[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capitalization and amend outdated references to the former Immigration 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