursuant to this section may 
be credited toward the period of suspension imposed under the final 
order.

PART 1103--APPEALS, RECORDS, AND FEES

0
15. The authority citation for part 1103 continues to read as follows:

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

0
16. In Sec.  1103.3, revise paragraph (a), remove and reserve paragraph 
(b), and revise paragraph (c).
    The revisions read as follows:

[[Page 92367]]

Sec.  1103.3  Denials, appeals, and precedent decisions.

    (a) DHS regulations. The regulations pertaining to denials, 
appeals, and precedent decisions of the Department of Homeland Security 
are contained in 8 CFR Chapter I.
* * * * *
    (c) DHS precedent decisions. The Secretary of Homeland Security, or 
specific officials of the Department of Homeland Security designated by 
the Secretary with the concurrence of the Attorney General, may file 
with the Attorney General decisions relating to the administration of 
the immigration laws of the United States for publication as precedent 
in future proceedings, and upon approval of the Attorney General as to 
the lawfulness of such decision, the Director of the Executive Office 
for Immigration Review shall cause such decisions to be published in 
the same manner as decisions of the Board and the Attorney General.

PART 1212--DOCUMENTARY REQUIREMENTS: NONIMMIGRANTS; WAIVERS; 
ADMISSION OF CERTAIN INADMISSIBLE ALIENS; PAROLE

0
17. The authority citation for part 1212 continues to read as follows:

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

0
18. Revise Sec.  1212.6 to read as follows:


Sec.  1212.6  Border crossing identification cards.

    The regulations of the Department of Homeland Security pertaining 
to border crossing identification cards can be found at 8 CFR 212.6.

PART 1292--REPRESENTATION AND APPEARANCES

0
19. Revise the authority citation for part 1292 to read as follows:

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

0
20. In part 1292, before Sec.  1292.1, add an undesignated center 
heading to read ``In General''.

0
21. In Sec.  1292.1, revise paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows:


Sec.  1292.1  Representation of others.

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


Sec.  1292.2  [Removed and Reserved]

0
22. Remove and reserve Sec.  1292.2.

0
23. Revise Sec.  1292.3 to read as follows:


Sec.  1292.3  Conduct for practitioners and recognized organizations--
rules and procedures.

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

0
24. Revise Sec.  1292.6 to read as follows:


Sec.  1292.6  Interpretation.

    Interpretations of Sec. Sec.  1292.1 through 1292.6 will be made by 
the Board, subject to the provisions of part 1003 of this chapter. 
Interpretations of Sec. Sec.  1292.11 through 1292.20 will be made by 
the OLAP Director.

0
25. Add Sec. Sec.  1292.11 through 1292.20, with an undesignated center 
heading preceding Sec.  1292.11, to read as follows:

Sec.
* * * * *
Recognition of organizations and accreditation of non-attorney 
representatives
Sec.
1292.11 Recognition of an organization.
1292.12 Accreditation of representatives.
1292.13 Applying for recognition of organizations or accreditation 
of representatives.
1292.14 Reporting, recordkeeping, and posting requirements for 
recognized organizations.
1292.15 Extension of recognition and accreditation to multiple 
offices or locations of an organization.
1292.16 Renewal of recognition and accreditation.
1292.17 Administrative termination of recognition and accreditation.
1292.18 Administrative review of denied requests for 
reconsideration.
1292.19 Complaints against recognized organizations and accredited 
representatives.
1292.20 Roster of recognized organizations and accredited 
representatives.
* * * * *

Recognition of Organizations and Accreditation of Non-Attorney 
Representatives


Sec.  1292.11  Recognition of an organization.

    (a) In general. The OLAP Director, in the exercise of discretion, 
may recognize an eligible organization to provide representation 
through accredited representatives who appear on behalf of clients 
before the Immigration Courts, the Board, and DHS, or DHS alone. The 
OLAP Director will determine whether an organization is eligible for 
recognition. To be eligible for recognition, the organization must 
establish that:
    (1) The organization is a non-profit religious, charitable, social 
service, or similar organization that provides immigration legal 
services primarily to low-income and indigent clients within the United 
States, and, if the organization charges fees, has a written policy for 
accommodating clients unable to pay fees for immigration legal 
services;
    (2) The organization is a Federal tax-exempt organization 
established in the United States;
    (3) The organization is simultaneously applying to have at least 
one employee or volunteer of the organization approved as an accredited 
representative by the OLAP Director and at least one application for 
accreditation is concurrently approved, unless the organization is 
seeking renewal of recognition and has an accredited representative or 
is seeking renewal of recognition on inactive status as described in 
Sec.  1292.16(i);
    (4) The organization has access to adequate knowledge, information, 
and experience in all aspects of immigration law and procedure; and
    (5) The organization has designated an authorized officer to act on 
behalf of the organization.
    (b) Proof of status as non-profit religious, charitable, social 
service, or similar organization established in the United States and 
service to low-income and indigent clients. The organization must 
submit: A copy of its organizing documents, including a statement of 
its mission or purpose; a declaration from its authorized officer 
attesting that it serves primarily low-income and indigent clients; a 
summary of the legal services to be provided; if it charges fees for 
legal services, fee schedules and organizational policies or guidance 
regarding fee waivers or reduced fees based on financial need; and its 
annual budget. The organization may also submit additional 
documentation to demonstrate non-profit status and service to primarily 
low-income and indigent individuals, such as reports prepared for 
funders or information about other free or low-cost immigration-related 
services that it provides (e.g., educational or outreach events).
    (c) Annual budget. The organization must submit its annual budget 
for providing immigration legal services for

[[Page 92368]]

the current year and, if available, its annual budget for providing 
immigration legal services for the prior year. If the annual budgets 
for both the current and prior years are unavailable, the organization 
must submit its projected annual budget for the upcoming year. The 
annual budget should describe how the organization is funded and 
include information about the organization's operating expenses and 
sources of revenue for providing immigration legal services. Sources of 
revenue may include, but are not limited to, grants, fees, donations, 
or dues.
    (d) Proof of tax-exempt status. The organization must submit a copy 
of its currently valid IRS tax-exemption determination letter, 
alternative documentation to establish Federal tax-exempt status, or 
proof that is has applied for Federal tax-exempt status.
    (e) Proof of knowledge, information, and experience. The 
organization must submit: A description of the immigration legal 
services that the organization seeks to offer; a description of the 
legal resources to which the organization has access; an organizational 
chart showing names, titles, and supervisors of immigration legal staff 
members; a description of the qualifications, experience, and breadth 
of immigration knowledge of these staff members, including, but not 
limited to resumes, letters of recommendation, certifications, and a 
list of all relevant, formal immigration-related trainings attended by 
staff members; and any agreement or proof of a formal arrangement 
entered into with non-staff immigration practitioners and recognized 
organizations for consultations or technical legal assistance.
    (f) Validity period of recognition. Recognition is valid for a 
period of six years from the date of the OLAP Director's approval of 
recognition, unless the organization has been granted conditional 
recognition. Conditional recognition is granted to an organization that 
has not been recognized previously, that has Federal tax-exempt status 
pending, or that has been approved for recognition after recognition 
was previously terminated pursuant to Sec.  1292.17 or 8 CFR 1003.101 
et seq. Conditional recognition is valid for two years from the date of 
the OLAP Director's approval of conditional recognition. Any 
organization's recognition is subject to being terminated pursuant to 
Sec.  1292.17 or upon the issuance of disciplinary sanctions 
(termination or revocation) under 8 CFR 1003.101 et seq.


Sec.  1292.12  Accreditation of representatives.

    (a) In general. Only recognized organizations, or organizations 
simultaneously applying for recognition, may request accreditation of 
individuals. The OLAP Director, in the exercise of discretion, may 
approve accreditation of an eligible individual as a representative of 
a recognized organization for either full or partial accreditation. An 
individual who receives full accreditation may represent clients before 
the Immigration Courts, the Board, and DHS. An individual who receives 
partial accreditation may represent clients only before DHS. In the 
request for accreditation, the organization must specify whether it 
seeks full or partial accreditation and establish eligibility for 
accreditation for the individual. To establish eligibility for 
accreditation, an organization must demonstrate that the individual for 
whom the organization seeks accreditation:
    (1) Has the character and fitness to represent clients before the 
Immigration Courts and the Board, or DHS, or before all three 
authorities. Character and fitness includes, but is not limited to, an 
examination of factors such as: Criminal background; prior acts 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation; past history 
of neglecting professional, financial, or legal obligations; and 
current immigration status that presents an actual or perceived 
conflict of interest;
    (2) Is employed by or is a volunteer of the organization;
    (3) Is not an attorney as defined in 8 CFR 1001.1(f);
    (4) Has not resigned while a disciplinary investigation or 
proceeding is pending and is not subject to any order disbarring, 
suspending, enjoining, restraining, or otherwise restricting the 
individual in the practice of law or representation before a court or 
any administrative agency;
    (5) Has not been found guilty of, or pleaded guilty or nolo 
contendere to, a serious crime, as defined in 8 CFR 1003.102(h), in any 
court of the United States, or of any State, possession, territory, 
commonwealth, or the District of Columbia, or of a jurisdiction outside 
of the United States; and
    (6) Possesses broad knowledge and adequate experience in 
immigration law and procedure. If an organization seeks full 
accreditation for an individual, it must establish that the individual 
also possesses skills essential for effective litigation.
    (b) Request for accreditation. To establish that an individual 
satisfies the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, the 
organization must submit a request for accreditation (Form EOIR-31A and 
supporting documents). The request for accreditation must be signed by 
the authorized officer and the individual to be accredited, both 
attesting that the individual satisfies these requirements.
    (c) Proof of knowledge and experience. To establish that the 
individual satisfies the requirement in paragraph (a)(6) of this 
section, the organization must submit with its request for 
accreditation, at minimum: A description of the individual's 
qualifications, including education and immigration law experience; 
letters of recommendation from at least two persons familiar with the 
individual's qualifications; and documentation of all relevant, formal 
immigration-related training, including a course on the fundamentals of 
immigration law, procedure, and practice. An organization must also 
submit documentation that an individual for whom the organization seeks 
full accreditation has formal training, education, or experience 
related to trial and appellate advocacy.
    (d) Validity period of accreditation. Accreditation is valid for a 
period of three years from the date of the OLAP Director's approval of 
accreditation, unless the organization's recognition or the 
representative's accreditation is terminated pursuant to Sec.  1292.17 
or the organization or the representative is subject to disciplinary 
sanctions (termination, revocation, suspension, or disbarment) under 8 
CFR 1003.101 et seq.
    (e) Change in accreditation. An organization may request to change 
the accreditation of a representative from partial to full 
accreditation at any time during the validity period of accreditation 
or at renewal. Such a request will be treated as a new, initial request 
for full accreditation and must comply with this section.


Sec.  1292.13  Applying for recognition of organizations or 
accreditation of representatives.

    (a) In general. An organization applying for recognition or 
accreditation of a representative must submit a request for recognition 
(Form EOIR-31) or a request for accreditation (Form EOIR-31A) to the 
OLAP Director with proof of service of a copy of the request on the 
appropriate USCIS office(s) in the jurisdictions where the organization 
offers or intends to offer immigration legal services. An organization 
must submit a separate request for accreditation (Form EOIR-31A) for 
each individual for whom it seeks accreditation. To determine whether 
an

[[Page 92369]]

organization has established eligibility for recognition or 
accreditation of a representative, the OLAP Director shall review all 
information contained in the request for recognition or accreditation 
and may review any publicly available information or any other 
information that OLAP may obtain or possess about the organization, its 
authorized officer, or the proposed representative or may have received 
pursuant to paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this section. Unfavorable 
information obtained by the OLAP Director that may be relied upon to 
disapprove a recognition or accreditation request, if not previously 
served on the organization, shall be disclosed to the organization, and 
the organization shall be given a reasonable opportunity to respond. 
Prior to determining whether to approve or disapprove a request for 
recognition or accreditation, the OLAP Director may request additional 
information from the organization pertaining to the eligibility 
requirements for recognition or accreditation. The OLAP Director, in 
writing, shall inform the organization and each USCIS office in the 
jurisdictions where the organization offers or intends to offer 
immigration legal services of the determination approving or 
disapproving the organization's request for recognition or 
accreditation of a representative. The OLAP Director may, in the 
exercise of discretion, extend the deadlines provided in this section. 
The OLAP Director is authorized to allow requests, notifications, 
recommendations, and determinations described in this section to be 
made electronically.
    (b) USCIS recommendation and investigation. Within 30 days from the 
date of service of the request for recognition or accreditation, the 
USCIS office served with the request may submit to the OLAP Director a 
recommendation for approval or disapproval of the request for 
recognition or accreditation, including an explanation for the 
recommendation, or may request from the OLAP Director a specified 
period of additional time, generally no more than 30 days, in which to 
conduct an investigation or otherwise obtain relevant information 
regarding the organization, its authorized officer, or any individual 
for whom the organization seeks accreditation. The OLAP Director shall 
inform the organization if the OLAP Director grants a request from 
USCIS for additional time to conduct an investigation, or if, in the 
exercise of discretion, the OLAP Director has requested that USCIS 
conduct an investigation of the organization, its authorized officer, 
or any individual for whom the organization seeks accreditation. USCIS 
must submit any recommendation with proof of service of a copy of the 
recommendation on the organization. Within 30 days of service of an 
unfavorable recommendation, the organization may file with the OLAP 
Director a response to the unfavorable recommendation, along with proof 
of service of a copy of such response on the USCIS office that provided 
the recommendation.
    (c) ICE recommendation. Upon receipt of a request for recognition 
or accreditation, the OLAP Director may request a recommendation or 
information from ICE in the jurisdictions where the organization offers 
or intends to offer immigration legal services regarding the 
organization, its authorized officer, or any individual for whom the 
organization seeks accreditation. Within 30 days from the date of 
receipt of the OLAP Director's request, ICE may make a recommendation 
or disclose information regarding the organization, its authorized 
officer, or individuals for whom the organization seeks accreditation. 
ICE must submit any recommendation with proof of service of a copy of 
the recommendation on the organization. Within 30 days of service of an 
unfavorable recommendation, the organization may file with the OLAP 
Director a response to the unfavorable recommendation, along with proof 
of service of a copy of such response on the ICE office that provided 
the recommendation. The OLAP Director, in writing, shall inform ICE of 
the determination approving or disapproving the organization's request 
for recognition or accreditation of a representative.
    (d) EOIR investigation. Upon receipt of a request for recognition 
or accreditation, the OLAP Director may request that the EOIR 
disciplinary counsel or anti-fraud officer conduct an investigation 
into the organization, its authorized officer, or any individual for 
whom the organization seeks accreditation. Within 30 days from the date 
of receipt of the OLAP Director's request, the EOIR disciplinary 
counsel or anti-fraud officer may disclose to the OLAP Director 
information, including complaints, preliminary inquiries, warning 
letters, and admonitions, relating to the organization, its authorized 
officer, or any individual for whom the organization seeks 
accreditation.
    (e) Finality of decision. The OLAP Director's determination to 
approve a request for recognition or accreditation is final. An 
organization whose request for recognition or accreditation was 
disapproved may make one request for reconsideration of the disapproval 
within 30 days of the determination. An organization whose request for 
recognition or accreditation was disapproved, or whose request for 
reconsideration after disapproval and, if applicable, request for 
administrative review pursuant to Sec.  1292.18 was denied, may submit 
a new request for recognition or accreditation at any time unless 
otherwise prohibited.


Sec.  1292.14  Reporting, recordkeeping, and posting requirements for 
recognized organizations.

    (a) Duty to report changes. A recognized organization has a duty to 
promptly notify the OLAP Director in writing or electronically of 
changes in the organization's contact information, changes to any 
material information the organization provided in Form EOIR-31, Form 
EOIR-31A, or the documents submitted in support thereof, or changes 
that otherwise materially relate to the organization's eligibility for 
recognition or the eligibility for accreditation of any of the 
organization's accredited representatives. These changes may include 
alterations to: The organization's name, address, telephone number, Web 
site address, email address, or the designation of the authorized 
officer of the organization; an accredited representative's name or 
employment or volunteer status with the organization; and the 
organization's structure, including a merger of organizations that have 
already been individually accorded recognition, or a change in non-
profit or Federal tax-exempt status.
    (b) Recordkeeping. A recognized organization must compile each of 
the following records in a timely manner, and retain them for a period 
of six years from the date the record is created, as long as the 
organization remains recognized:
    (1) The organization's immigration legal services fee schedule, if 
the organization charges any fees for immigration legal services, for 
each office or location where such services are provided; and
    (2) An annual summary of immigration legal services provided by the 
organization, which includes: The total number of clients served 
(whether through client intakes, applications prepared and filed with 
DHS, cases in which its attorneys or accredited representatives 
appeared before the Immigration Courts or, if applicable, the Board, or 
referrals to attorneys or other organizations) and clients to whom it 
provided services at no cost; a general

[[Page 92370]]

description of the immigration legal services and other immigration-
related services (e.g., educational or outreach events) provided; a 
statement regarding whether services were provided pro bono or clients 
were charged in accordance with a fee schedule and organizational 
policies or guidance regarding fee waivers and reduced fees; and a list 
of the offices or locations where the immigration legal services were 
provided. The summary should not include any client-specific or client-
identifying information. OLAP may require the organization to submit 
such records to it or DHS upon request.
    (c) Posting. The OLAP Director shall have the authority to issue 
public notices regarding recognition and accreditation and to require 
recognized organizations and accredited representatives to post such 
public notices. Information contained in the public notices shall be 
limited to: The names and validity periods of a recognized organization 
and its accredited representatives, the requirements for recognition 
and accreditation, and the means to complain about a recognized 
organization or accredited representative.


Sec.  1292.15  Extension of recognition and accreditation to multiple 
offices or locations of an organization.

    Upon approving an initial request for recognition or a request for 
renewal of recognition, or at any other time, the OLAP Director, in the 
OLAP Director's discretion, may extend the recognition of an 
organization to any office or location where the organization offers 
services. To request extension of recognition, an organization that is 
seeking or has received recognition must submit a Form EOIR-31 that 
identifies the name and address of the organization's headquarters or 
designated office and the name and address of each other office or 
location for which the organization seeks extension of recognition. The 
organization must also provide a declaration from its authorized 
officer attesting that it periodically conducts inspections of each 
such office or location, exercises supervision and control over its 
accredited representatives at those offices and locations, and provides 
access to adequate legal resources at each such office or location. 
OLAP may require an organization to seek separate recognition for an 
office or location of the organization, for example, when a subordinate 
office or location has distinct operations, management structure, or 
funding sources from the organization's headquarters. The OLAP 
Director's determination to extend recognition to the offices or 
locations identified in Form EOIR-31 permits the organization's 
accredited representatives to provide immigration legal services out of 
those offices or locations. OLAP will post the address of each office 
or location to which recognition has been extended on the roster of 
recognized organizations and accredited representatives. The OLAP 
Director is authorized to allow requests and determinations described 
in this section to be made electronically.


Sec.  1292.16  Renewal of recognition and accreditation.

    (a) In general. To retain its recognition and the accreditation of 
its representatives after the conclusion of the validity period 
specified in Sec.  1292.11(f) or Sec.  1292.12(d), an organization must 
submit a request for renewal of its recognition or the accreditation of 
its representatives (Form EOIR-31, Form EOIR-31A, and supporting 
documents). In the exercise of discretion, as provided in paragraph (i) 
of this section, the OLAP Director may approve an organization's 
request for renewal of recognition without a currently approved 
accredited representative.
    (b) Timing of renewal--(1) Recognition. An organization requesting 
renewal of recognition must submit the request on or before the sixth 
anniversary date of the organization's last approval or renewal of 
recognition or, for a conditionally recognized organization, on or 
before the second anniversary of the approval date of the conditional 
recognition. Any request must include proof of service of a copy of the 
request on the appropriate USCIS office(s) in the jurisdictions where 
the organization offers or intends to offer immigration legal services.
    (2) Accreditation. An organization requesting renewal of 
accreditation of its representative must submit the request on or 
before the third anniversary date of the representative's last approval 
or renewal of accreditation, with proof of service of a copy of the 
request on the appropriate USCIS office(s) in the jurisdictions where 
the organization offers or intends to offer immigration legal services.
    (3) The OLAP Director, in the OLAP Director's discretion, may grant 
additional time to submit a request for renewal or accept a request for 
renewal filed out of time. The recognition of the organization and the 
accreditation of any representatives for whom the organization timely 
requests renewal shall remain valid pending the OLAP Director's 
consideration of the renewal requests, except in the case of an interim 
suspension pursuant to 8 CFR 1003.111.
    (c) Renewal requirements--(1) Recognition. The request for renewal 
of recognition must establish that the organization remains eligible 
for recognition under Sec.  1292.11(a), include the records specified 
in Sec.  1292.14(b) regarding fee schedules and the summary of 
immigration legal services provided that the organization compiled 
since the last approval of recognition, and describe any unreported 
changes that impact eligibility for recognition from the date of the 
last approval of recognition.
    (2) Accreditation. Each request for renewal of accreditation must 
establish that the individual remains eligible for accreditation under 
Sec.  1292.12(a) and has continued to receive formal training in 
immigration law and procedure commensurate with the services the 
organization provides and the duration of the representative's 
accreditation.
    (d) Recommendations and investigations. Each USCIS office served 
with a request for renewal of recognition or a request for renewal of 
accreditation may submit to the OLAP Director a recommendation for 
approval or disapproval of that request pursuant to Sec.  1292.13(b). 
The OLAP Director may request a recommendation from ICE or an 
investigation from the EOIR disciplinary counsel or anti-fraud officer, 
pursuant to Sec.  1292.13(c) and (d).
    (e) Renewal process. The OLAP Director shall review all information 
contained in the requests and may review any publicly available 
information or any other information that OLAP may possess about the 
organization, its authorized officer, or any individual for whom the 
organization seeks accreditation or renewal of accreditation or that 
OLAP may have received pursuant to Sec.  1292.13(b) through (d). 
Unfavorable information obtained by the OLAP Director that may be 
relied upon to disapprove a recognition or accreditation request, if 
not previously served on the organization, shall be disclosed to the 
organization, and the organization shall be given a reasonable 
opportunity to respond. Prior to determining whether to approve or 
disapprove a request for renewal of recognition or accreditation, the 
OLAP Director may request additional information from the organization 
pertaining to the eligibility requirements for recognition or 
accreditation. The OLAP Director, in writing, shall inform the 
organization and the appropriate DHS office(s) in the jurisdictions 
where

[[Page 92371]]

the organization offers or intends to offer immigration legal services 
of the determination to approve or disapprove a request for renewal of 
recognition. If the OLAP Director renews recognition, the OLAP Director 
shall issue a written determination approving or disapproving each 
request for accreditation or renewal of accreditation. The OLAP 
Director is authorized to allow requests, notifications, 
recommendations, and determinations described in this section to be 
made electronically.
    (f) Finality of decision. The OLAP Director's determination to 
approve a request to renew recognition or accreditation is final. An 
organization whose request for renewal of recognition or accreditation 
of its representatives has been disapproved may make one request for 
reconsideration of the disapproval within 30 days of the determination. 
The recognition of the organization and the accreditation of any 
representatives for whom the organization timely requests 
reconsideration shall remain valid pending the OLAP Director's 
consideration of the reconsideration request, except in the case of an 
interim suspension pursuant to 8 CFR 1003.111. An organization whose 
recognition or accreditation of its representatives is terminated 
because the organization's request to renew recognition or 
accreditation is disapproved or whose request for reconsideration after 
disapproval and, if applicable, request for administrative review 
pursuant to Sec.  1292.18 was denied, may submit a new request for 
recognition and accreditation at any time unless otherwise prohibited.
    (g) Validity period of recognition and accreditation after renewal. 
After renewal of recognition, the recognition of the organization is 
valid for a period of six years from the date of the OLAP Director's 
determination to renew recognition, unless the organization's 
recognition is terminated pursuant to Sec.  1292.17 or the organization 
is subject to disciplinary sanctions (i.e., termination or revocation) 
under 8 CFR 1003.101 et seq. After renewal of accreditation, the 
accreditation of a representative is valid for a period of three years 
from the date of the OLAP Director's determination to renew 
accreditation, unless the organization's recognition or the 
representative's accreditation is terminated pursuant to Sec.  1292.17 
or the organization or the representative is subject to disciplinary 
sanctions (termination, revocation, suspension, or disbarment) under 8 
CFR 1003.101 et seq.
    (h) Organizations and representatives recognized and accredited 
prior to January 18, 2017--(1) Applicability. An organization or 
representative that received recognition or accreditation prior to 
January 18, 2017, through the Board under former Sec.  1292.2 is 
subject to the provisions of this part. Such an organization or 
representative shall continue to be recognized or accredited until the 
organization is required to request renewal of its recognition and 
accreditation of its representatives as required by paragraphs (h)(2) 
and (3) of this section and pending the OLAP Director's determination 
on the organization's request for renewal if such a request is timely 
made, unless the organization's recognition or the representative's 
accreditation is terminated pursuant to Sec.  1292.17 or the 
organization or the representative is subject to disciplinary sanctions 
(termination, revocation, suspension, or disbarment) under 8 CFR 
1003.101 et seq.
    (2) Renewal of recognition. To retain its recognition, an 
organization that received recognition prior to January 18, 2017, must 
request renewal of its recognition pursuant to this section on or 
before the following dates:
    (i) Within 1 year of January 18, 2017, if the organization does not 
have an accredited representative on the effective date of this 
regulation;
    (ii) Within 2 years of January 18, 2017, if the organization is not 
required to submit a request for renewal at an earlier date under 
paragraph (h)(2)(i) of this section, and the organization has been 
recognized for more than 10 years as of the effective date of this 
regulation; or
    (iii) Within 3 years of January 18, 2017, if the organization is 
not required to submit a request for renewal at an earlier date under 
paragraph (h)(2)(i) or (ii) of this section.
    (3) Renewal of accreditation. To retain the accreditation of its 
representatives who were accredited prior to January 18, 2017, an 
organization must request renewal of accreditation of its 
representatives on or before the date that the representative's 
accreditation would have expired under the prior rule.
    (i) Inactive status. An organization shall be placed on inactive 
status if it has no currently approved accredited representative, and 
it promptly notified OLAP that it no longer has an accredited 
representative, as required by Sec.  1292.14(a). An organization on 
inactive status is precluded from providing immigration legal services 
unless it has an attorney on staff. An organization shall be on 
inactive status for two years from the date the organization is placed 
on inactive status in order for the organization to apply for and have 
approved the accreditation of one or more representatives. If an 
organization on inactive status is subject to renewal while on inactive 
status, the organization must request renewal of recognition at the 
time required for renewal. The OLAP Director, in the OLAP Director's 
discretion, may approve a request to renew an organization's 
recognition without a currently approved accredited representative, 
provided that the organization satisfies the renewal requirements under 
Sec.  1292.16(c)(1) and attests that it intends to apply for and have 
approved the accreditation of one or more representatives within two 
years from the date of renewal. An organization renewed under such 
circumstances shall be on inactive status for two years from the date 
of renewal in order for the organization to apply for and have approved 
the accreditation of one or more representatives. The OLAP Director, in 
the OLAP Director's discretion, may grant an organization additional 
time on inactive status beyond the time limits provided in this 
paragraph.


Sec.  1292.17  Administrative termination of recognition and 
accreditation.

    (a) In general. The OLAP Director may administratively terminate an 
organization's recognition or a representative's accreditation and 
remove the organization or representative from the recognition and 
accreditation roster. Prior to issuing a determination to 
administratively terminate recognition or accreditation, the OLAP 
Director may request, in writing or electronically, information from 
the organization, representative, DHS, or EOIR, regarding the bases for 
termination. The OLAP Director, in writing or electronically, shall 
inform the organization or the representative, as applicable, of the 
determination to terminate the organization's recognition or the 
representative's accreditation, and the reasons for the determination.
    (b) Bases for administrative termination of recognition. The bases 
for termination of recognition under this section are:
    (1) An organization did not submit a request to renew its 
recognition at the time required for renewal;
    (2) An organization's request for renewal of recognition is 
disapproved or request for reconsideration after disapproval and if 
applicable, request for administrative review pursuant to Sec.  1292.18 
is denied;

[[Page 92372]]

    (3) All of the organization's accredited representatives have been 
terminated pursuant to this section or suspended or disbarred pursuant 
to 8 CFR 1003.101 et seq., and the organization is not on inactive 
status as described in Sec.  1292.16(i);
    (4) An organization submits a written request to the OLAP Director 
for termination of its recognition;
    (5) An organization fails to comply with its reporting, 
recordkeeping, or posting requirements under Sec.  1292.14, after being 
notified of the deficiencies and having an opportunity to respond;
    (6) An organization fails to maintain eligibility for recognition 
under Sec.  1292.11, after being notified of the deficiencies and 
having an opportunity to respond; or
    (7) An organization on inactive status fails to have an individual 
approved as an accredited representative within the time provided under 
Sec.  1292.16(i).
    (c) Bases for administrative termination of accreditation. The 
bases for termination of accreditation under this section are:
    (1) An individual's organization has had its recognition terminated 
pursuant to this section or terminated or revoked pursuant to 8 CFR 
1003.101 et seq.;
    (2) An organization does not submit a request for renewal of the 
individual's accreditation at the time required for renewal;
    (3) An organization's request for renewal of an individual's 
accreditation is disapproved or request for reconsideration after 
disapproval and, if applicable, request for administrative review 
pursuant to Sec.  1292.18, is denied;
    (4) An accredited representative submits a written request to the 
OLAP Director for termination of the representative's accreditation;
    (5) An organization submits a written request to the OLAP Director 
for termination of the accreditation of one or more of its 
representatives; or
    (6) An individual fails to maintain eligibility for accreditation 
under Sec.  1292.12, after the individual's organization has been 
notified of the deficiencies and has had an opportunity to respond.
    (d) Request for reconsideration. An organization whose recognition 
is terminated pursuant to paragraph (b)(5) or (6) of this section or 
the accreditation of its representative(s) is terminated pursuant to 
paragraph (c)(6) of this section may make one request for 
reconsideration of the disapproval within 30 days of the determination. 
The recognition of the organization and the accreditation of any 
representatives for whom the organization timely requests 
reconsideration shall remain valid pending the OLAP Director's 
consideration of the reconsideration request. The OLAP Director is 
authorized to allow requests and determinations described in this 
paragraph to be made electronically.
    (e) Effect of administrative termination of recognition. The OLAP 
Director's determination to terminate recognition is final as of the 
date of service of the administrative termination notice. Upon service 
or electronic delivery of an administrative termination of recognition 
notice to the organization's accredited representatives by OLAP, the 
organization's representatives shall no longer be authorized to 
represent clients before the Immigration Courts, the Board, or DHS on 
behalf of that organization, but the notice shall not affect an 
individual's accreditation through another recognized organization 
unless otherwise specified. An organization whose recognition is 
terminated may submit a new request for recognition at any time after 
its termination unless otherwise prohibited.
    (f) Effect of administrative termination of accreditation. The OLAP 
Director's determination to terminate accreditation is final as of the 
date of service of the administrative termination notice. Upon service 
or electronic delivery of an administrative termination of 
accreditation notice to an accredited representative by OLAP, the 
individual shall no longer be authorized to represent clients before 
the Immigration Courts, the Board, or DHS on behalf of that 
organization, but the notice does not affect the individual's 
accreditation through another organization unless specified in the 
determination. An organization may submit a request for accreditation 
on behalf of any individual whose accreditation has been terminated 
unless otherwise prohibited.


Sec.  1292.18  Administrative review of denied requests for 
reconsideration.

    (a) Authority of the Director. The Director has the discretionary 
authority to review a request for reconsideration pursuant to Sec.  
1292.13(e), Sec.  1292.16(f), or Sec.  1292.17(d) that has been denied. 
The Director may delegate this authority to any officer within EOIR, 
except the OLAP Director.
    (1) An organization whose request for reconsideration pursuant to 
Sec.  1292.13(e), Sec.  1292.16(f), or Sec.  1292.17(d) has been denied 
may request administrative review from the Director within ten (10) 
days of the denial, identifying the alleged factual or legal errors in 
the underlying determination. The request for administrative review 
shall be submitted to the OLAP Director, who will forward the request 
to the Director.
    (2) The Director may review a request for reconsideration pursuant 
to Sec.  1292.13(e), Sec.  1292.16(f), or Sec.  1292.17(d) that has 
been denied on the Director's own initiative by issuing a notification 
of administrative review within ten (10) days of the denial. This 
notification shall state the issues to be reviewed.
    (3) The recognition of the organization and the accreditation of 
any representatives that are subject to administrative review as 
described in this section shall remain valid pending the Director's 
consideration of the request, except in the case of an interim 
suspension pursuant to 8 CFR 1003.111.
    (b) Review. The Director shall review the record before OLAP and 
the organization's request for administrative review, and, in the 
Director's discretion, may request additional filings from the 
organization. The Director may affirm the denial of the request for 
reconsideration or vacate the denial and return the matter to the OLAP 
Director for further action consistent with the Director's 
determination. The Director may not approve a request for recognition 
or accreditation or renewal thereof.


Sec.  1292.19  Complaints against recognized organizations and 
accredited representatives.

    (a) Filing complaints. Any individual may submit a complaint to 
EOIR or DHS that a recognized organization or accredited representative 
has engaged in behavior that is a ground of termination or otherwise 
contrary to the public interest. Complaints must be submitted in 
writing or on Form EOIR-44 to the EOIR disciplinary counsel or DHS 
disciplinary counsel and must state in detail the information that 
supports the basis for the complaint, including, but not limited to: 
The name and address of each complainant; the name and address of each 
recognized organization and accredited representative that is a subject 
of the complaint; the nature of the conduct or behavior; the 
individuals involved; and any other relevant information. EOIR 
disciplinary counsel and DHS disciplinary counsel shall notify each 
other of any complaint that pertains, in whole or in part, to a matter 
involving the other agency. EOIR may authorize that complaints 
submitted to the EOIR disciplinary counsel may be made electronically.
    (b) Preliminary inquiry. Upon receipt of the complaint, the EOIR 
disciplinary counsel shall initiate a preliminary

[[Page 92373]]

inquiry. If a complaint is filed by a client or former client of a 
recognized organization or any of its accredited representatives, the 
complainant waives the attorney-client privilege and any other 
privilege relating to the representation to the extent necessary to 
conduct a preliminary inquiry and any subsequent proceedings based 
thereon. If the EOIR disciplinary counsel determines that a complaint 
is without merit, no further action will be taken. The EOIR 
disciplinary counsel may also, in the disciplinary counsel's 
discretion, dismiss a complaint if the complainant fails to comply with 
reasonable requests for information or documentation. If the EOIR 
disciplinary counsel determines that a complaint has merit, the EOIR 
disciplinary counsel may disclose information concerning the complaint 
or the preliminary inquiry to the OLAP Director pursuant to 8 CFR 
1003.108(a)(3) or initiate disciplinary proceedings through the filing 
of a Notice of Intent to Discipline pursuant to 8 CFR 1003.105. If a 
complaint involves allegations that a recognized organization or 
accredited representative engaged in criminal conduct, the EOIR 
disciplinary counsel shall refer the matter to DHS or the appropriate 
United States Attorney, and if appropriate, to the Inspector General, 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or other law enforcement agency.


Sec.  1292.20  Roster of recognized organizations and accredited 
representatives.

    The OLAP Director shall maintain a roster of recognized 
organizations and their accredited representatives. An electronic copy 
of the roster shall be made available to the public and updated 
periodically.

    Dated: December 6, 2016.
Loretta E. Lynch,
Attorney General.
[FR Doc. 2016-29726 Filed 12-16-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4410-30-P