Federal Register, Volume 85 Issue 190 (Wednesday, September 30, 2020)

[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 190 (Wednesday, September 30, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 61640-61653]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-20045]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 190 / Wednesday, September 30, 2020 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 61640]]

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Executive Office for Immigration Review

8 CFR Parts 1001 and 1003

[EOIR Docket No. 18-0301; A.G. Order No. 4841-2020]
RIN 1125-AA83

Professional Conduct for Practitioners--Rules and Procedures, and
Representation and Appearances

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would amend Department of Justice
(``Department'' or ``DOJ'') regulations to allow practitioners to
assist individuals with drafting, writing, or filing applications,
petitions, briefs, and other documents in proceedings before the
Executive Office for Immigration Review (``EOIR'') by filing an amended
version of EOIR's current forms (Form EOIR-27 and Form EOIR-28)
noticing the entry of appearance of a practitioner. Those amended forms
would also function as a notice of disclosure of legal assistance for
practitioners who provide legal assistance but choose not to represent
aliens in immigration proceedings, and also a notice of disclosure of
preparation by practitioners. The proposed rule would further clarify
that the only persons who may file a document with the agency are those
recognized as eligible to do business with the agency and those aliens
who are filing a document over which the agency has jurisdiction. Also,
the proposed rule would make non-substantive changes regarding
capitalization and amend outdated references to the former Immigration
and Naturalization Service (``INS'').

DATES: Electronic comments must be submitted and written comments must
be postmarked or otherwise indicate a shipping date on or before
October 30, 2020. The electronic Federal Docket Management System at
www.regulations.gov will accept electronic comments until 11:59 p.m.
Eastern Time on that date.

ADDRESSES: If you wish to provide any comment regarding this
rulemaking, you must submit comments, identified by the agency name and
reference RIN 1125-AA83 or EOIR Docket No. 18-0301, by one of the two
methods below.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the website instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Paper comments that duplicate an electronic
submission are unnecessary. If you wish to submit a paper comment in
lieu of electronic submission, please direct the mail/shipment to:
Lauren Alder Reid, Assistant Director, Office of Policy, Executive
Office for Immigration Review, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 1800, Falls
Church, VA 22041. To ensure proper handling, please reference the
agency name and RIN 1125-AA83 or EOIR Docket No. 18-0301 on your
correspondence. Mailed items must be postmarked or otherwise indicate a
shipping date on or before the submission deadline.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lauren Alder Reid, Assistant Director,
Office of Policy, Executive Office for Immigration Review, 5107
Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041, Telephone (703) 305-0289 (not a
toll-free call).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by
submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of this
proposed rule via the one of the methods and by the deadline stated
above. All comments must be submitted in English, or accompanied by an
English translation. The Department also invites comments that relate
to the economic, environmental, or federalism effects that might result
from this proposed rule. Comments that will provide the most assistance
to the Department in developing these procedures will reference a
specific portion of the rule, explain the reason for any recommended
change, and include data, information, or authority that support such
recommended change.
Please note that all comments received are considered part of the
public record and made available for public inspection at
www.regulations.gov. Such information includes personally identifying
information (such as your name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by
the commenter.
If you want to submit personally identifying information (such as
your name address, etc.) as part of your comment, but do not want it to
be posted online, you must include the phrase ``PERSONALLY IDENTIFYING
INFORMATION'' in the first paragraph of your comment and identify what
information you want redacted.
If you want to submit confidential business information as part of
your comment, but do not want it to be posted online, you must include
the phrase ``CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION'' in the first paragraph
of your comment. You also must prominently identify confidential
business information to be redacted within the comment. If a comment
has so much confidential business information that it cannot be
effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be posted on
http://www.regulations.gov.
Personally identifying information located as set forth above will
be placed in the agency's public docket file, but not posted online.
Confidential business information identified and located as set forth
above will not be placed in the public docket file. The Departments may
withhold from public viewing information provided in comments that they
determine may impact the privacy of an individual or is offensive. For
additional information, please read the Privacy Act notice that is
available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov. To
inspect the agency's public docket file in person, you must make an
appointment with the agency. Please see the For Further Information
Contact paragraph above for agency contact information.
The Department may withhold from public viewing information
provided in comments that they determine may impact the privacy of an
individual or is offensive. For additional information, please read the
Privacy Act notice that is available via the link in the footer of
http://www.regulations.gov.

[[Page 61641]]

II. Background

The Immigration and Nationality Act (``INA'') provides that aliens
appearing before an immigration judge ``shall have the privilege of
being represented, at no expense to the Government, by counsel of the
alien's choosing who is authorized to practice in such proceedings.''
INA 240(b)(4)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1229a(b)(4)(A); see also INA 292, 8 U.S.C.
1362 (``In any removal proceedings before an immigration judge and in
any appeal proceedings before the Attorney General from any such
removal proceedings . . . the person concerned shall have the privilege
of being represented (at no expense to the Government) by such counsel
. . . as [the person concerned] shall choose.''); 8 CFR 1003.16(b)
(``The alien may be represented in proceedings before an Immigration
Judge by an attorney or other representative of his or her choice in
accordance with 8 CFR part 1292, at no expense to the government.'').
DOJ has promulgated regulations establishing rules of procedure and
standards of professional conduct governing ``practitioners''--i.e.,
attorneys, law students, law graduates, reputable individuals, and
accredited representatives permitted to practice before EOIR. 8 CFR
1003.101(b) (defining practitioner); id. 1003.1-8 (Board of Immigration
Appeals); id. 1003.12-47 (immigration court rules of procedure); id.
1003.101-11 (professional conduct for practitioners). Under those
regulations, practitioners who represent an individual in proceedings
before EOIR must file a Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or
Representative Before the Board of Immigration Appeals (``Form EOIR-
27'') or a Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representative
Before the Immigration Court (``Form EOIR-28''). 8 CFR 1003.3(a)(3),
1003.17, 1292.4. Practitioners are subject to disciplinary sanctions if
they provide representation before the BIA or the immigration courts
and fail to submit a signed and completed Form EOIR-27 or Form EOIR-28
or fail to sign every pleading, application, motion, or other filing in
their individual names. 8 CFR 1003.102(t).
Generally, when a practitioner enters a notice of appearance, the
practitioner is obligated to represent the individual for the remainder
of the proceeding unless the immigration judge or the Board of
Immigration Appeals (``Board'' or ``BIA'') grants that practitioner's
motion to withdraw or substitute counsel. 8 CFR 1003.17, 1003.38,
1292.4. In 2015, however, the Department published a final rule
allowing practitioners to enter an appearance for the limited purpose
of representing an alien in custody and bond proceedings. Separate
Representation for Custody and Bond Proceedings, 80 FR 59500 (Oct. 1,
2015). Practitioners appearing before an immigration judge may indicate
on Form EOIR-28 that their appearance is for ``All proceedings,'' for
``Custody and bond proceedings only,'' or ``All proceedings other than
custody and bond proceedings.'' 8 CFR 1003.17(a); Form EOIR-28.

III. Public Comments

On March 27, 2019, the Department published an Advanced Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (``ANPRM'') with 11 questions to solicit public
comments regarding whether the Department should allow practitioners
who appear before EOIR to engage in limited representation, or
representation of a client during only a portion of the case beyond
what the regulations currently permit. Professional Conduct for
Practitioners, Scope of Representation and Appearances, 84 FR 11446
(Mar. 27, 2019).
The Department received 30 comments \1\ in response to the ANPRM.
The vast majority of comments were submitted by organizations (16
comments) and individuals (9 comments) who provide legal services to
aliens appearing before EOIR, including the American Immigration
Lawyers Association (``AILA''), the American Civil Liberties Union
(``ACLU''), non-profit legal service providers, immigration law
clinics, private immigration attorneys, and law students. Three
comments were submitted anonymously, including one by a law student
intending to become an immigration attorney. Comments were also
submitted by the National Association of Immigration Judges (``NAIJ'')
and the Administrative Conference of the United States (``ACUS'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ The Department received a total of 32 public comments, 2 of
which were duplicates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The comments are summarized below in relation to the specific
questions raised in the ANPRM.
Question 1: Should the Department permit certain types of limited
representation currently impermissible under regulations? If so, to
what extent? If not, why not?

A. Advisability of Limited Representation

The vast majority of the comments--26 of 30--supported allowing
practitioners to assist clients in only part of a case. Two of the
comments--one by NAIJ and one submitted by a commenter identifying only
as a law student--opposed such limited representation. Two comments did
not take a clear position.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ One comment expressed concern that the Department would
eliminate limited representation for bond and custody proceedings.
The other comment suggested that EOIR needed to conduct an extensive
study to determine the effects of limited representation on judicial
outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Several comments supporting limited representation noted that the
American Bar Association (``ABA'') and a majority of state bar
associations allow the practice. See Model Code of Prof'l Conduct R.
1.2(c) (``A lawyer may limit the scope of the representation if the
limitation is reasonable under the circumstances and the client gives
informed consent.''); ABA Comm. on Ethics & Prof'l Responsibility,
Formal Op. 472 (2015) (discussing proper attorney communication with a
person receiving limited-scope legal services); but see ``Ghostwriting
Controversy: Is there an ethical problem with attorneys drafting for
pro se clients?'' ABA Journal (June 2018) (quoting an attorney
regarding the provision of limited representation services without
disclosure of such assistance to the court: ``The lack of a clear and
consistent position by courts and bar associations is one of the
substantial challenges facing the profession on this issue. For
example, bar associations have typically taken a more favorable view of
ghostwriting than have the courts themselves. Even among courts there
are differing viewpoints, with federal courts generally viewing
ghostwriting less favorably than state courts. Likewise, different
states have adopted different views on this issue.''). However, NAIJ,
writing in strong opposition to limited representation, stated that
while bar associations may theoretically allow limited representation,
``NAIJ is not aware of any other state or federal courts allowing for
such limited representation,'' indicating that it is not workable in
practice.
Most of the comments supported limited representation as a means to
increase access to counsel.\3\ Several commenters pointed to limited
representation in the bond and custody context as an illustration of
how limited

[[Page 61642]]

representation can lead to better outcomes for respondents and greater
immigration court efficiency. Some commenters pointed to the
Department's past statements when allowing limited representation in
custody and bond proceedings. See Separate Representation for Custody
and Bond Proceedings, 80 FR 59500 (Oct. 1, 2015) (final rule); 79 FR
55660 (Sept. 17, 2014) (proposed rule) (noting that regulations that
are expected to encourage more practitioners to agree to represent
individuals who would otherwise navigate EOIR's proceedings on their
own would, in turn, benefit the public by increasing the efficiency of
the immigration courts). NAIJ cautioned, however, that although limited
representation in bond proceedings is appropriate, ``respondents are
often unaware that they are only hiring attorneys for a limited portion
of their case,'' and predicted that ``[a]llowing attorneys to further
limit their representation of respondents in removal proceedings will
only lead to additional confusion on the part of the respondents.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ Some comments opined that government-funded counsel should
be provided. Such suggestions are beyond the scope of this
regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many commenters asserted that many practitioners are forced to
decline to assist respondents because they are unable to commit to full
representation for the entirety of the case as required under the
current regulations. They noted that some cases involve multiple
hearings over a number of years while others might be scheduled too
quickly for practitioners to sufficiently prepare. These commenters
suggested that practitioners would be more likely to assist individuals
if they were not automatically committed to representation for the
entirety of the proceedings.
Many of the commenters argued that individuals who are represented
in proceedings before EOIR achieve better outcomes, with several
providing statistics to support their claims. The comments supporting
some form of limited representation either stated or implied that
individuals who receive assistance in only a portion of their cases
will fare better than those who receive no representation. Several
comments stated that limited representation may improve the quality of
representation and reduce the likelihood that respondents turn to
notarios \4\ or other bad actors. One commenter stated that limited
representation would empower dissatisfied respondents to find new
counsel and incentivize practitioners to provide quality representation
if they wished to be retained for further work in a case. Additionally,
commenters noted that practitioners could tailor their practice to
matters in which they are the most qualified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ ``In many Latin American countries, the term `notario
publico' (for `notary public') [or its short form, ``notarios'']
stands for something very different than what it means in the United
States. In many Spanish-speaking nations, `notarios' are powerful
attorneys with special legal credentials. In the [United States],
however, notary publics are people appointed by state governments to
witness the signing of important documents and administer oaths.
`Notarios publico,' are not authorized to provide [persons before
EOIR and DHS] with any legal services related to immigration.''
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Common Scams,
http://www.uscis.gov/avoid-scams/common-scams (last updated Nov. 21,
2014) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NAIJ disagreed that individuals would be better off with limited
representation, arguing that it would result in ``an undue and
misplaced burden [being] placed on respondents who may not have
representation at merit hearings, to account for lacking documentation
and missed attorney deadlines set at the master hearings [where a
limited representative was present].''
Several comments predicted that limited representation would
increase immigration court efficiency because if more respondents are
represented, even in a limited manner, immigration judges would not
have to devote as much time, care, and attention during proceedings to
make sure that respondents understand the proceedings. Some commenters
also argued that with limited representation, relief applications may
be presented more clearly and comprehensively, which would make it
easier for immigration judges to decide the applications. One comment
suggested that limited representation may improve appearance rates of
non-detained respondents because respondents may feel more confident
appearing if they have assistance of counsel.
NAIJ disagreed, predicting that immigration judges would have ``to
start hearings anew when a new attorney appears at the individual
hearing contesting issues having been concluded at the master or
previous hearing,'' and judges would have to devote additional time to
consider revised applications and motions for continuances.

B. Scope of Limited Representation

Commenters in support of limited representation offered a variety
of options for expanding limited representation. They suggested both
limited representation without restrictions and limited representation
restricted to certain respondents, practitioners, types of proceedings,
or discrete parts of proceedings. One or more commenters recommended
the following specific options for enacting limited representation:
Limited representation, including appearances and filings,
in all instances (e.g., permitting limited appearances for each
scheduled hearing in a given case);
limited representation, including appearances and filings,
except for particularly vulnerable clients (e.g., juveniles and
respondents with mental health issues would not be permitted to be
represented in a limited capacity);
limited appearances for vulnerable clients only in the
scope of motions to change venue, motions to reopen, and motions to
terminate;
limited representation, including appearances and filings,
for each form of relief (e.g., allowing a practitioner to represent a
client only for the client's application for cancellation of removal
and another practitioner to represent the same client only for the
client's application for asylum);
limited appearances in the form of filing motions and
applications for relief only; limited appearances for preparing and
filing each ``discrete'' piece of a respondent's case (e.g.,
dispositive motions or pleadings);
limited representation for preparing and filing certain
motions only (such as motions to change venue, motions to continue,
motions to consolidate or sever, motions to re-calendar, and motions
for stay);
limited representation in-person for a master calendar
hearing only, highlighting the possibility that unrepresented
respondents might concede charges without understanding the
implications of such concessions;
limited representation in-person for credible and
reasonable fear review hearings;
limited representation permitted by pro bono
practitioners, nonprofit practitioners, or EOIR-accredited
representatives only;
limited representation in-person as a pro bono
representative for one day only; and
limited representation in-person by all practitioners
without distinction between profit and non-profit representation.
Question 2: Should limited representation be permitted to allow
attorneys or representatives to appear at a single hearing in
proceedings before EOIR, possibly leaving the respondent without
representation for a subsequent hearing on the same filing? If so, to
what extent? If not, why not?
Eighteen commenters expressed support for limited representation to

[[Page 61643]]

permit a practitioner to appear at a single hearing or discrete
segments of a case, such as pleadings, arguments on a motion drafted by
the practitioner, or an individual hearing on the merits of an
application for relief. These comments echoed the reasons given above
in support of limited representation generally. They asserted that
respondents and immigration courts would benefit from limited
representation for a single hearing or segment of the case, even if a
respondent had no representation at subsequent hearings. One supporter
cautioned that appearances for a single hearing may not be appropriate
in circumstances where an individual hearing is scheduled shortly after
a master calendar hearing, leaving little time for a subsequent
practitioner to prepare, or where a matter requires multiple hearings.
Three commenters opposed limited representation for a single
hearing. These commenters expressed concern that immigration
proceedings involve multiple hearings over a number of years, and
respondents could compromise their case if they later had to proceed
pro se and were unable to maintain representation throughout their
proceedings. Commenters argued that pro se respondents, in the time
between limited representation and an individual hearing, could become
confused about their responsibilities regarding filing deadlines, be
unable to sufficiently prepare their cases, or could be unaware of
changes in the law or new forms of relief that become available.
Question 3: Should limited representation be permitted to allow
attorneys or representatives to prepare or file a pleading,
application, motion, brief, or other document without providing further
representation in the case? If not, why not? If so, should attorneys or
representatives be required to identify themselves as the author of the
document or should anonymity (i.e., ghostwriting) be permitted?
Nineteen comments advocated allowing practitioners to prepare or
file a pleading, application, motion, brief, or other document without
having to enter an appearance and without being obligated to assist the
client in any other portion of the case. Only one comment advocated
that EOIR allow uncredited ``ghostwriting,'' where ``attorneys should
indicate that an attorney provided assistance but should not be
required to identify themselves.'' The other commenters argued that the
practitioner should provide identifying information. For example, AILA
suggested, ``[t]he lawyer should identify themselves by providing the
same information on the document as if the lawyer were to enter an
appearance, but there should be no formal requirement to enter an
appearance that would create a future obligation to appear in court or
perform other work.''
Commenters opposing anonymity argued that anonymity ``would not
allow for accountability if any individuals are committing any types of
fraud or unethical techniques.'' Other comments raised concerns that
ghostwriting could preclude a respondent's ability to reopen
proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel pursuant to
Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637 (BIA 1988). See id. at 639 (stating
that ``[w]here essential information is lacking, it is impossible to
evaluate the substance of'' an ineffective assistance claim).
Three commenters opposed a broad rule allowing practitioners to
assist on documents with no obligation to continue representing the
individual. One commenter raised concerns that often, hearings are set
``for years later'' after all documents have been submitted, and during
that time ``the law could change or new relief could become
available.'' The commenter worried that the respondent could thus ``be
left unprotected and ignorant of the law.'' The commenter acknowledged,
however, that certain acts would not raise such concerns, such as
assisting in motions to change venue, motions to continue, or motions
for status docket.
Question 4: If limited representation is permitted in proceedings
before EOIR, should an attorney or representative be required to file a
Notice of Entry of Appearance regardless of the scope of the limited
representation? If so, should a form separate from the EOIR-27 and
EOIR-28 be created for such appearances?
Fourteen comments addressed this issue, with the majority
supporting amendment of the current Form EOIR-27 and Form EOIR-28 to
include an option for limited representation or the creation of a
separate form. Some suggested that the form include the respondent's
signature consenting to the limited representation or a space to define
the scope of the limited representation. In the context of assistance
in preparing documents, six commenters suggested the inclusion of
identifying information about the practitioner with a filed document or
completion of the preparer block on an application in order to preclude
the submission of an appearance form. Only one of the commenters
opposed filing a form, although the commenter suggested that the
practitioner should make a statement on the record about the limited
appearance and include a document in the record regarding the
respondent's consent to limited representation.
Question 5: If limited representation is permitted, should
attorneys or representatives certify to EOIR, either through a form or
filings made, that the alien has been informed about the limited scope
of the representation?
Of the 14 submissions that addressed the issue, the vast majority
(11 submissions) opined that either practitioners should certify they
have informed the individual about the limited scope of representation
(9 submissions), or the judge should explain the limited scope of
representation on the record (2 submissions). The commenters argued
that this precaution was necessary to ``create accountability for
attorneys and representatives'' and prevent clients from being ``misled
to think that the attorney or representative would be representing them
from beginning to end.''
Commenters offered different suggestions as to the form of such
certification. One commenter suggested a simple checkbox on EOIR's
Notice of Entry of Appearance form would be sufficient. Others called
for more detailed certifications. For example, the DeNovo Center for
Healing and Justice argued that the practitioner should ``be required
to explain the limitations orally and in writing to the client in both
English and the client's native language and obtain the client's
informed consent to the limitation in a writing signed by both the
client and the attorney.''
Two comments argued that certification is not necessary, because
attorneys are already ethically obligated to inform clients as to the
nature and scope of representation. Another comment opined that
requiring certification to EOIR ``could intrude upon privileged
attorney-client communications,'' especially where the client is a
child. This commenter stated that state bar associations are better
equipped to enforce safeguards with respect to limited representation
than a notification requirement.
Question 6: If limited representation is permitted in proceedings
before EOIR, to what extent should such attorneys or representatives
have access to the relevant record of proceedings?
Sixteen comments argued that practitioners who engage in limited
representation should have access to the relevant record of proceedings
in order to competently assess cases, advise respondents, and take the
appropriate

[[Page 61644]]

actions. Commenters stated that practitioners making limited
appearances should have the same access to the record of proceedings as
those engaging in full representation; that access for practitioners,
whether engaging in limited or full representation, should be codified
in this regulation; and that access should be easier and faster.
Six of the comments stated that the Department should make access
to the record of proceedings for practitioners engaging in limited
representation available upon entry of an appearance or with written
consent or authorization of the client.
One commenter stated that limited representation practitioners
should not continue to have access to the record once the scope of the
limited representation has completed, whereas another comment suggested
that practitioners should have access to track the outcomes of matters,
such as a motion, in which they provided limited representation.
Question 7: To what extent could different approaches for limited
representation impair the adjudicative process or encourage abuse or
other misconduct that adversely affects EOIR, the public, or aliens in
proceedings, or lead to increased litigation regarding issues of
ineffective assistance of counsel?
Question 8: What safeguards, if any, should be implemented to
ensure the integrity of the process associated with limited
representation in proceedings before EOIR, and to prevent any potential
abuse and fraud?
Four comments predicted that allowing some form of limited
representation would generally not negatively affect EOIR, the public,
or respondents in proceedings. Most of the comments, however,
recognized that limited representation could create some potential
problems and recommended safeguards to address them.
For example, several comments raised concerns that aliens may not
understand the limited scope of representation, either due to confusion
on the alien's part or unethical behavior on the part of attorneys.
Eleven commenters suggested that either practitioners should certify
they have informed the individual about the limited scope of
representation (9 submissions), or the judge should explain the limited
scope of representation on the record (2 submissions). Two comments
argued that EOIR should not place additional burdens on practitioners,
as rules of professional conduct already require attorneys to inform
their clients about the limited nature of representation. Another
comment argued that action by EOIR could intrude upon privileged
attorney-client communications. One commenter additionally suggested
that EOIR also establish a hotline or complaint system so that
respondents and petitioners could report fraud and abuse by
practitioners.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ The Department notes that practitioners, aliens, and others
may currently submit complaints about fraudulent activity to EOIR's
Fraud Program via email at [email protected] or by phone
at 877-388-3840. See EOIR, Fact Sheet: EOIR's Fraud and Abuse
Prevention Program (June 2017), available at https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/eoirfraudprogramfactsheetjune2017/download.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Six submissions raised concerns that attorneys ``might overcharge
greatly for simple matters'' or ``may not adjust their fees downward
when they engage in limited representation which could drain the
available resources of a respondent's family.'' Commenters offered a
range of suggestions for addressing the issue. One comment suggested
EOIR should regulate the fees that practitioners may charge for limited
representation. Another comment recommended that EOIR publish a range
of suggested fees. Nine comments opposed any interference by EOIR in
fee arrangements. Several of these commenters argued that rules of
professional responsibility already prohibit attorneys from charging
exorbitant fees. Two comments urged the Department to restrict limited
representation to pro-bono attorneys or to organizations and accredited
representatives approved by EOIR's Office of Legal Access Programs in
order to avoid price-gouging or other unscrupulous behavior.
Additionally, several commenters worried that notices and decisions
might be mailed to the attorney of record only, and once the attorney's
role ends, the respondent would not receive these documents. These
commenters were concerned that this in turn could lead to an increase
in absentia removal orders due to lack of notice to respondents, and
they suggested that notices be mailed to both the representative and
the client.
As discussed under Question 1, commenters disagreed strongly as to
whether limited representation would impair or improve the efficiency
of immigration courts and the Board. The comments opposing did not
suggest any modifications, only that the Department should not expand
limited representation.
Question 9: What kinds of constraints or legal concerns with
respect to limited representation may arise under state rules of ethics
or professional conduct for attorneys who are members of the bar in the
various states?
Of the twelve comments received addressing this question, many
commenters did not foresee any constraints or legal concerns arising
under state rules of ethics or professional conduct with respect to
limited representation. However, some commenters expressed concerns
that states might determine that their rules prohibit limited
representation and may possibly implement sanctions for licensed
attorneys in their states if they engage in limited representation in
immigration court.
One comment opined that a limited appearance rule might be
difficult to implement while maintaining the standard of attorney
ethical obligations given varied rules in different states. For
example, ethical practitioners might not engage in limited
representation because of uncertainty over whether the practitioner's
state of licensure would consider such conduct ethical. Limited
representation might impede a practitioner's obligation to exercise due
diligence in representation and zealous advocacy, and, moreover, a
succession of practitioners involved in a given respondent's case might
also make it difficult to comply with client confidentiality.
Question 10: Should EOIR provide that practitioners, as a condition
of representing aliens in a limited manner, be required to agree to
limit their fees in charging for their services?
Nine of the 11 comments that addressed this question opposed EOIR
interfering with fee arrangements or setting any limit on fees as a
condition of permitting practitioners to represent respondents and
petitioners on a limited basis. Five comments acknowledged that
respondents and petitioners in immigration proceedings are particularly
vulnerable to overcharging, but noted that state bar rules and EOIR's
own regulations already regulate against unreasonable fees. See 8 CFR
1003.102(a) (prohibiting ``grossly excessive'' fees). These comments
generally stressed that the Department should give practitioners and
clients the latitude to determine appropriate fees, depending on the
scope of the limited representation, within the confines of these
rules.
Two comments stated that EOIR should require practitioners to limit
their fees for limited representation. One of these comments expressed
concern that practitioners would charge respondents and petitioners
fees for full representation when the scope of the work was limited.
The other comment

[[Page 61645]]

suggested that EOIR offer a suggested range of fees for limited
representation services, rather than a set amount, to account for the
varying amount of work that the practitioner would need to perform in
individual cases.
Question 11: The Department is interested in gathering other
information or data relating to the issue of expanding limited
appearances in EOIR proceedings. Are there any additional issues or
information not addressed by the Department's questions that are
important for the Department to consider? Please provide as much detail
as possible in your response.
The majority of commenters supported their positions with citations
to outside sources in the scope of their responses to questions 1
through 10 and, in some instances, in response to this question in
particular. The Department appreciates the additional information and
has taken it into consideration.

IV. Discussion of Proposed Changes

After reviewing the public comments received in response to the
ANPRM, the Department is issuing this proposed rule, which would amend
Sec. Sec. 1001.1, 1003.17, and 1003.102 of chapter V of title 8 of the
Code of Federal Regulations. The proposed rule would not expand in-
court limited representation beyond the existing provisions for custody
and bond proceedings.\6\ Instead, the Department proposes to allow
practitioners to assist pro se individuals with drafting, writing, or
filing applications, motions, forms, petitions, briefs, and other
documents with EOIR, as long as the nature of the assistance is
disclosed on an amended Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or
Representative Before the Board of Immigration Appeals or a Notice of
Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representative Before the
Immigration Court (Forms EOIR-27 and EOIR-28, collectively, ``NOEA
forms''). Further, the proposed rule would not allow such continued
practice or preparation without additional disclosure following the
same procedure.\7\ Under this scenario, EOIR would not recognize the
practitioner as a representative of record for the individual or case,
but would maintain, in the record of proceeding, the practitioner's
information as associated with the relevant filing. Moreover, while
individuals would be permitted to obtain such assistance, the proposed
rule would not create any right or entitlement for aliens to obtain
such assistance, nor would it permit EOIR funds to be used for such
assistance. Practitioners who assist a pro se alien without
representing that alien before EOIR would be required to file the
amended NOEA form disclosing the nature of that assistance, either
practice or preparation, and related information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ In reaching this decision, DOJ agrees with many of the
concerns raised that limited representation would likely lead to
confusion on the part of individuals in proceedings before EOIR,
multiply the opportunities for fraud and abuse, and potentially
complicate and lengthen immigration proceedings with comparatively
little offsetting benefit to individuals and without any benefit to
the government. Almost 75 percent of cases pending at least six
months have representation, nearly 90 percent of cases in which the
respondent is seeking asylum have representation, and over 80
percent of appeals to the BIA have representation. Thus, allowing
limited representation would have only a marginal impact, if any, on
the overall representation rates in immigration proceedings, and
that marginal impact would not offset either the significant
increased operational burdens or the increased likelihood of fraud,
abuse, and confusion. Additionally, DOJ notes that allowing limited
representation would likely place a substantial administrative
burden on EOIR. Finally, DOJ is concerned that allowing for limited
representation could have unintended negative consequences for
individuals appearing before EOIR. DOJ believes that an alien is
best served by an attorney or representative who commits to
represent the individual through the entire case. But a rule
allowing an attorney or representative to appear piecemeal at
hearings in a case could create perverse incentives. An attorney or
representative may see no reason to commit himself to representing a
client through an entire case if he or she could, through limited
appearances, preserve the ability to exit the case at any time.
These concerns are lessened, however, in the context of drafting,
writing, or filing applications, motions, forms, petitions, briefs,
and other documents. Written filings provide more discrete
assistance and are more easily ascribed to a specific practitioner
at a specific moment rather than having to parse arguments made by
multiple practitioners at multiple hearings. Further, there is less
likelihood of confusion by a respondent inherent in written
documents because there is a written record to which a respondent
can refer, rather than trying to rely on recalling what happened at
a prior hearing. Finally, there is less likelihood of written
filings complicating or lengthening hearings because the extent of
the assistance is clearer in a written document and provides more
concrete evidence of a pratitioner's expectations, which are, in
turn, made clearer to the immigration judge and the respondent. In
short, the inherently limited nature of written assistance and the
greater transparency involved in preparing written documents lessen
the above concerns sufficiently that the Department feels limited
written assistance, if properly disclosed as provided in the
proposed rule, is appropriate in immigration proceedings.
\7\ For example, a practitioner could draft a motion for a
continuance for an alien and attach an NOEA form for the filing of
that limited purpose. While that ends the practitioner's immediate
obligation under this proposed rule, there is no prohibition against
the practitioner later assisting the alien with the completion of an
application for relief as long as the practitioner again follows the
outlined procedure for notice of appearance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consistent with this change, the Department proposes to amend the
definitions of ``practice'' and ``preparation'' to distinguish between
acts that involve the provision of legal advice or exercise of legal
judgment (practice) and acts that consist of purely non-legal
assistance (preparation). Specifically, under the proposed rule, an
individual would engage in practice when he or she provides legal
advice or uses legal judgment and either appears in person before EOIR,
or drafts or files documents with EOIR. Preparation, by contrast, would
be limited to completing forms or applications without the provision of
legal advice or the exercise of legal judgment--for example, by serving
purely as a transcriber or translator.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ The Department notes that it expects practitioners to engage
only rarely in acts of preparation, because of the inherent
likelihood that a practitioner will exercise legal judgment or
provide legal advice while performing otherwise ministerial tasks
such as serving as a scribe in filling out a form.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under the proposed rule, where the individual is pro se and the
practitioner's role consists solely of non-representative practice or
preparation, the practitioner would be required to submit an amended
NOEA form listing his or her name, contact information, bar number
(``BAR#'') or EOIR identification number (``EOIR ID#''), as
applicable,\9\ work done, and fees charged, as well as to complete an
attestation and certification on the NOEA form attesting that the
practitioner has explained, and the individual understands, the limited
nature of the assistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ A practitioner who is an attorney who has not represented an
alien in proceedings before EOIR in the past and who, as a result,
does not have an EOIR ID# would provide his or her BAR#. However, a
practitioner who is an attorney who has previously registered with
EOIR and been assigned an EOIR ID# would be required to provide that
EOIR ID# on the updated NOEA form. A practitioner who is a
registered, fully accredited representative, see 8 CFR 1292.1(a)(4),
would also be required to provide the representative's EOIR ID# on
the updated form. An attorney would not be required to register with
EOIR and obtain an EOIR ID# in order to be able to submit the
updated NOEA form and engage in non-representative practice or
preparation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additionally, the proposed rule would make conforming changes to
DOJ's regulations concerning limited representation in bond
proceedings. The proposed rule would clarify that advocating in open
court on behalf of a respondent for purposes of custody or bond
proceedings constitutes practice and requires the filing of a notice of
appearance. This clarification eliminates any confusion regarding
practitioners who may appear in court and advocate on behalf of a
respondent without clearly identifying themselves as the legal
representative of the respondent. Finally, the proposed rule would make
minor, non-substantive changes regarding capitalization of the

[[Page 61646]]

term ``immigration judge'' and outdated references to the former INS.

A. ``Practice'' Versus ``Preparation''

The Department proposes to amend its regulations to more clearly
differentiate between legal activities undertaken by attorneys and
legal representatives, and non-legal activities that may be undertaken
by lay persons.
DOJ's current regulations provide overlapping definitions for
``practice'' and ``preparation.'' 8 CFR 1001.1(i), (k). The regulations
state that practice includes preparation, and preparation constitutes
practice. Id. Both acts involve the provision of legal advice, with
preparation being a subset of practice. See 8 CFR 1001.1(k) (defining
``preparation'' as ``study of the facts of a case and the applicable
laws, coupled with the giving of advice and auxiliary activities'');
id. 1001.1(i) (defining ``practice'' as appearing before EOIR either in
person or through the ``preparation'' or filing of papers). Moreover,
the standards of professional conduct do not vary based on whether a
representative engages in preparation or practice.
The Department believes it would be more useful to distinguish
between acts that involve the provision of legal advice or exercise of
legal judgment (practice) and acts that consist of purely non-legal
assistance (preparation). Specifically, under the proposed rule, an
individual would engage in practice when he or she provides legal
advice or uses legal judgment and either appears in person before EOIR
or writes or files documents with EOIR. ``Practice'' would thus
encompass the actions typically regarded as the practice of law related
to any matter or potential matter, before or with EOIR, and including
both in-court and out-of-court representation. Such actions include
legal research, the exercise of legal judgment regarding specific facts
of a case, the provision of legal advice as to the appropriate action
to take, drafting a document to effectuate the advice, or appearing on
behalf of a respondent or petitioner, in person or through a filing.
``Preparation,'' by contrast, would be limited to the completion of
forms with information provided by the respondent or petitioner without
any legal judgment, analysis, advice, or consideration as to the
propriety of the form for a respondent or petitioner's circumstances.
For example, individuals who appear before EOIR may have help
completing applications or forms with such basic, factual information
as their name, address, place of birth, etc. These activities do not
involve the provision of legal advice or application of legal knowledge
or judgment and thus constitute preparation. This proposed rule would
not relieve any such preparer from the requirements that the preparer
complete the preparer identification or disclosure on the forms
containing such request for information. Further, it is important to
note that those assisting an individual in completing forms as
preparation must take care to avoid providing legal advice or
exercising legal judgment regarding a specific case, as such actions
would constitute practice and would trigger the additional requirements
to which practice is subject as compared to preparation. For example,
an individual who advises a client on what details to include in an
asylum application in order to establish past persecution, or learns
information about an alien's case and suggests taking a particular
action, would be engaging in practice. The Department also notes that
those not actively licensed in law or fully accredited through EOIR's
recognition and accreditation process should not be providing legal
judgment or advice, as such actions could constitute the unauthorized
practice of law.
Finally, the current definition of ``representation'' merely cross-
references the definitions of ``preparation'' and ``practice.'' 8 CFR
1001.1(m). In light of the changes to those definitions, the proposed
rule also makes concomitant changes to the definition of
``representation'' to ensure consistency among the definitions. It also
makes clear, consistent with the revised definition of ``practice,''
that an individual may not take legal action on behalf of an alien in
open court in immigration court proceedings without representing that
alien throughout the entire action.

B. Assistance to Pro Se Individuals

The proposed rule would not expand limited representation beyond
the existing provisions for custody and bond proceedings. Instead, the
Department proposes to allow practitioners to assist pro se individuals
with drafting, writing, or filing applications, motions, forms,
petitions, briefs, and other documents with EOIR, provided that such
assistance is clearly disclosed on an amended NOEA form. The proposed
rule would not allow practitioners to advocate in open court on behalf
of a respondent, however, without being recognized as the respondent's
legal representative in immigration proceedings and without filing an
NOEA form noticing the practitioner's entry of appearance.
In conjunction with the proposed rule, EOIR will amend each of its
two NOEA forms to include a section limited to situations in which a
practitioner has provided assistance in the form of non-representative
practice, but does not wish to take on actual representation in the
EOIR proceeding, and a section limited to the rare situation in which a
practitioner has engaged in preparation.
In all cases in which a practitioner intends to represent an
individual in immigration proceedings, including all cases in which a
practitioner advocates on behalf of an individual in open court, the
practitioner would complete the section of the amended NOEA form
relating to representation similar to the current practice with the
existing EOIR Forms 27 and 28.
In cases where a practitioner engages in non-representative
practice, the practitioner would complete one of the new portions of
the NOEA form disclosing the legal assistance and additional
information discussed below. The practitioner would also attest that
the alien understands the limited nature of the assistance being
provided, and the alien would certify that he or she understands the
limited nature of the practitioner's role. The NOEA form would then be
filed with EOIR concomitantly with whatever filing was the subject of
the legal assistance.
In all cases in which an individual, either a practitioner or non-
practitioner, assists an alien with filling out an application form
that requires disclosure of the assistance--e.g., an Application for
Asylum and for Withholding of Removal (Form I-589); Application to
Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (Form I-485); Application
for Suspension of Deportation (Form EOIR-40); Application for
Cancellation of Removal for Certain Permanent Residents (Form EOIR-
42A); Application for Cancellation of Removal and Adjustment of Status
for Certain Nonpermanent Residents (Form EOIR-42B); or, Application for
Suspension of Deportation or Special Rule Cancellation of Removal (Form
I-881)--the person assisting would still be required to disclose the
assistance on the form where indicated.
In the unlikely or rare situation in which a practitioner engages
in preparation that is not based on a form that already requires
disclosure of the assistance, the practitioner would complete one of
the new portions of the NOEA form disclosing the preparation and the
additional information discussed below. The practitioner would also
attest that the alien understands the preparatory nature of the
assistance provided, and the alien

[[Page 61647]]

would certify his or her understanding. The NOEA form would then be
filed with EOIR concomitantly with whatever filing was the subject of
the preparation. In all other cases--i.e., in which a non-practitioner
engages in preparation--no separate form would need to be filed;
however, any preparer instructions or disclosure would need to be
completed upon assistance of any kind with a form requesting that
information.
Thus, the proposed rule covers scenarios in which practitioners or
non-practitioners provide only preparation to assist a pro se alien
only by drafting, writing, or otherwise completing documents for filing
with EOIR; and the filing \10\ of those documents.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ Filing in this context refers to the legal submission of
documents on behalf of a party, rather than to the ministerial act
of filing itself. Thus, a practitioner who simply provides to the
court a paper submission prepared by another practitioner as a
convenience to that practitioner has not engaged in practice or
preparation merely by the ministerial act of filing the document.
\11\ If an individual who does not have an EOIR-ID# (a ``non-
practitioner'') assists with such a document, the non-practitioner
would need to comply with the document's instructions, but would not
be permitted to file the document with EOIR; the alien could file
the document, or a practitioner with knowledge of the contents could
file the document by submitting it with an NOEA form. This concept
is contemplated in 8 CFR 1292.1 wherein law students and law
graduates must file a statement that they are appearing under the
``direct supervision'' or ``supervision,'' respectively, of a
licensed attorney or accredited representative. As such, the
supervising attorney or representative would be able to review the
substance of the document for which they are principally responsible
as the supervisor, and sign and submit an NOEA. This process would
help to ensure that EOIR receives filings only from aliens on their
own cases or from attorneys and fully-accredited representatives who
have completed the requirements of eRegistration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Scope of Permitted Assistance
This proposed rule would not change the current requirement that a
practitioner who wishes to appear in person before EOIR on behalf of an
individual must enter a notice of appearance and remains obligated to
represent his or her client unless and until an immigration judge
permits withdrawal from representation. In this way, the proposed rule
would ensure continuity of representation in cases in which a
practitioner has entered an appearance while also providing pro se
respondents with the opportunity to receive assistance with pleadings,
applications, petitions, motions, briefs, or other documents,
consistent with the clearer definitions of practice and preparation,
from individuals who would not be required to enter a full appearance
and incur a continuing representation obligation.
Under the proposed rule, EOIR would consider individuals to be pro
se if a practitioner has not filed an NOEA form noticing that the
practitioner is serving as the individual's legal representative in
immigration proceedings. The filing of an amended NOEA form indicating
that a practitioner has engaged in non-representative practice or
preparation would not alter the alien's representation status. As with
all pro se respondents, the individuals would remain responsible for
their own representation while in court, including receiving notice of
upcoming hearings and deadlines. The Department believes that this will
help address commenters' concerns that notices and decisions might be
sent to representatives who are no longer on the case, instead of being
sent to the petitioner or respondent.
Further, EOIR would not recognize a practitioner as an attorney or
other representative for the individual unless the practitioner filed
an NOEA form for all proceedings or appropriate limited representation
related to custody and bond proceedings. The proposed rule neither
creates any right or entitlement for alien to obtain such assistance
nor provides for Department funds to be put toward that purpose. The
Department believes this may help mitigate concerns expressed by NAIJ
that limited representation would lead to individuals filing multiple
motions for continuance in order to replace counsel who only represent
the individual for a short time.
2. Amended NOEA Forms
a. Disclosure of Legal Assistance
For cases involving non-representative practice or preparation, the
revised NOEA forms would require the practitioner to provide his or her
name, contact information, BAR# or EOIR ID# (as applicable), general
nature of work done, and fees charged, as well as to complete an
attestation and certification on the NOEA form attesting that the
practitioner has explained, and the individual understands, the limited
nature of the assistance.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ Attorneys and fully accredited representatives must
register with EOIR's electronic registry. EOIR assigns registered
users an EOIR ID number. EOIR only assigns EOIR ID numbers to
attorneys and fully accredited representatives. EOIR does not assign
EOIR ID numbers to other representatives, such as law students, law
graduates, reputable individuals, and accredited officials. See 8
CFR 1292.1(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Only practitioners are affected by the proposed rule.\13\
Typically, if an alien has a non-practitioner assist in the purely
clerical task of completing blank spaces on printed forms, there would
be no need to file an NOEA form. The non-practitioner, however, still
would be required to follow any applicable form instructions for
completing the preparer's block.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ ``Non-lawyer immigration specialists, visa consultants, and
`notarios,' are not authorized to represent parties before an
Immigration Court.'' Immigration Court Practice Manual, chs. 2.1 and
2.7 (Sept. 26, 2019). Nothing in the proposed rule is intended to
allow legal assistance by unauthorized individuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In adopting these disclosure requirements, the Department agrees
with those comments warning against ``ghostwriting.'' Ghostwriting
occurs when an unidentified individual assists with, drafts, or writes
pleadings, applications, petitions, motions, briefs, or other documents
on behalf of a respondent or petitioner, which are filed with EOIR
without disclosing the identity of the person who provided assistance.
Ghostwritten documents can contain false or fraudulent information,
sometimes unbeknownst to respondents and petitioners. They often
present substandard, inaccurate, or boilerplate work products.
Ghostwriting harms the parties to EOIR proceedings and undermines the
integrity of proceedings, candor to the tribunal, and accountability.
See, e.g., Villagordoa Bernal v. Rodriguez, No. 16-cv-152--CAS, 2016 WL
3360951, at *7 (C.D. Cal. June 10, 2016) (``[T]he parties are reminded
that ghostwriting of pro se filings is, of course, inappropriate and
potentially sanctionable conduct.'' (citing Ricotta v. California, 4 F.
Supp. 2d 961, 986 (S.D. Cal. 1998))); Tift v. Ball, No. 07-cv-276--RSM,
2008 WL 701979, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 12, 2008) (``It is therefore a
violation for attorneys to assist pro se litigants by preparing their
briefs, and thereby escape the obligations imposed on them under Rule
11.''); Laremont-Lopez v. S.E. Tidewater Opportunity Ctr., 968 F. Supp.
1075, 1078-79 (E.D. Va. 1997) (explaining that ghostwriting causes
confusion regarding representation, interferes with the administration
of justice, constitutes a misrepresentation to the court under Rule 11,
and while ``convenient for counsel,'' disrupts the proper conduct of
proceedings); Clarke v. United States, 955 F. Supp. 593, 598 (E.D. Va.
1997) (``Notably, the true author of plaintiff's putatively pro se
pleadings and supporting documents appears to have had formal legal
training. Ghost-writing by an attorney of a `pro se' plaintiff's
pleadings has been condemned as both unethical and a deliberate evasion
of the responsibilities imposed on attorneys by Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 11 . . . Thus, if in fact an attorney has ghost-written
plaintiff's pleadings in the instant case, this opinion serves as a
warning to that attorney that this action may be both unethical and
contemptuous.''), vacated

[[Page 61648]]

on other grounds by 162 F.3d 1156 (4th Cir. 1998) (table); Johnson v.
Board of County Com'rs of County of Fremont, 868 F. Supp. 1226, 1231-32
(D. Col. 1994) (``Moreover, such undisclosed participation by a lawyer
that permits a litigant falsely to appear as being without professional
assistance would permeate the proceedings. The pro se litigant would be
granted greater latitude as a matter of judicial discretion in hearings
and trials. The entire process would be skewed to the distinct
disadvantage of the nonoffending party . . . . Having a litigant appear
to be pro se when in truth an attorney is authoring pleadings and
necessarily guiding the course of the litigation with an unseen hand is
ingenuous to say the least; it is far below the level of candor which
must be met by members of the bar.''), aff'd, 85 F.3d 489 (10th Cir.
1996). In short, most federal courts condemn the practice of
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ghostwriting without disclosure of professional legal assistance:

But federal courts have handed down numerous decisions holding
that the ghostwriting lawyer breaches a number of ethical duties
contained in the current ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct
(MRPC) (or its earlier iterations) or state rules of professional
responsibility. These include arguments that a lawyer ghostwriter
breaches the duty of candor to the tribunal by making false
statements to the court. Some courts go beyond the violation of the
candor requirement, holding that to ghostwrite pleadings is an act
of fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit. They cite sections of MRPC
Rule 8.4, which states that ``[i]t is professional misconduct for a
lawyer to: (a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of
Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so,
or do so through the acts of another; . . . (c) engage in conduct
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation; [or] (d)
engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of
justice.''

Jona Goldschmidt, Ghosting, 102 Judicature3 (2018) (collecting cases)
(footnotes omitted).

Ghostwriting is closely related to, and often a vehicle for,
notarios \14\ and other bad actors. These individuals either seek to
deceive and mislead respondents, petitioners, and EOIR or, with the
acquiescence of respondents and petitioners, seek to perpetuate fraud
in and undermine EOIR proceedings. Accordingly, the Department proposes
to follow the approach of federal courts regarding ghostwriting, based
on concerns not only of misrepresentation to the tribunal regarding
whether a respondent is truly pro se but also in order to protect
respondents from the unique and significant negative impact notarios
and other bad actors have on them and their cases in immigration
proceedings generally.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ See note 4, supra. ``Notario'' is the short form of
``notario publico'' and, in the US immigration context, it means
someone who is only a notary public but is holding him-/herself out
as a ``notary public'' to prey upon the cultural difference in
meaning and authority between the two positions.
\15\ For these reasons, the Department does not endorse the
conclusion of ABA Formal Opinion 07-446 that ghostwriting did not
present a pro se litigant with an unfair benefit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOJ believes that the proposed requirements may reduce the ability
of notarios and other bad actors to operate in immigration proceedings
through ghostwriting. Respondents and petitioners, through the proposed
rule and education efforts, would know to avoid the assistance of
practitioners or other bad actors who are unwilling to identify
themselves on documents with which they assist. Practitioners or other
bad actors' refusal to do so would be a clear sign that the respondent
or petitioner should seek assistance elsewhere. Further, the
identification requirement would enable respondents, petitioners, EOIR,
and other authorities to properly address allegations of ineffective
assistance of counsel or other issues related to the quality and
substance of the limited representation, which may violate EOIR's Rules
of Professional Conduct or state bar rules.
The proposed rule would also require practitioners to disclose the
fees they charge when disclosing assistance. The Department agrees with
those commenters who identified the risk that unscrupulous attorneys
and representatives who seek to overcharge may pose to vulnerable
individuals. The Department also agrees with those commenters who argue
against EOIR setting fee schedules--whether mandatory or suggested. The
Department believes that requiring practitioners to disclose their fees
when disclosing out-of-court assistance strikes a reasonable middle
ground. Such a disclosure requirement would act as a deterrent to
overcharging and, thus, aid in protecting potentially vulnerable
individuals. It would also facilitate EOIR's efforts to enforce its
Rules of Professional Conduct prohibiting practitioners from charging
``grossly excessive'' fees for their services. 8 CFR 1003.102(a). The
Department does not intend, however, to use the information collected
for any purpose outside of the Department's System of Records Notice
\16\ or to involve itself in the fee arrangements between practitioners
and clients.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ The Department's System of Record Notice (``SORN'')
provides for system information to be used for ``conducting
disciplinary investigations and instituting disciplinary proceedings
against immigration practitioners.'' See Notice of New System of
Records, 64 FR 49237 (Sept. 10, 1999). Grossly excessive fees
discovered through the established complaint process may result in
evaluation of this filing within the bounds of the investigation and
the use of the information under the SORN.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Certification and Attestation
Upon issuance of a final rule on this topic, the Department would
also amend its NOEA forms to include--for cases involving non-
representative practice and preparation--a practitioner's attestation
that he or she explained to the alien the limited scope of the
assistance being provided and that the practitioner believes the alien
understood the limited representation. It would also require a
certification by the individual verifying that he or she understands
the limited nature of the assistance. In adopting these requirements,
the Department agrees with those comments that reasoned that a
certification and attestation requirement would help ``create
accountability for attorneys and representatives'' and prevent clients
from being ``misled to think that the attorney or representative would
be representing them from beginning to end.'' This new attestation,
while always presumed from practitioners under applicable ethics rules,
could help deter fraud; a practitioner may be wary of submitting a
document with a false attestation to a federal agency. Further, the
certification requirement will help protect practitioners from
unfounded complaints of ineffective assistance of counsel.
The Department notes that nothing in the amended NOEA forms
requires practitioners to provide details as to legal strategy.
Accordingly, contrary to some comments, the additional attestation
would not intrude upon attorney-client privileged information.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ The Department notes that other jurisdictions that allow
for limited representation similarly require such certification.
See, e.g., D. Kan. Rule 83.5.8(a) (establishing that a lawyer may
limit the scope of representation in civil cases if the limitation
is reasonable under the circumstances and the client gives informed
consent in writing); Administrative Order No. 2019, 01, T.C. (May
10, 2019) (allowing for limited representation in United States Tax
Court and requiring that practitioners file with the court a
``Limited Entry of Appearance'' form that ``contains an executed
acknowledgement by petitioner(s)'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Conforming Changes to Custody and Bond Proceedings

The proposed rule would make conforming changes to the provisions
governing limited appearances for custody and bond proceedings,
requiring the disclosure of non-

[[Page 61649]]

representative practice or preparation by practitioners in those
proceedings.

D. Professional Conduct for Practitioners

Consistent with the changes to the definitions of ``practice,''
``preparation,'' and ``representation'' in the proposed rule, and with
the allowance for non-representative practice with disclosure, the
proposed rule would also amend 8 CFR 1003.102(t) to provide that a
practitioner who engages in practice or preparation as the terms are
defined in Sec. 1001.1(i) and (k) and fails to submit a signed and
completed NOEA form as required by Sec. 1003.17 or Sec. 1003.38 would
be subject to disciplinary sanction in the public interest. The current
version of 8 CFR 1003.102(t) is premised on confusing definitions of
``practice'' and ``preparation'' and requires a pattern or practice of
failing to submit an NOEA form before disciplinary action may be taken.
In light of the clearer definitions of ``practice'' and ``preparation''
in the proposed rule and the allowance of non-representative practice,
the Department views the ``pattern or practice'' requirement as no
longer necessary in order to appropriately enforce the rules of
professional conduct for practitioners. Moreover, because practitioners
may engage in non-representative practice outside of court under the
proposed rule, the importance of the disclosure requirements of the
NOEA forms for both aliens and immigration judges is heightened, and
the damage from just one instance of failing to file the appropriate
form is accordingly greater. Consequently, the proposed rule deletes
the requirement that there must be a pattern or practice of failing to
file NOEA forms before a disciplinary sanction may result.
The Department of Homeland Security (``DHS'') maintains its own
definitions of practice, preparation, and representation in 8 CFR 1.2
that are similar, though not identical, to the definitions utilized by
the Department in 8 CFR 1001.1. DHS also relies on the categories
enumerated in 8 CFR 1003.102 as a basis to impose disciplinary
sanctions on individuals who practice before it pursuant to 8 CFR
292.3; however, 8 CFR 1003.102(t) cross-references only the
Department's definitions of practice, preparation, and representation
in 8 CFR 1001.1, and not DHS's definitions. Thus, the Department's
proposal to change those definitions to account for activities unique
to court proceedings, such the drafting of motions or briefs with
electing to represent an alien in open court, may unintentionally
impede DHS's ability to discipline those who practice before it.
Accordingly, the Department is also amending 8 CFR 1003.102(t) to make
clear that it also applies to the relevant definitions regarding
practice, preparation, and representation before DHS in 8 CFR 1.2.
Finally, the proposed rule makes conforming changes to 8 CFR
1003.102(u) to make clear that practice provided by 8 CFR 1001.1(i)(2)
may still be subject to disciplinary sanctions if the practice
indicates a substantial failure to competently and diligently represent
the client.

E. Access to Records of Proceedings

The proposed rule would not expand access to records of proceedings
beyond the current law. Records of proceedings typically contain
sensitive information protected from third-party disclosure by the
Privacy Act, asylum confidentiality regulations, and other laws.
Existing mechanisms, such as the Freedom of Information Act (``FOIA''),
are sufficient for third parties to obtain access to such records.
Under current practice, the record of proceedings is readily available
for review by the alien and the alien's attorney or representative of
record. Moreover, except in rare cases involving classified information
or the issuance of a protective order or in cases involving in absentia
hearings, every immigration court order and every document considered
by an immigration judge in adjudicating a respondent's case is served
on the respondent. Thus, an individual who wishes to assist an alien in
immigration proceedings may quickly and easily obtain information or
documents about a case directly from the alien.
Alternatively, that individual may obtain access to the record of
proceedings by choosing to serve as the respondent's representative of
record or by filing a FOIA request. Against the backdrop of applicable
privacy and confidentiality laws, the presence of these multiple
avenues of access to records of proceedings by those wishing to assist
aliens in immigration proceedings strikes the proper balance between
facilitating legal assistance and protecting sensitive information of
respondents.

V. Regulatory Requirements

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Attorney General, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this regulation and, by approving
it, certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Practitioners who wish to represent aliens in person in immigration
proceedings are already required to submit an NOEA form, and all
individuals who prepare an application form for an alien are already
required to disclose such preparation if the form requires it. Although
this proposed rule will require practitioners who provide legal
assistance to aliens outside of court but do not formally represent
them in court to submit an NOEA form, most, if not all, such
practitioners are already well-versed in submitting the form for cases
in which they do represent an alien in immigration court proceedings.
Further, the number of practitioners who solely provide preparation for
a filing that does not otherwise require disclosure of such preparation
will be exceedingly small because most practitioners do not solely
provide preparation and all common immigration applications already
require disclosure of preparation. Moreover, the form is not expected
to be time-consuming and will involve only providing information the
involved practitioner or other person providing assistance already
knows well--i.e. their own contact information.

B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

This proposed 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. Congressional Review Act

This proposed rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of
the Congressional Review Act. This proposed 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
U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in
domestic and export markets.

D. Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 13771

The Department has determined that this rulemaking is a
``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. Accordingly, this proposed rule
has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget

[[Page 61650]]

(``OMB'') for review. This proposed rule has been drafted and reviewed
in accordance with Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review,'' section 1(b), Principles of Regulation; in accordance with
Executive Order 13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,''
section 1(b), General Principles of Regulation; and in accordance with
Executive Order 13771, ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs.''
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 using the best
available methods to quantify costs and benefits, reducing costs,
harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Similarly, Executive
Order 13771 requires agencies to manage both the public and private
costs of regulatory actions.
The rule imposes no new costs on either the Government or on
practitioners or aliens. Immigration court personnel, including
immigration judges, are already well-versed and familiar with reviewing
existing NOEA forms. Further, as practitioners are expected to adhere
to the rules of practice in fulfillment of ethical and professional
responsibility obligations, the proposed rule should not increase
disciplinary actions against practitioners or otherwise increase the
time spent by immigration court personnel reviewing filings.
As discussed above, practitioners who wish to represent aliens in
person in immigration proceedings are already required to submit an
NOEA form, and all individuals who prepare an application form for an
alien are already required to disclose such preparation if the form
requires it. Thus, this proposed rule adds no new requirements to most
immigration court filings or for practitioner behavior. Although this
propsed rule will require practitioners who provide legal assistance to
aliens outside of court but do not formally represent them in court to
submit an NOEA form, most, if not all, such practitioners are already
well-versed in submitting the form for cases in which they do represent
an alien in immigration court proceedings. Further, the number of
practitioners who solely provide preparation for a filing that does not
otherwise require disclosure of such preparation is negligible.
Moreover, the form, which mirrors existing forms, will not add any
significant time burden and will involve only a writing of information
the involved practitioner or other person providing assistance already
knows well--i.e., their own contact information.
Thus, for the reasons explained above, the expected costs of this
proposed rule are likely to be de minimis. This proposed rule is
accordingly exempt from Executive Order 13771. See Office of Mgmt. &
Budget, Guidance Implementing Executive Order 13771: Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs (2017).

E. Executive Order 13132

This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the Federal Government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with section 6
of Executive Order 13132, the Department has determined that this
proposed rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

F. Executive Order 12988

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

G. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (``PRA''), no person is
required to respond to a federal collection of information unless the
agency has in advance obtained a control number from OMB. In accordance
with the PRA, the Department has submitted requests to OMB to revise
the currently approved information collections contained in this
proposed rule: Form EOIR-26, Notice of Appeal from a Decision of an
Immigration Judge; Form EOIR-27, Notice of Entry of Appearance as
Attorney or Representative Before the Board of Immigration Appeals; and
Form EOIR-28, Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or
Representative Before the Immigration Court. These information
collections were previously approved by OMB under the provisions of the
PRA, and the information collections were assigned OMB Control Number
1125-0002 for the EOIR-26, 1125-0005 for Form EOIR-27, and 1125-0006
for Form EOIR-28. Through this notice of proposed rulemaking, the
Department invites comments from the public and affected agencies
regarding the revised information collections. Comments are encouraged
and will be accepted for 60 days in conjunction with the proposed rule.
Comments should be directed to the address listed in the ADDRESSES
section at the beginning of this preamble. Comments should also be
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of the
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Desk Officer for EOIR,
New Executive Building, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20053. This
process is in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.
If you have any suggestions or comments, especially on the
estimated public burden or associated response time, or need a copy of
the proposed information collection instruments with instructions or
additional information, please contact the Department as noted above.
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies
concerning the proposed collections of information are encouraged.
Comments on the proposed information collections should address one
or more of the following four points: (1) Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (2) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's
estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3)
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected; or (4) minimize the burden of the collection of information
on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection
techniques or other forms of information technology (e.g., permitting
electronic submission of responses).
Based on the proposed rule, the currently approved information
collection instruments will need to be revised. The revised Form EOIR-
27 will continue to be used by practitioners to enter an appearance
before the Board of Immigration Appeals on appeals related to
immigration judge decisions, DHS officer decisions, fines, and
disciplinary proceedings. The revised Form EOIR-28 will continue to be
used by practitioners to enter an appearance before the immigration
court to represent aliens in removal or bond proceedings or to
represent an individual in a practitioner disciplinary proceeding.
Forms EOIR-27 and EOIR-28 also will be revised to allow practitioners
to disclose non-representative practice or preparation as

[[Page 61651]]

described above. All of the information required under the current
information collection will continue to be required by the revised
form. The Department invites comments as to whether additional changes
need to be made to the forms to more clearly attest to consent received
for representation, where appropriate, and certification that the alien
understands the scope of the limited representation being provided.
Under the current information collection, which is not used for
limited representation, the estimated average time to review and
complete the forms is six minutes. The Department estimates that when
disclosing non-representative practice or preparation, the average time
to review and complete the forms will be eight minutes rather than the
current six minutes, adding an additional two minutes to provide fee
information and complete the attestation and certification. The total
public burden of these revised collections are estimated to be
6,728,232 burden hours annually ((for Form EOIR-27, 53,816 respondents
(FY 2019) x 1 response per respondent x 8 minutes per response =
7,175.5 burden hours) + (for Form EOIR-28, 787,213 respondents (FY
2019) x 1 response per respondent x 8 minutes per response = 104,961.73
burden hours) = 112,137.23 burden hours). The number of estimated
responses was derived from the average annual responses received for
the past three fiscal years for each form. Eight minutes was used for
all responses to estimate the maximum burden possible to the public.
The Department expects that the total number of responses received
annually for each form may increase as the rule creates additional
appearance types than what was previously permitted before EOIR, but is
unable to estimate at this time how much of an increase is expected
since receipts may not increase at all but just change in type of
appearance.
There are no capital or start-up costs associated with these
information collections. There are also no fees associated with filing
these information collections. The estimated public cost is a maximum
of $6,355,938.20. This amount is reached by multiplying the burden
hours (112,137.23) by $56.68, which represents the current median
hourly wage for attorneys, as set by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The amount $6,355,938.20 represents the maximum estimate of cost
burden. EOIR notes that this form is submitted by an immigration
practitioner, including attorneys or accredited representatives; as
such, respondents are not likely to retain a practitioner separately to
assist them in filling out the forms. Forms EOIR-27 and EOIR-28 burden
expectation is two minutes more per form than the current estimate of
six minutes per form, so the burden hours noted are inflated as
compared to the increase of burden on the public.

List of Subjects

8 CFR Part 1001

Administrative practice and procedure, Immigration.

8 CFR Part 1003

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

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, the
Department of Justice proposes to amend parts 1001 and 1003 of chapter
V of title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 1001--DEFINITIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 1001 continues 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. Amend Sec. 1001.1 by revising paragraphs (i), (k), and (m) to read
as follows:

Sec. 1001.1 Definitions.

* * * * *
(i) The term practice means the act or acts of giving of legal
advice or exercise of legal judgment on any matter or potential matter
before or with EOIR and
(1) Appearing in any case in person on behalf of another person or
client in any matter before or with EOIR, including the act or acts of
appearing in open court and submitting, making, or filing pleadings,
briefs, motions, forms, applications, or other documents or otherwise
making legal arguments or advocating on behalf of a respondent in open
court, or attempting to do any of the foregoing on behalf of a
respondent; or
(2) Assisting in any matter before or potentially before EOIR
through the drafting, writing, filing or completion of any pleading,
brief, motion, form, application, or other document that is submitted
to EOIR, on behalf of another person or client.
* * * * *
(k) The term preparation means the act or acts consisting solely of
clerical assistance in the completion of forms, applications, or
documents that are to be filed with or submitted to DHS, or any
immigration judge or the Board, where such acts do not include the
provision of legal advice or exercise of legal judgment; however,
preparation before DHS is defined in accordance with 8 CFR 1.2. A
practitioner may engage in preparation without engaging in practice or
representation provided the preparation does not include the provision
of legal advice and is disclosed in accordance with 8 CFR 1003.17 or 8
CFR 1003.38.
* * * * *
(m) The term representation before EOIR includes practice as
defined in paragraph (i) of this section; however, representation
before DHS is defined in accordance with 8 CFR 1.2. A practitioner may
not engage in practice as defined in paragraph (i)(1) of this section
without engaging in representation. A practitioner may engage in
practice as defined in paragraph (i)(2) of this section without
engaging in representation provided the practice is disclosed in
accordance with 8 CFR 1003.17 or 8 CFR 1003.38.
* * * * *

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. Revise Sec. 1003.17 to read as follows:

Sec. 1003.17 Appearances.

(a) In any proceeding before an immigration judge in which the
alien is represented, the attorney or representative shall file Form
EOIR-28 with the immigration court and shall serve a copy of Form EOIR-
28 on the DHS as required by Sec. 1003.32(a). The entry of appearance
of an attorney or representative in a custody or bond proceeding shall
be separate and apart from an entry of appearance in any other
proceeding before the immigration court. In each case where the
respondent is represented, as defined in 8 CFR 1001.1(m), and the
attorney or representative has filed Form EOIR-28, every pleading,
application, motion, or other filing shall be signed by the
practitioner of record in his or her individual name. An attorney or
representative may file Form EOIR-28 indicating whether the entry of
appearance as an attorney or

[[Page 61652]]

representative is for custody or bond proceedings only, for all
proceedings other than custody and bond proceedings, or for all
proceedings. Such Notice of Entry of Appearance must be filed and
served even if a separate Notice of Entry of Appearance has been filed
with DHS for an appearance before DHS, or with EOIR for appearances
before EOIR.
(b) No individual may engage in practice as defined in 8 CFR
1001.1(i), including exercising or waiving a respondent's rights, or
otherwise advocating in a legal capacity on behalf of a respondent in
open court without filing Form EOIR-28 noticing that individual's entry
of appearance as a respondent's legal representative.
(c) Withdrawal or substitution of an attorney or representative
engaged in representation may be permitted by an immigration judge
during proceedings only upon oral or written motion submitted without
fee. No such withdrawal motion is necessary when the original notice of
entry of appearance was for a noted purpose limited to custody and bond
proceedings or proceedings other than custody or bond.
(d) A practitioner who engages in practice as defined in 8 CFR
1001.1(i) but not representation, must file Form EOIR-28 disclosing the
practice. A practitioner who engages in preparation as defined in 8 CFR
1001.1(k) must file Form EOIR-28 disclosing the preparation. No
subsequent withdrawal motion is necessary for Form EOIR-28 filed under
this paragraph (d), but a new Form EOIR-28 must be filed for each
subsequent act of preparation or practice that does not constitute
representation.
(e) Any practitioner required to submit Form EOIR-28 under this
paragraph must comply with all instructions on Form EOIR-28. The
practitioner must complete the appropriate section on Form EOIR-28
indicating whether the practitioner is representing the individual, has
engaged in practice but not representation, or has engaged in
preparation. For practitioners who have engaged in practice but not
representation or in preparation, Form EOIR-28 must include an
attestation from the practitioner that he or she has communicated to
the client in a language understood by that client the exact parameters
of the professional services or relationship agreed to and a
certification from the client and that the client has understood this
communication, as described in the instructions to Form EOIR-28.
(f) Nothing in this section shall be construed as relieving the
preparer of an application or form that requires disclosure of the
preparation from complying with the disclosure requirements of the
application or form, or as relieving a practitioner from the
requirement to file Form EOIR-28 with the immigration court when the
practitioner has engaged in practice as defined in 8 CFR 1001.1(i).
(g) Nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting an
individual's privilege of being represented (at no expense to the
government) by counsel authorized to practice by EOIR in removal
proceedings before an immigration judge.
* * * * *
0
5. Amend Sec. 1003.38 by revising paragraph (g) and adding paragraphs
(h) through (l) to read as follows:

Sec. 1000.38 Appeals.

* * * * *
(g) In any proceeding before the Board in which the alien is
represented, as defined in 8 CFR1001.1(m), the attorney or
representative shall file Form EOIR-27 with the Board and shall serve a
copy of Form EOIR-27 on the DHS as required by 8 CFR 1003.32(a). In
each case where the respondent is represented, and the attorney or
representative has filed Form EOIR-27, every motion or other filing
shall be signed by the practitioner of record in his or her individual
name.
(h) No individual may engage in practice as defined in 8 CFR
1001.1(i), including exercising or waiving a respondent's rights or
otherwise orally advocating in a legal capacity on behalf of an alien,
without filing Form EOIR-27 noticing that individual's entry of
appearance as a respondent's legal representative.
(i) Withdrawal or substitution of an attorney or representative may
be permitted by the BIA only upon written motion submitted without fee.
(j) For cases at the BIA:
(1) A practitioner who engages in practice as defined in 8 CFR
1001.1(i), but not representation, must file Form EOIR-27 disclosing
the practice.
(2) A practitioner who engages in preparation as defined in 8 CFR
1001.1(k) must file Form EOIR-27 disclosing the preparation.
(3) No subsequent withdrawal motion is necessary for an EOIR-27
filed under paragraph (j) of this section, but a new EOIR-27 must be
filed for each subsequent act of preparation or of practice that does
not constitute representation.
(k) Any practitioner required to submit Form EOIR-27 under this
section must comply with all instructions on Form EOIR-27. The
practitioner must complete the appropriate section on the Form
indicating whether the practitioner is representing the individual, has
engaged in practice but not representation, or has engaged in
preparation. For practitioners who have engaged in practice but not
representation or in preparation, Form EOIR-27 must include an
attestation from the practitioner that he or she has communicated to
the client in a language understood by that client the exact parameters
of the professional relationship being agreed to and a certification
from the client that the client has understood this communication, as
described in the instructions to Form EOIR-27.
(l) Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as relieving the
preparer of an application or form that requires disclosure of the
preparation from complying with the disclosure requirements of the
application or form, or as relieving a practitioner from the
requirements to file Form EOIR-27 with the BIA when the practitioner
has engaged in practice as defined in 8 CFR 1001.1(i).
0
6. Amend Sec. 1003.102 by:
0
a. Removing the words ``Immigration Court'' wherever they appear and
adding, in their place, the words ``immigration court'';
0
b. Removing the words ``Immigration Courts'' wherever they appear and
adding, in their place, the words ``immigration courts'';
0
c. Revising paragraphs (t) and (u) to read as follows:
The revisions read as follows:

Sec. 1003.102 Grounds.

* * * * *
(t) Engages in representation as that term is defined in 8 CFR 1.2
or 1001.1(m), practice as the term is defined in 8 CFR 1.2 or
1001.1(i), or preparation as that term is defined in 8 CFR 1.2 or
1001.1(k), and fails to submit a signed and completed Form EOIR-27,
Form EOIR-28, or Form G-28 in compliance with applicable rules and
regulations, including 8 CFR 1003.17 and 1003.38. In each case where
the respondent is represented and the attorney or representative has
filed a Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or Representative,
every pleading, application, motion, or other filing shall be signed by
the practitioner of record in his or her individual name.
(u) Repeatedly drafts notices, motions, briefs, or claims that are
later filed with DHS or EOIR that reflect little or no attention to the
specific factual or legal

[[Page 61653]]

issues applicable to a client's case, but rather rely on boilerplate
language indicative of a substantial failure to competently and
diligently represent the client; or
* * * * *

Dated: September 2, 2020.
William P. Barr,
Attorney General.
[FR Doc. 2020-20045 Filed 9-29-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-30-P