[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 161 (Tuesday, August 20, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67459-67490]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-18725]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

[CIS No. 2779-24; DHS Docket No. USCIS-2024-0010]
RIN 1615-ZC09


Implementation of Keeping Families Together

AGENCY: Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Notice of implementation of the Keeping Families Together 
process.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the U.S. Department of Homeland 
Security's (DHS) implementation of the Keeping Families Together 
process for certain noncitizen spouses and stepchildren of U.S. 
citizens who are present in the United States without admission or 
parole to request parole in place under existing statutory authority. 
Granting parole in place, on a case-by-case basis, to eligible 
noncitizens under this process will achieve the significant public 
benefit of promoting the unity and stability of families, increasing 
the economic prosperity of American communities, strengthening 
diplomatic relationships with partner countries in the region, reducing 
strain on limited U.S. government resources, and furthering national 
security, public safety, and border security objectives.

DATES: DHS will begin using the Form I-131F, Application for Parole in 
Place for Certain Noncitizen Spouses and Stepchildren of U.S. Citizens, 
for this process on August 19, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ren[aacute] Cutlip-Mason, Chief, 
Humanitarian Affairs Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 
by mail at 5900 Capital Gateway Drive, Camp Springs, MD 20746, or by 
phone at 800-375-5283.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Family unity is a bedrock objective of the U.S. immigration system. 
Nearly 60 years ago, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, a 
foundation of modern U.S. immigration law, enshrined as a core 
principle the importance of promoting the ability of U.S. citizens to 
unify with their relatives--a principle that endures to this day.\1\ 
Yet, amidst growing demands and challenges, including chronic 
underfunding of our immigration \2\ and visa processing backlogs 
compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic, our

[[Page 67460]]

immigration system has often been challenged in its ability to fully 
achieve this core principle. U.S. citizens and their noncitizen family 
members have in many cases faced lengthy processing backlogs and 
potential years-long separation to access immigration benefits intended 
by Congress to promote family unity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Public Law 89-236 (1965).
    \2\ For example, in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 President's 
Budget, USCIS requested $865 million in appropriated funding, but 
Congress only provided $281 million. See Department of Homeland 
Security U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Budget Overview, 
Fiscal Year 2024 Congressional Justification, available at https://www.dhs.gov/sites//default/files//2023-03/U.S.%20CITIZENSHIP/%20AND%20IMMIGRATION%20SERVICES_Remediated.pdf (last visited July 
16, 2024); Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2024, 
Public Law 118-47, div. C (2024); Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Budget Overview, Fiscal 
Year 2025 Congressional Justification, available at https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2024-04/2024_0325_us_citizenship_and_immigration_services.pdf (last visited 
July 16, 2024). The February 2024 Bipartisan Border Agreement would 
have provided $20 billion in funding for border management, 
including $4 billion to USCIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS estimates that there are approximately 765,000 noncitizens in 
the United States who are married to U.S. citizens and lack lawful 
immigration status.\3\ Estimates indicate that the median time these 
noncitizens have been in the United States is 20 years, and they 
collectively live with more than 2.5 million U.S. citizen family 
members, raising and caring for more than 1.6 million U.S. citizen 
children.\4\ While U.S. immigration law provides noncitizens who are 
beneficiaries of approved immigrant visa petitions \5\ filed by their 
U.S. citizen spouses the opportunity to apply for adjustment of status 
to that of a lawful permanent resident (LPR) while remaining in the 
United States, there are certain requirements to adjust status that 
prevent many noncitizens from availing themselves of this benefit.\6\ 
In particular, to apply for LPR status while in the United States, an 
applicant generally must have been ``inspected and admitted or 
paroled'' into the United States.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ U.S. Dep't of Homeland Security, Office of Homeland Security 
Statistics (OHSS) analysis of OHSS Estimates of the Unauthorized 
Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: Jan. 2018-Jan. 
2022 (``OHSS Analysis''), tbl. 3.
    \4\ Id. tbls. 4, 5. Estimated data shows that the median amount 
of time the entire population of noncitizen spouses of U.S. citizens 
has been in the United States is 20 years; the median time the PIP-
eligible population of noncitizen spouses of U.S. citizens (where 
the noncitizen spouses have been in the United States for at least 
10 years) has been in the United States is 23 years.
    \5\ This is filed on Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative.
    \6\ Adjustment of status is the process by which certain 
noncitizens may seek LPR status while remaining in the United 
States, as opposed to consular processing, the process by which 
certain noncitizens seek an immigrant visa at a United States 
embassy or consulate abroad and then are admitted to the United 
States as an LPR at a port of entry. See INA sec. 245(a), 8 U.S.C. 
1255(a); cf. INA secs. 221-222, 8 U.S.C. 1201-1202 (immigrant visa 
applications).
    \7\ INA sec. 245(a), 8 U.S.C 1255(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS estimates that more than two-thirds of noncitizens without 
lawful immigration status who are married to U.S. citizens \8\ are 
present in the United States without admission or parole, and as a 
result, are generally not eligible for adjustment of status.\9\ They 
must therefore depart the United States and seek an immigrant visa at a 
U.S. embassy or consulate abroad. However, if they choose to depart the 
United States, they face uncertainty about whether they will be granted 
an immigrant visa and be able to return to the United States.\10\ The 
noncitizen also must remain abroad while waiting for their immigrant 
visa application to be processed at a U.S. embassy or consulate and any 
necessary waiver applications to be processed by U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS), and as a result, they may be separated 
from their U.S. citizen family members for months or years.\11\ The 
length and uncertainty of the process, along with the prospect of 
either separating from their U.S. citizen family members or uprooting 
them to travel abroad creates a disincentive and makes it difficult for 
noncitizens to pursue LPR status despite their eligibility to apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ OHSS Analysis, supra note 3, tbl. 3.
    \9\ INA sec. 245(a), 8 U.S.C. 1255(a).
    \10\ For most of these noncitizens, their departure to pursue 
consular processing and seeking admission through the application of 
an immigrant visa makes them inadmissible, and seeking of admission 
through the application for an immigrant visa within three years 
from their departure (if they accrued more than 180 days but less 
than one year of unlawful presence in the United States during a 
single stay), or within ten years from their departure or removal 
(of departure or removal (if they accrued one year or more of 
unlawful presence in the United States during a single stay)), will 
make them inadmissible under INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. 
1182(a)(9)(B)(i). See, e.g., Matter of Duarte-Gonzalez, 28 I. & N. 
Dec. 688, 689-90 (BIA 2023); Matter of Rodarte-Roman, 23 I. & N. 
Dec. 905, 908-10 (BIA 2006) (holding that the 3-year and 10-year 
unlawful presence bars are not triggered unless and until the 
noncitizen departs from the United States). This ground of 
inadmissibility may be waived, but approval of such a waiver is 
discretionary and requires applicants to ``establish [ ] . . . that 
the refusal of [the applicant's] admission . . . would result in 
extreme hardship to the citizen or [LPR] spouse or parent'' of the 
applicant. INA sec. 212(a)(9)(B)(v), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(v).
    \11\ As discussed in greater detail in this notice, the 
provisional waiver process through the Form I-601A, Application for 
Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver, permits certain noncitizens to 
apply for a provisional waiver of the unlawful presence grounds of 
inadmissibility under INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(v), 8 U.S.C. 
1182(a)(9)(B)(v), prior to their departure from the United States. 
While an important mechanism, the Form I-601A provisional waiver 
process has become significantly backlogged in recent years, still 
requires the noncitizen to depart and remain separated from their 
U.S. citizen relatives during consular processing, and does not 
provide a guarantee that an immigrant visa will ultimately be 
granted. See 8 CFR 212.7(e) (describing the provisional unlawful 
presence waiver process).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recognizing the harms that families and communities face every day 
as a result of flaws in the U.S. immigration system, President Joseph 
R. Biden in 2021 directed DHS and other agencies to ``identify barriers 
that impede access to immigration benefits and fair, efficient 
adjudications of these benefits and make recommendations on how to 
remove these barriers, as appropriate and consistent with applicable 
law.'' \12\ In response to the President's directive, DHS and its 
immigration components, including USCIS, have taken several steps to 
promote accessibility and increase efficiency in the immigration 
system.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Exec. Order No. 14012, Restoring Faith in Our Legal 
Immigration System and Strengthening Integration and Inclusion 
Efforts for New Americans, 86 FR 8277 (Feb. 5, 2021).
    \13\ See USCIS, Completing an Unprecedented 10 Million 
Immigration Cases in Fiscal Year 2023, USCIS Reduced Its Backlog for 
the First Time in Over a Decade (Feb. 9, 2024), https://www.uscis.gov/EOY2023; USCIS Fiscal Year 2022 Progress Report (Dec. 
2022), www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/reports/OPA_ProgressReport.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 18, 2024, President Biden announced that DHS would take 
action to preserve the unity of U.S. citizens and their noncitizen 
spouses and noncitizen stepchildren who currently cannot access LPR 
status without first departing the United States.\14\ In furtherance of 
the President's directive, DHS is now establishing a process, through 
its existing discretionary parole authority under INA section 
212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A),\15\ for DHS to consider, on a 
case-by-case basis, parole in place requests filed by certain 
noncitizen spouses and stepchildren of U.S. citizens. If granted parole 
in place, these noncitizens, if otherwise eligible, could apply for 
adjustment of status to that of an LPR, rather than having to depart 
the United States to pursue an immigrant visa, as the parole in place 
would satisfy the ``inspected and admitted or paroled'' 
requirement.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The White House, FACT SHEET: President Biden Announces New 
Actions to Keep Families Together, June 18, 2024, available at 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/06/18/fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-new-actions-to-keep-families-together/.
    \15\ INA sec. 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A) (``The 
[Secretary] may . . . in his discretion parole into the United 
States temporarily under such conditions as he may prescribe only on 
a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant 
public benefit any alien applying for admission to the United States 
. . .'').
    \16\ See Section II.B. of this notice for additional information 
on parole in relation to adjustment of status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This process does not change or eliminate the eligibility criteria 
for adjustment of status to that of an LPR. Noncitizens who are granted 
parole in place under this process will still have to satisfy all other 
statutory and regulatory requirements when applying to adjust status to 
that of an LPR, including that they have an approved immigrant visa 
petition based on a bona fide relationship to a U.S. citizen, are 
admissible to the United States, and merit a grant of adjustment of 
status as

[[Page 67461]]

a matter of discretion.\17\ Eligibility for a family-based immigrant 
visa petition (Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative),\18\ and 
application to adjust status to that of an LPR (Form I-485, Application 
to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status), will be determined 
in a distinct and separate process from the parole in place 
adjudication.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See INA sec. 245(a), (c), 8 U.S.C. 1255(a), (c); 8 CFR part 
245.
    \18\ And in the case of certain widows or widowers, where 
eligible as described in this notice, Form I-360, Petition for 
Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This process will be available to certain noncitizen spouses of 
U.S. citizens who are present in the United States without admission or 
parole; who have been continuously physically present in the United 
States for a minimum of ten years as of June 17, 2024 (that is, 
continuously physically present since June 17, 2014 and through the 
date of filing the request for parole); who have a legally valid 
marriage to a U.S. citizen as of June 17, 2024; who have no 
disqualifying criminal history; \19\ who do not pose a threat to 
national security, public safety, or border security; and who merit 
parole in place as a matter of discretion. Certain noncitizen 
stepchildren of U.S. citizens may also request parole in place under 
this process, provided that they have been continuously physically 
present in the United States without admission or parole since June 17, 
2024 through the date of filing, have no disqualifying criminal history 
and do not pose a threat to national security or public safety, meet 
the INA's definition and requirements of a stepchild \20\ of a U.S. 
citizen, and merit parole in place as a matter of discretion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Noncitizens who have been convicted of serious offenses, 
such as felonies, will be ineligible for this process. See Section 
V.A. of this notice for additional detail on disqualifying criminal 
history.
    \20\ See INA sec. 101(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Only noncitizens who are ``applicants for admission'' to the United 
States may be eligible for parole.\21\ Noncitizens who lack lawful 
status but were inspected and admitted to the United States are not 
eligible for parole.\22\ This parole in place process is available 
specifically to noncitizens who are present in the United States 
without admission or parole and who remain applicants for admission. 
Requests for parole in place under this process will be considered on a 
case-by-case basis in the exercise of discretion. Positive and negative 
discretionary factors will be considered when determining whether to 
grant parole in place to a noncitizen, based on significant public 
benefit or urgent humanitarian reasons. DHS estimates that 500,000 
noncitizen spouses and 50,000 noncitizen stepchildren of U.S. citizens 
may meet the requirements to request parole in place under this 
process.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See INA sec. 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A); see also 
INA sec. 235(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1225(a)(1) (``An alien present in the 
United States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United 
States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including 
an alien who is brought to the United States after having been 
interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be 
deemed for purposes of this chapter an applicant for admission.'').
    \22\ Noncitizens who are immediate relatives of a U.S. citizen 
and were admitted to the United States on a valid nonimmigrant visa 
but have remained in the United States beyond the period of stay 
authorized will generally meet the ``inspected and admitted or 
paroled'' requirement for adjustment of status without the need for 
parole in place. See INA sec. 245(a), 8 U.S.C. 1255(a); INA sec. 
245(c)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1255(c)(2). Similarly, noncitizens who were 
paroled into the United States on or after their last arrival would 
also meet this requirement.
    \23\ OHSS Analysis, supra note 3, tbl. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described elsewhere in this Federal Register notice (notice), 
the authority to parole applicants for admission ``in place''--i.e., 
while the noncitizen is present within the United States without having 
been admitted--is consistent with DHS's longstanding interpretation of 
its authorities, and DHS continues to believe that it reflects the best 
reading of the statute.\24\ The parole authority has been used for over 
15 years in the specific context of preserving family unity for 
military families.\25\ In 2010, USCIS provided guidance to its officers 
on considering parole in place requests submitted by noncitizen family 
members of U.S. military service members, which enables them to adjust 
status without leaving the United States,\26\ an authority Congress 
legislatively reaffirmed in 2019.\27\ Congress has also expressed 
support in legislation for the use of DHS's parole authority in certain 
instances as a discretionary tool where justified for urgent 
humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See, e.g., Memorandum from Paul W. Virtue, INS General 
Counsel, to INS officials, Authority to Parole Applicants for 
Admission Who Are Not Also Arriving Aliens, Legal Op. No. 98-10, 
1998 WL 1806685 (Aug. 21, 1998), superseded in part on other grounds 
by Memorandum from Gus P. Coldebella, DHS General Counsel, to DHS 
officials, Clarification of the Relation Between Release under 
Section 236 and Parole under Section 212(d)(5) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act (Sept. 28, 2007) (``Coldebella Memo''), 
available at https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/legal-docs/Coldebella_Memo.pdf; see also, e.g., Ortega-Cervantes v. 
Gonzales, 501 F.3d 1111, 1118 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing 1998 INS 
General Counsel Memo and 1999 INS Cuban parole policy, and stating 
that ``[w]e see nothing [in the INA] that would preclude the 
government from paroling . . . into the United States under Sec.  
1182(d)(5)(A)'' noncitizens ``who are currently present in the 
United States but who were not inspected upon arrival at a port of 
entry'' and that ``[t]he [INS] General Counsel's memorandum is 
consistent with our conclusion . . . that there is no per se bar on 
paroling unlawful entrants into the United States pursuant to Sec.  
1182(d)(5)(A)'').
    \25\ Immigration Needs of America's Fighting Men and Women, 
Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Immigr., Citizenship, Refugees, 
Border Sec., & Int'l L. of the Comm. on the Judiciary, H.R., 110th 
Cong. 15 (2008) (testimony of Margaret Stock, Attorney and 
Lieutenant Colonel, Military Police Corps, United States Army 
Reserve).
    \26\ While the USCIS policy memorandum articulating the use of 
parole in place for military family members was issued in 2013, as a 
matter of practice, USCIS has been issuing parole in place for 
members of this population since 2010. Making this process available 
only to certain spouses and stepchildren of U.S. citizens is 
consistent with past sparing uses of parole in place. See id. DHS 
continues to view use of parole in place as consistent with the best 
reading of the statute, as described in section II in this notice. 
For reasons discussed throughout this notice, making it available to 
this population also is a better practice than retaining the status 
quo. See USCIS Policy Memorandum, PM-602-0091, Parole of Spouses, 
Children and Parents of Active Duty Members of the U.S. Armed 
Forces, the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve, and Former 
Members of the U.S. Armed Forces or Selected Reserve of the Ready 
Reserve and the Effect of Parole on Inadmissibility under 
Immigration and Nationality Act sec. 212(a)(6)(A)(i) (Nov. 15, 2013) 
(``USCIS Military Parole in Place Memorandum''), available at 
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/memos/2013-1115_Parole_in_Place_Memo_.pdf, superseded in part by USCIS Policy 
Memorandum, PM-602-1104, Discretionary Options for Designated 
Spouses, Parents, and Sons and Daughters of Certain Military 
Personnel, Veterans, and Enlistees (Nov. 23, 2016), available at 
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/memos/PIP-DA_Military_Final_112316.pdf.
    \27\ See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2020, Public Law 116-92, sec. 1758 (2019) (8 U.S.C. 1182 note) (NDAA 
2020) (``the importance of the parole in place authority of the 
Secretary of Homeland Security is reaffirmed'').
    \28\ See, e.g., Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and 
Related Programs Appropriations Act of 1990, Public Law 101-167, 
sec. 599E (8 U.S.C. 1255 note) (authorizing granting permanent 
residence to parolees from the Soviet Union, Vietnam, Laos, and 
Cambodia); Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility 
Act of 1996, Public Law 104-208, div. C, sec. 646 (8 U.S.C. 1255 
note) (providing for adjustment of status for noncitizens from 
Poland and Hungary who had been denied refugee status but who had 
been ``inspected and granted parole into the United States''); NDAA 
2020, sec. 1758, supra note 27 (expressing congressional support for 
an ongoing parole program for relatives of U.S. military members and 
considering in each case-by-case determination whether parole would 
advance family unity that would constitute a significant public 
benefit); Extending Government Funding and Delivering Emergency 
Assistance Act of 2021, Public Law 117-43, sec. 2502 (8 U.S.C. 1101 
note) (providing refugee benefits to Afghans paroled under INA 
section 1182(d)(5) and funds to support those benefits); Ukraine 
Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2022, Public Law 117-128, sec. 
401 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note) (providing benefits to Ukrainians paroled 
under INA sec. 212(d)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5) and funds to support 
those benefits).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained more fully in Section IV of this notice, the Secretary 
of Homeland Security's (``Secretary'') exercise of the parole authority 
in this manner will provide a significant public benefit to the United 
States, including to

[[Page 67462]]

the impacted U.S. citizens, noncitizens, their families, and their 
communities at large. First, it will promote family unity by enabling 
U.S. citizen spouses and children to remain with their noncitizen 
family members while their noncitizen family members apply for 
adjustment of status to that of an LPR, thus promoting stability and 
preventing avoidable disruptions to these families. Second, it will 
advance U.S. economic and labor interests by enabling paroled 
noncitizens to work lawfully in the United States and contribute 
economically to their families and communities.\29\ Third, it will 
further critical U.S. diplomatic interests and U.S. foreign policy 
objectives of managing migration, increasing economic stability, and 
fostering security in the United States and in partner countries in the 
region. Fourth, it will preserve limited resources across U.S. 
government agencies that may otherwise be expended on consular 
processing and removal proceedings. Fifth, it will further national 
security, public safety, and border security objectives by encouraging 
noncitizens to provide information for background and security checks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Economic Analysis section in this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Parole Authority and Existing Family Unity Parole Processes

A. Parole Authority

    The Secretary, and those other officials as designated by the 
Secretary,\30\ have the discretionary authority under INA section 
212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A), to parole any applicant for 
admission ``into the United States temporarily under such conditions as 
[the Secretary] may prescribe only on a case-by-case basis for urgent 
humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ See Delegation to the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (Delegation No. 0150.1, Sec. II(O)) (June 5, 2003) (vesting 
parole authority in USCIS through its Director and subordinate 
officers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS's parole authority extends to noncitizens inside the United 
States who have not been ``admitted'' as defined in the INA through a 
practice known as ``parole in place.'' \31\ Parole is available to an 
``applicant for admission,'' which the INA defines in relevant part as 
``[a]n alien present in the United States who has not been admitted or 
who arrives in the United States.'' \32\ Because the INA creates a 
distinct meaning for ``admission,'' noncitizens who have entered the 
United States without having been ``admitted'' are still considered 
``applicants for admission,'' even though they are physically inside 
the United States, and may be paroled in accordance with INA section 
212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A). Longstanding DHS legal opinions 
have affirmed the availability of parole in place under U.S. 
immigration law, as discussed elsewhere in this notice.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See INA sec. 101(a)(13)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(13)(A),) 
(defining the terms ``admission'' and ``admitted'' as ``the lawful 
entry of the alien into the United States after inspection and 
authorization by an immigration officer''); INA sec. 212(d)(5), 8 
U.S.C. 1182(d)(5); see also USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 7, 
Adjustment of Status, Part B, 245(a) Adjustment, Chapter 2, 
Eligibility Requirements, Section 3, Parole [7 USCIS PM B.2 (A)(3)] 
(``Parole in Place: Parole of Certain Noncitizens Present Without 
Admission or Parole''), available at https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-7-part-b-chapter-2 (last updated July 16, 2024).
    \32\ See INA sec. 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A); INA sec. 
235(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1225(a)(1) (``An alien present in the United 
States who has not been admitted or who arrives in the United States 
(whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an 
alien who is brought to the United States after having been 
interdicted in international or United States waters) shall be 
deemed for purposes of [the INA] an applicant for admission. A 
noncitizen placed in removal proceedings pursuant to INA sec. 240, 8 
U.S.C. 1229a, may also be an applicant for admission, and such an 
individual could be considered for this parole in place process even 
if released from custody under INA sec. 236(a), 8 U.S.C. 1226(a), as 
long as they have not been admitted. See INA sec. 240(a)(2), 8 
U.S.C. 1229a(a)(2) (``An alien placed in proceedings under this 
section may be charged with any applicable ground of inadmissibility 
under section 1182(a) of this title. . .'').
    \33\ See supra note 24 and Section II.C of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parole is neither an admission of the noncitizen to the United 
States nor a determination of admissibility, and a parolee remains an 
applicant for admission during the period of parole in the United 
States.\34\ DHS sets the duration of the period of parole based on the 
purpose for granting the parole request and may also impose conditions 
on parole.\35\ DHS may terminate parole in its discretion at any 
time.\36\ By regulation, parolees may apply for and be granted 
employment authorization to work lawfully in the United States during 
their period of parole.\37\ While in a period of parole, noncitizens do 
not accrue unlawful presence for purposes of inadmissibility under INA 
sections 212(a)(9)(B)(i) and 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(I), 8 U.S.C. 
1182(a)(9)(B)(i) and 1182(a)(9)(C)(i)(I).\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ INA sec. 101(a)(13)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(13)(B); INA sec. 
212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A).
    \35\ INA sec. 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A).
    \36\ 8 CFR 212.5(e) (providing that a noncitizen's parole may 
terminate automatically or upon written notice). In addition, 
neither the denial of a parole in place request nor a parole 
termination determination is subject to judicial review. See INA 
sec. 242(a)(2)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii); Bolante v. 
Keisler, 506 F.3d 618, 621 (7th Cir. 2007); Samirah v. O'Connell, 
335 F.3d 545, 549 (7th Cir. 2003); see also Vazquez Romero v. 
Garland, 999 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 2021) (``We have previously 
concluded that the jurisdiction-stripping provision of [8 U.S.C.] 
1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) applies to discretionary parole decisions under 
sec. 1182(d)(5).'' (citing Hassan v. Chertoff, 593 F.3d 785, 790 
(9th Cir. 2010))).
    \37\ 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(11).
    \38\ INA sec. 212(a)(9)(B)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(ii) 
(``[A]n alien is deemed to be unlawfully present in the United 
States if the alien is present in the United States after the 
expiration of the period of stay authorized by the Attorney General 
or is present in the United States without being admitted or 
paroled.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The parole authority has long been interpreted to allow for 
designation of specific groups of noncitizens for whom parole should be 
favorably considered as furthering a significant public benefit or for 
urgent humanitarian reasons, as long as the parole of each noncitizen 
within the group furthers such significant public benefit or addresses 
such urgent humanitarian reasons, as determined on a discretionary, 
case-by-case basis.\39\ Congress has repeatedly expressed support in 
legislation for the use of DHS's parole authority to benefit 
individuals falling within particular groups.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ See infra notes 65-72 and Section II.D. of this notice for 
a discussion of Existing Family Unity Parole Policies; see also, 
e.g., Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 313-14 (1993) (holding that a 
statute requiring ``individualized determination[s]'' does not 
prevent immigration authorities from using ``reasonable presumptions 
and generic rules''); Fook Hong Mak v. INS, 435 F.2d 728, 730 (2d 
Cir. 1970) (upholding INS's authority to ``determine[ ] certain 
conduct to be so inimical to the statutory scheme that all persons 
who have engaged in it shall be ineligible for favorable 
consideration'' and observing that there is no legal principle 
forbidding an agency that is ``vested with discretionary power'' 
from determining that it will not use that power ``in favor of a 
particular class on a case-by-case basis''); cf. INA sec. 
212(d)(5)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(B) (providing that DHS may parole 
a noncitizen determined to be a refugee only if DHS ``determines 
that compelling reasons in the public interest with respect to that 
particular alien require that the alien be paroled into the United 
States rather than be admitted as a refugee'' (emphasis added)).
    \40\ See supra note 28.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Parole in Relation to Adjustment of Status Eligibility

    To be eligible for adjustment of status, an applicant generally 
must, among other requirements, have been ``inspected and admitted or 
paroled into the United States.'' \41\ A grant of parole, including 
parole in place, under INA

[[Page 67463]]

section 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A), satisfies this threshold 
requirement.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ INA sec. 245(a); 8 U.S.C. 1255(a). To apply for adjustment 
of status under INA sec. 245(a), the noncitizen must also have an 
immigrant visa ``immediately available to him'' or her at the time 
of filing. INA sec. 245(a)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1255(a)(3). Because there is 
no numerical limit on immigrant visas for spouses of U.S. citizens, 
see INA sec. 201(b)(2)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), immigrant 
visas are immediately available to them upon approval of a Form I-
130. See 8 CFR 245.2(a)(2)(i)(B). Cuban nationals who are paroled 
also may be eligible for adjustment of status under the Cuban 
Adjustment Act, Public Law 89-732 (1966) (8 U.S.C. 1255 note), 
without regard to the availability of an immigrant visa.
    \42\ DHS may also release a noncitizen present without admission 
or parole from custody on ``conditional parole,'' also known as a 
release on one's own recognizance, under INA sec. 236(a)(2)(B), 8 
U.S.C. 1226(a)(2)(B), pending INA sec. 240, 8 U.S.C. 1229a, removal 
proceedings. Conditional parole under INA sec. 236(a)(2)(B), 
however, does not equate to parole under INA sec. 212(d)(5), 8 
U.S.C. 1182(d)(5), and therefore does not constitute parole for 
purposes of adjustment of status under INA sec. 245, 8 U.S.C. 1255, 
or the Cuban Adjustment Act. See Matter of Cabrera-Fernandez, 28 I&N 
Dec. 747, 748-50 (BIA 2023) (reaffirming Matter of Castillo-Padilla, 
25 I&N Dec. 257 (BIA 2010), aff'd, 417 F. App'x 888 (11th Cir. 
2011)); Coldebella Memo, supra note 24 (clarifying that 
``conditional parole'' under section INA 236(a)(2)(B), 8 U.S.C. 
1226(a)(2)(B), does not constitute parole under INA section 
212(d)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)). However, such noncitizens may 
remain eligible to request a grant of parole in place if they have 
not otherwise been ``admitted'' to the United States and meet the 
other requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The noncitizen must also satisfy all other requirements for 
adjustment of status, including establishing that they are not 
inadmissible under any applicable grounds,\43\ and that they merit a 
favorable exercise of discretion including not being a threat to public 
safety or national security.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ See INA sec. 245, 8 U.S.C. 1255 (requirements for 
adjustment of status); INA sec. 212(a), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a) (grounds of 
inadmissibility). While noncitizens generally must also have 
``maintain[ed] continuously a lawful status since entry into the 
United States'' to qualify for adjustment of status under INA sec. 
245(a), 8 U.S.C. 1255(a), this restriction does not apply to 
immediate relatives, which includes spouses and children (including 
stepchildren) of U.S. citizens. See INA sec. 245(c), 8 U.S.C. 
1255(c) (bars to adjustment of status eligibility); INA sec. 
201(b)(2)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(2)(A)(i) (defining ``immediate 
relatives''); INA sec. 101(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(1) (defining 
``child''). See also discussion of unlawful presence supra note 10.
    \44\ INA sec. 245(a), 8 U.S.C. 1255(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Existing Parole in Place Processes

    Parole in place is currently used for certain noncitizens to 
promote family unity and remove barriers to adjustment of status. As 
federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have long recognized, 
``parole creates something of legal fiction,'' as a paroled noncitizen 
is allowed to be present in the United States temporarily but remains 
an ``applicant for admission'' as defined in INA 235(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. 
1225(a)(1), pending the granting of relief from removal such as asylum 
or adjustment of status.\45\ Through this well-established legal 
fiction, the statute has long authorized the parole of applicants for 
admission ``into the United States''--whether in the form of temporary 
release from immigration custody or otherwise--even after they have 
crossed into the United States and are already physically present in 
the country.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Duarte v. Mayorkas, 27 F.4th 1044, 1058 (5th Cir. 2022); 
see INA sec. 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A) (providing that 
parole shall not be regarded as admission); INA sec. 101(a)(13)(B), 
8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(13)(B) (same); see also, e.g., Sale v. Haitian 
Ctrs. Council, Inc., 509 U.S. 155, 175 (1993) (observing that 
``[u]nder the INA, both then and now, those seeking `admission'' and 
trying to avoid `exclusion' were already within our territory (or at 
its border)'' could be paroled under INA section 212(d)(5), 8 U.S.C. 
1182(d)(5), ``but the law treat[s] them as though they had never 
entered the United States at all''); Leng May Ma v. Barber, 357 U.S. 
185, 189 (1958) (noting the legal fiction that a parolee is 
considered to be constructively remaining at the border applying for 
admission); Cruz-Miguel v. Holder, 650 F.3d 189, 197 n.12 (2d Cir. 
2011) (``Although [noncitizens] paroled under 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A) 
physically enter the United States temporarily, they are 
nevertheless deemed to remain constructively detained at the 
border.'').
    \46\ The phrase ``parole into the United States'' in INA section 
212(d)(5)(A) allows for the temporary release or continued presence 
of ``any'' applicant for admission--even though already present in 
the United States--within U.S. territory pending accomplishment of 
the purpose of the parole. INA sec. 212(d)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5). 
At the same time, as described in settled case law, the parolee is 
deemed to be constructively at the border, and courts have 
consistently understood ``parole into the United States'' as being 
applicable to applicants for admission who are already present in 
U.S. territory (e.g., arriving noncitizens who were subject to 
detention pending exclusion proceedings), even if, under pre-IIRIRA 
law, they were not considered to have effected an ``entry,'' as that 
term was formerly defined, see 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(13) (1994), into the 
United States for immigration purposes). See, e.g., Sale, 509 U.S. 
at 175; Leng May Ma, 357 U.S. at 189; see also Abramski v. United 
States, 573 U.S. 169, 179 (2014) (``[W]e must (as usual) interpret 
the relevant words in a statute not in a vacuum, but with reference 
to the statutory context, structure, history and purpose.'') 
(quotation marks omitted); FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 
529 U.S. 120, 133 (2000) (underscoring the ``fundamental canon of 
statutory construction that the words of a statute must be read in 
their context and with a view to their place in the overall 
statutory scheme''); cf. Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, 562 U.S. 223, 243 
(2011) (emphasizing the force of ``consistent judicial gloss'' 
assigned to a statutory ``term or concept'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Congress preserved this legal fiction in IIRIRA while expanding the 
legal concept of an ``applicant for admission.'' Congress provided that 
any noncitizen who is present in the United States without admission 
``shall be deemed . . . an applicant for admission,'' \47\ and that 
although the Secretary may parole ``any [noncitizen] applying for 
admission,'' such parole does not constitute an admission, and the 
parolee remains an applicant for admission.\48\ Thus, ``even 
noncitizens already physically present in the United States'' after 
having entered without inspection remain applicants for admission 
unless and until they are admitted or removed and ``may be eligible for 
humanitarian or public benefit parole under [section 212(d)(5)(A) of 
the INA] by virtue of their status as applicants for admission.'' \49\ 
Put differently, because noncitizens physically present without 
authorization are deemed ``applicants for admission,'' they are 
therefore ``applying for admission to the United States,'' \50\ and 
thus eligible under the parole statute for parole ``into the United 
States.'' \51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ INA sec. 235(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1225(a)(1).
    \48\ INA sec. 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A); see Cruz-
Miguel, 650 F.3d at 197-98 & n.12.
    \49\ Cruz-Miguel, 650 F.3d at 198; see also Ortega-Cervantes, 
501 F.3d at 1116 (same).
    \50\ INA sec. 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A). For purposes 
of the parole statute, ``applying for admission'' is synonymous with 
``applicant for admission.'' See id. (providing that when DHS 
determines the purposes of parole of the noncitizen ``have been 
served,'' the noncitizen's ``case shall continue to be dealt with in 
the same manner as that of any other applicant for admission to the 
United States'') (emphasis added); 8 CFR 212.5 (1959) (referring to 
parole at ports of entry under INA sec. 212(d)(5) of ``any . . . 
applicant for admission'' at the INS district director's 
discretion).
    \51\ Id.; see Ortega-Cervantes, 501 F.3d at 1116.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS, like the former INS, has long understood section 212(d)(5)(A) 
as allowing for parole of applicants for admission who entered the 
United States without inspection and admission at a port of entry and 
were present in the country beyond the border. The INS General Counsel 
issued an opinion in 1998 adopting that straightforward, reasonable 
construction of the statute.\52\ In 2007, the DHS General Counsel 
issued an opinion endorsing the 1998 INS General Counsel opinion in 
relevant part.\53\ The Department also, for example, issued a Federal 
Register notice in 2002 providing that applicants for admission who are 
encountered in the United States within two years of having entered by 
sea unlawfully and who are placed in expedited removal proceedings may 
be ``paroled into the United States'' under INA section 212(d)(5)(A), 8 
U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A).\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Memorandum from Paul W. Virtue, INS General Counsel, to INS 
officials, Authority to Parole Applicants for Admission Who Are Not 
Also Arriving Aliens, Legal Op. No. 98-10, 1998 WL 1806685 (Aug. 21, 
1998). Based on that 1998 INS legal opinion, the INS Commissioner 
issued a policy statement authorizing the parole of certain Cuban 
nationals who entered the United States without inspection, taking 
into consideration the fact that parole could allow an application 
for adjustment of status under the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 
after one year. See Memorandum from Doris Meissner, INS 
Commissioner, to INS officials, Eligibility for Permanent Residence 
Under the Cuban Adjustment Act Despite Having Arrived at a Place 
Other than a Designated Port-of-Entry (Apr. 19, 1999), reprinted in 
76 Interpreter Releases 676, 684, App. 1 (May 3, 1999).
    \53\ Memorandum from Gus P. Coldebella, DHS General Counsel, to 
DHS officials, Clarification of the Relation Between Release under 
Section 236 and Parole under Section 212(d)(5) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act (Sept. 28, 2007) (``Coldebella Memo''), 
available at https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/legal-docs/Coldebella_Memo.pdf.
    \54\ Notice Designating Aliens Subject to Expedited Removal 
Under Section 235(b)(1)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act, 67 FR 68924, 68925 (Nov. 13, 2002). The Department, likewise, 
for the past two decades, has routinely ``parole[d] into the United 
States'' under INA section 212(d)(5)(A) certain applicants for 
admission who are encountered within 14 days and 100 miles of the 
U.S. land border after having crossed into the country without 
inspection and being placed in expedited removal proceedings. See 
Designating Aliens for Expedited Removal, 69 FR 48877, 48879 (Aug. 
11, 2004).

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

[[Page 67464]]

    In 2013, relying on existing statutory authorities, USCIS issued 
policy guidance on the parole in place process for family members of 
certain current or former members of the U.S. Armed Forces. Pursuant to 
that guidance, a grant of parole enables those family members to meet 
the ``inspected and admitted or paroled'' requirement for adjustment of 
status.\55\ In November 2014, the Secretary directed USCIS to expand on 
these policies to include family members of U.S. citizens and LPRs who 
seek to enlist in the U.S. Armed Forces.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ USCIS Military Parole in Place Memorandum, supra note 26.
    \56\ Memorandum from Jeh Johnson, Secretary, U.S. Dep't of 
Homeland Security, Families of U.S. Armed Forces Members and 
Enlistees (Nov. 20, 2014) (directing USCIS to issue expanded 
policies on the use of both parole in place and deferred action for 
certain spouses, children, and parents of individuals seeking to 
enlist in the U.S. Armed Forces as well as those currently serving), 
available at https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/14_1120_memo_parole_in_place.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2019, Congress explicitly recognized that parole in place is a 
legitimate use of parole authority under INA section 212(d)(5).\57\ 
That legislation ``reaffirmed'' ``the importance of the Secretary's 
parole in place authority.'' \58\ More specifically, this emphasized 
that the use of ``parole in place reinforces the objective of military 
family unity,'' and directed DHS to ``consider, on a case-by-case 
basis, whether granting the [parole in place] request would enable 
military family unity that would constitute a significant public 
benefit.'' \59\ That same year, Congress provided a new long-term 
immigration status specifically for certain noncitizens in the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands who had been paroled in 
place by USCIS for various reasons, including family unity, and 
authorized continued parole in place for those noncitizens pending 
adjudication of their applications for the new status.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See NDAA 2020 sec. 1758(a) (referring to ``parole in place 
under section 212(d)(5)''), supra note 27.
    \58\ NDAA 2020, sec. 1758(b)(3), supra note 27.
    \59\ NDAA 2020, sec. 1758(a) and (b), supra note 27.
    \60\ See Northern Mariana Islands Long-Term Legal Residents 
Relief Act, Public Law 116-24, sec. 2 (2019) (48 U.S.C. 1806(e)(6)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2020, Congress 
legislatively reaffirmed the use of parole for noncitizens already 
physically present within the United States, indicating Congress's 
intent that parole in place of individuals already present in the 
United States constitutes a parole ``into the United States.\61\ 
Likewise, at least two courts of appeals have endorsed this long-
standing understanding of the INA, which DHS continues to believe 
constitutes the best reading of the statute.\62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ See NDAA 2020, sec. 1758(b)(3), supra note 27.
    \62\ See Cruz-Miguel, 650 F.3d at 198; Ortega-Cervantes, 501 
F.3d at 1116.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to USCIS data, since it announced the parole in place 
process for certain military family members in 2013, approximately 
82,000 noncitizens have applied for, and 61,000 noncitizens have 
received, parole in place as the spouse, child, or parent of a 
servicemember, reservist, or veteran of the U.S. Armed Forces, as of 
June 30, 2024.\63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ DHS, USCIS, Office of Performance and Quality (OPQ), 
Computer-Linked Application Information Management System (CLAIMS) 3 
(queried 6/2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Existing Family Unity Parole Processes

    Past Secretaries have similarly exercised the parole authority to 
promote family unity for noncitizens outside the United States who are 
waiting for a family-based immigrant visa to become available.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ See Texas v. Biden, 20 F.4th 928, 947 (5th Cir. 2021) 
(noting that ``[q]uintessential modern uses of the parole power 
include . . . paroling aliens who qualify for a visa but are waiting 
for it to become available'') (citing T. Alexander Aleinikoff et 
al., Immigration and Citizenship: Process and Policy 299 (9th ed. 
2021)), rev'd on other grounds, 597 U.S. 785 (2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, the Cuban Family Reunification Parole (CFRP) Program, 
established in 2007, allows U.S. citizens and LPRs to request parole 
for certain eligible family members in Cuba who are the beneficiaries 
of an approved Form I-130.\65\ If parole is authorized, these family 
members may travel to the United States before their immigrant visa 
priority dates are current and seek parole at a U.S. port of entry to 
reunify with their family members while awaiting availability of an 
immigrant visa. In 2014, USCIS launched the Haitian Family 
Reunification Parole (HFRP) Program, a similar process for U.S. 
citizens and LPRs with eligible family members in Haiti.\66\ In 2016, 
USCIS announced a family reunification process to allow certain 
Filipino World War II veterans in the United States to reunite with 
their eligible family members who are waiting for their immigrant visas 
to become available.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ Cuban Family Reunification Parole Program, 72 FR 65588 
(Nov. 21, 2007).
    \66\ Implementation of Haitian Family Reunification Parole 
Program, 79 FR 75581 (Dec. 18, 2014).
    \67\ Filipino World War II Veterans Parole Policy, 81 FR 28097 
(May 9, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More recently, DHS announced the implementation of new Family 
Reunification Parole (FRP) processes for nationals of Colombia,\68\ 
Ecuador,\69\ El Salvador,\70\ Guatemala,\71\ and Honduras,\72\ and 
their immediate family members, who have approved family-based 
immigrant visa petitions filed on their behalf by a U.S. citizen or 
LPR. DHS also announced updates to the existing CFRP and HFRP processes 
to adopt the same modernized and streamlined processing steps 
implemented for the newer FRP processes.\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ Implementation of a Family Reunification Parole Process for 
Colombians, 88 FR 43591 (July 10, 2023).
    \69\ Implementation of a Family Reunification Parole Process for 
Ecuadorians, 88 FR 78762 (Nov. 16, 2023).
    \70\ Implementation of a Family Reunification Parole Process for 
Salvadorans, 88 FR 43611 (July 10, 2023).
    \71\ Implementation of a Family Reunification Parole Process for 
Guatemalans, 88 FR 43581 (July 10, 2023).
    \72\ Implementation of a Family Reunification Parole Process for 
Hondurans, 88 FR 43601 (July 10, 2023).
    \73\ Implementation of Changes to the Cuban Family Reunification 
Parole Process, 88 FR 54639 (Aug. 11, 2023); Implementation of 
Changes to the Haitian Family Reunification Parole Process, 88 FR 
54635 (Aug. 11, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Parole in Place Process for Certain Noncitizen Spouses and 
Stepchildren of U.S. Citizens

    Under this new process, USCIS will consider requests for parole in 
place from noncitizen spouses of U.S. citizens who are present in the 
United States without admission or parole and have been continuously 
physically present for at least 10 years as of June 17, 2024 (that is, 
continuously physically present since June 17, 2014), and remain 
continuously physically present through the date they file their 
request for parole in place. USCIS will also consider parole in place 
requests from certain noncitizen stepchildren of U.S. citizens provided 
that they have been continuously physically present in the United 
States without admission or parole since June 17, 2024 and through the 
filing of their request for parole in place, and meet the INA's 
definition of a stepchild of a U.S. citizen.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ INA sec. 101(b)(1)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1)(B) (defining 
``child'' as an unmarried person under age twenty-one, who is, inter 
alia, ``a stepchild, whether or not born out of wedlock, provided 
the child had not reached the age of eighteen years at the time the 
marriage creating the status of stepchild occurred'').

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

[[Page 67465]]

    Upon receipt of a properly filed parole in place request,\75\ USCIS 
will determine whether the noncitizen meets the criteria outlined in 
this notice, whether a grant of parole in place is warranted based on 
significant public benefit or urgent humanitarian reasons, and whether 
the requestor merits a favorable exercise of discretion. All parole in 
place requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis as required 
under the parole statute.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ See Section VI. of this notice for additional information 
regarding proper filing of a request for parole in place under this 
process.
    \76\ See INA 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    USCIS will exercise its unfettered discretion in administering this 
process and prioritizing requests consistent with the statute and any 
applicable regulations. For example, if it determines that the evidence 
submitted does not establish eligibility for parole in place, USCIS 
may, in its discretion, issue a request for evidence, issue a notice of 
intent to deny, or deny the request without requesting additional 
information or evidence.\77\ In addition, requestors may be required to 
appear for an interview.\78\ There is no right to the adjudication of a 
parole request, including within any given period. Nor is there a right 
to an administrative appeal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(8).
    \78\ See 8 CFR 103.2(b)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    USCIS will consider on a case-by-case basis: criminal history; any 
previous removal proceedings and removal orders; the results of 
background checks, which include national security and public safety 
vetting; positive and adverse factors presented by the requestor; and 
any other relevant information available to or requested by USCIS. 
Noncitizens who have been convicted of serious offenses will be 
ineligible for this process, as will those whom USCIS determines, in 
its discretion, otherwise pose a threat to national security, public 
safety, or border security.\79\ Other criminal convictions, excluding 
minor traffic offenses, will result in a rebuttable presumption of 
ineligibility for parole in place. This presumption can be rebutted on 
a case-by-case basis by weighing the seriousness of the conviction 
against mitigating factors relating to the conviction as well as other 
positive factors that suggest that the noncitizen merits a favorable 
exercise of discretion. Noncitizens with pending criminal charges will 
be ineligible for parole in place under this process, until those 
charges are resolved.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ As discussed further in Section V.A. of this notice, there 
is an exception for border security concerns for stepchildren who 
otherwise meet the criteria for parole in place under this process.
    \80\ See Section V.A. of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Eligible noncitizens who are currently in removal proceedings and 
do not have a final order of removal may request parole in place. 
However, if the noncitizen would otherwise constitute a national 
security, public safety, or border security concern,\81\ they will be 
ineligible to receive parole in place pursuant to this process.\82\ 
USCIS will evaluate, in the exercise of its discretion, the existence 
and circumstances of the removal proceedings in determining whether the 
noncitizen may be granted parole in place. Noncitizens with unexecuted 
final removal orders are presumptively ineligible for this process. In 
the exercise of its discretion, USCIS will evaluate the facts and 
circumstances underlying the unexecuted final removal order, including 
the basis for the removal order, to determine whether the noncitizen 
may overcome the presumption of ineligibility and be granted parole in 
place.\83\ In so doing, USCIS will coordinate as necessary with the 
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Office of the Principal 
Legal Advisor (OPLA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ See, e.g., Memorandum from Alejandro N. Mayorkas, 
Secretary, U.S. Dep't of Homeland Security to Tae D. Johnson, Acting 
Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al., 
Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law (Sept. 30, 
2021) (``September 2021 Guidelines''), available at https://www.ice.gov/doclib/news/guidelines-civilimmigrationlaw.pdf.
    \82\ As noted above and discussed further in Section V.A. of 
this notice, noncitizens present border security concerns if they 
were apprehended while attempting to enter the U.S. unlawfully or if 
they entered unlawfully after November 1, 2020. There is an 
exception to this for stepchildren who otherwise meet the criteria 
for parole in place under this process.
    \83\ A noncitizen with an unexecuted final removal order who 
overcomes this presumption and is granted parole in place, and who 
wishes to pursue adjustment of status, may file a motion to reopen 
or a motion to reopen and terminate removal proceedings with EOIR. 
Noncitizens may request U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
(ICE) Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA) to join (or not 
oppose) a motion to reopen and dismiss or terminate submitted to 
EOIR, depending on the facts and circumstances. Any such motion 
would be decided on its own merits in a distinct and separate 
process from the parole in place adjudication.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Parole determinations are reserved to the exclusive discretionary 
authority of DHS. If parole in place is denied, there is no right to an 
administrative appeal, and neither immigration judges nor the Board of 
Immigration Appeals (BIA) have the authority to consider or review 
parole requests.\84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ See Matter of Castillo-Padilla, 25 I. & N. Dec. 257, 261 
(BIA 2010), aff'd, 417 F. App'x 888 (11th Cir. 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nothing in this notice or the implementation of this parole in 
place process is intended to limit DHS's authority to take enforcement 
actions in accordance with the INA and consistent with governing 
policies and practices. DHS may initiate and pursue enforcement action 
pursuant to its enforcement priorities \85\ under its existing 
authorities notwithstanding a noncitizen's intent to request parole in 
place, eligibility to request parole in place, filing of a request for 
parole in place, or grant of parole in place under this process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ See, e.g., September 2021 Guidelines, supra note 81.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Basis for Parole--Significant Public Benefit

    Granting parole in place on a case-by-case basis to noncitizens who 
meet the criteria outlined in this notice and merit a favorable 
exercise of discretion will generally provide a significant public 
benefit to the United States, including to the impacted noncitizens, 
their families, and their communities at large by: (1) promoting family 
unity and stability; (2) strengthening the U.S. economy and the 
economic position of families and U.S. communities; (3) advancing 
diplomatic relationships and key foreign policy objectives of the 
United States; (4) reducing strain on limited U.S. government 
resources; and (5) furthering national security, public safety, and 
border security objectives. Through a case-by-case assessment, USCIS 
will consider whether parole for each requestor individually will 
provide a significant public benefit to further these goals.
Promoting Family Unity and Stability
    This process will promote family unity by allowing certain 
noncitizens who have long lived in the United States to apply for 
permanent residence, if otherwise eligible, in the United States 
without separating them from their U.S. citizen spouses and, in many 
cases, their U.S. citizen children. Courts have long recognized 
preservation of family unity to be a ``prevailing purpose'' of U.S. 
immigration law.\86\ This use of the Secretary's statutory parole 
authority addresses a barrier that currently prevents many of these 
otherwise eligible noncitizens from

[[Page 67466]]

obtaining LPR status and will also promote the long-term sense of 
security and stability for these families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ Nwozuzu v. Holder, 726 F.3d 323, 332 (2d Cir. 2013) (citing 
H.R. Rep. No. 82-1365 (1952), reprinted in 1952 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 
1680); see also Holder v. Martinez Gutierrez, 566 U.S. 583, 594 
(2012) (recognizing that the ``objectives of providing relief to 
[noncitizens] with strong ties to the United States and promoting 
family unity . . . underlie or inform many provisions of immigration 
law,'' even if ``they are not the INA's only goals, and Congress did 
not pursue them to the nth degree'') (quotation marks omitted) 
(citing Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 795 n.6 (1977), and INS v. 
Errico, 385 U.S. 214, 220 (1966)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This process will benefit an estimated 500,000 noncitizen spouses 
and 50,000 noncitizen stepchildren.\87\ The noncitizen spouses eligible 
for this process have lived in the United States for a median time 
period of 23 years, illustrating the depth of their ties to the 
country.\88\ More than 1.6 million U.S. citizen family members, 
including 1.1 million U.S. citizen children, are estimated to live with 
these noncitizen family members.\89\ Absent this process, for these 
noncitizens to apply for permanent residence, their U.S. citizen 
spouses and children might have to endure prolonged separation from 
them, which would disrupt their lives, create instability, and result 
in avoidable economic and emotional hardship. Without this process, 
hundreds of thousands of noncitizen spouses of U.S. citizens are likely 
to instead remain in the United States without lawful status, causing 
these families to live in fear and with uncertainty about their 
futures.\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ OHSS Analysis, supra note 3, tbl. 3.
    \88\ Id. tbl. 5.
    \89\ Id. tbl. 4. While the total number of U.S. citizens living 
in families with noncitizen spouses who lack lawful status is over 
2.5 million, including over 1.6 million children, the subset of U.S. 
citizens living with noncitizen spouses who lack lawful status, who 
have lived in the country for 10 or more years, and who entered 
without inspection is estimated to be 1.65 million, including an 
estimated 1.1 million U.S. citizen children.
    \90\ Edward Vargas & Vickie Ybarra, U.S. Citizen Children of 
Undocumented Parents: The Link Between State Immigration Policy and 
the Health of Latino Children, J. Immigr. Minor Health (Aug. 2017), 
available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5236009. 
The impact of this instability is particularly profound for children 
in these families. See ``Preventing violence through the development 
of safe, stable, and nurturing relationships between children and 
their parents and caregivers,'' World Health Organization and Centre 
for Public Health (2009), https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/44088/9789241597821_eng.pdf; Vincent J. Felitti et al., 
Relationship of Childhood Abuse and Household Dysfunction to Many of 
the Leading Causes of Death in Adults: The Adverse Childhood 
Experiences (ACE) Study, Am. J. Preventive Medicine 14 no. 4, 245-
258 (1998), https://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(98)00017-
8/fulltext; A. Martinez, L. Ruelas, and D. Granger, Household fear 
of deportation in Mexican-origin families: Relation to body mass 
index percentiles and salivary uric acid, Am. J. Hum. Biol. 2017, 
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28726338/; L. Rojas-Flores, M. 
Clements, J. Hwang Koo, and J. London, Trauma and psychological 
distress in Latino citizen children following parental detention and 
deportation, Psychol. Trauma 2017, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27504961/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In justifying the establishment of the parole in place process for 
military families in partnership with the Department of Defense, USCIS 
described how in the absence of such a process, service members faced 
``stress and anxiety because of the immigration status of their family 
members in the United States.'' \91\ Here, too, access to parole in 
place will reduce the stress and anxiety of U.S. citizen spouses and 
children by providing stability for these families in the short and 
long term.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ USCIS Military Parole in Place Memorandum, supra note 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Strengthening the U.S. Economy and the Economic Position of Families 
and U.S. Communities
    If parole in place is granted, the noncitizen will be immediately 
eligible to apply for employment authorization for the duration of 
their parole period, which will benefit both their U.S. citizen family 
members and the broader U.S. economy. Additionally, this process will 
provide these noncitizens the ability to work lawfully,\92\ which will 
facilitate greater access to job mobility and improve overall economic 
productivity; \93\ provide stable, consistent support to their U.S. 
citizen family members; \94\ reduce their risk of facing labor 
exploitation; \95\ and allow for these noncitizens to contribute their 
full talents to the U.S. workforce.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ See 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(11). Noncitizens who apply for 
adjustment of status to that of an LPR under INA sec. 245 may also 
apply for and obtain employment authorization while their adjustment 
application remains pending. See 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(9).
    \93\ Cecilia Rouse, Lisa Barrow, Kevin Rinz, and Evan Soltas, 
White House Council of Economic Advisers, Economic Benefits of 
Extending Permanent Legal Status to Unauthorized Immigrants (Sept. 
17, 2021), https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2021/09/17/the-economic-benefits-of-extending-permanent-legalstatus-to-unauthorized-immigrants/ immigrants/.
    \94\ Id.
    \95\ Felipe Gonz[aacute]lez Morales, United Nations Special 
Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants, How to Expand and 
Diversify Regularization Mechanisms and Programmes to Enhance the 
Protection of the Human Rights of Migrants, at 3, U.N. Doc. A/
HRC.52/26 (Apr. 20, 2023).
    \96\ See supra note 93.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, an estimated 65 percent of noncitizens over the age of 
16 who do not have lawful status are already participating in the U.S. 
workforce, and many are self-employed.\97\ The noncitizen spouses of 
U.S. citizens covered by this process generally lack access to 
employment authorization and are therefore prevented from contributing 
as fully to the economy as they otherwise could. Like other U.S. 
families, U.S. citizen spouses, noncitizen spouses, and their families 
pay taxes and stimulate the economy by consuming goods and services. 
These activities contribute to further growth of the economy and create 
additional jobs and opportunities for U.S. citizens.\98\ Providing 
these noncitizens access to employment authorization could also 
increase their labor force participation in a tight labor market, where 
there are more jobs than workers.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ See Migration Policy Institute, ``Profile of the 
Unauthorized Population: United States,'' available at https://www.migrationpolicy.org/data/unauthorized-immigrant-population/state/US (last visited June 16, 2024).
    \98\ Cecilia Rouse, Lisa Barrow, Kevin Rinz, and Evan Soltas, 
White House Council of Economic Advisers, Economic Benefits of 
Extending Permanent Legal Status to Unauthorized Immigrants (Sept. 
17, 2021) (describing the ways in which the presence of immigrants 
helps stimulate the economy), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2021/09/17/the-economic-benefits-of-extending-permanent-legal-status-to-unauthorized-immigrants/.
    \99\ Id.; see also U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Number of 
unemployed persons per job opening, seasonally adjusted, available 
at https://www.bls.gov/charts/job-openings-and-labor-turnover/unemp-per-job-opening.htm#.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    U.S. citizen family members will also benefit from the stability 
offered through this process. Absent this process, applying for LPR 
status requires noncitizens who are present without admission or parole 
(PWAP) to depart the United States and remain abroad for an indefinite 
period, which is disruptive to the family's economic and emotional 
wellbeing. By contrast, parole and the subsequent ability to apply for 
LPR status from within the United States will enable these noncitizens 
to consistently support and provide for their U.S. citizen family 
members.
    Access to employment authorization will also reduce potential labor 
exploitation, furthering a DHS and government-wide interest.\100\ 
Research demonstrates that noncitizens who lack employment 
authorization are more likely to experience violations of labor laws, 
including laws governing workplace conditions and minimum wages.\101\ 
They are also less likely to report those violations to enforcement 
agencies because of their unauthorized status.\102\ This allows 
unscrupulous

[[Page 67467]]

employers to unfairly compete with those who hire U.S. workers.\103\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ Memorandum from Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary, U.S. Dep't 
of Homeland Security, Worksite Enforcement: The Strategy to Protect 
the American Labor Market, the Conditions of the American Worksite, 
and the Dignity of the Individual (Oct. 12, 2021), available at 
https://www.dhs.gov/publication/memorandum-worksite-enforcement.
    \101\ See, e.g., Annette Bernhardt, Ruth Milkman, and Nik 
Theodor, National Employment Law Project, Broken Laws, Unprotected 
Workers: Violations of Employment and Labor Laws in America's Cities 
25, 42-45 (Sept. 21, 2009), available at https://www.nelp.org/insights-research/broken-laws-unprotected-workers-violations-of-employment-and-labor-laws-in-americas-cities/.
    \102\ See, e.g., Tsedeye Gebreselassie, Nayantara Mehta, and 
Irene Tung, National Employment Law Project, How California Can Lead 
on Retaliation Reforms to Dismantle Workplace Inequality 8 (Nov. 2, 
2022), available at https://www.nelp.org/insights-research/how-california-can-lead-on-retaliation-reforms-to-dismantle-workplace-inequality/ (noting that only 10 percent of respondents who 
experienced labor violations reported those violations to a 
government agency).
    \103\ U.S. Dep't of Homeland Security, DHS Announces Process 
Enhancements for Supporting Labor Enforcement Investigations (Jan. 
13, 2023) (describing how deferred action protects undocumented 
workers who may then come forward to participate in enforcement 
agency investigations of potential violations of labor laws), 
available at https://www.dhs.gov/news/2023/01/13/dhs-announces-process-enhancements-supporting-labor-enforcement-investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, although undocumented noncitizens contribute billions 
in Federal, State, and local taxes each year, regularizing the status 
of this population has the potential to increase these tax 
revenues.\104\ Noncitizens who lack employment authorization may file 
taxes using an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN). Past 
estimates suggest that noncitizens filing with ITINs pay billions in 
withheld payroll taxes annually.\105\ While a precise estimate of the 
tax compliance rate among the undocumented population is unknown, 
government agencies and nongovernmental organizations have previously 
inferred that it may be between 50 to 75 percent. Providing access to 
employment authorization for this population would increase tax 
revenues by decreasing barriers to compliance with the tax code and 
increasing the earning potential of these noncitizens.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ See, e.g., Carl Davis, Marco Guzman, and Emma Sifre, 
Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, Tax Payments by 
Undocumented Immigrants (July 30, 2024), available at https://itep.org/undocumented-immigrants-taxes-2024.
    \105\ See, e.g., Nat'l Taxpayer Advocate, Annual Report to 
Congress, Vol. 1, 199 (2015) (``In 2015, 4.4 million ITIN filers 
paid over $5.5 billion in payroll and Medicare taxes and $23.6 
billion in total taxes''), available at https://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/ARC15_Volume1.pdf; Stephen Goss et al., Social Security 
Administration, Office of the Chief Actuary, Actuarial Note No. 151, 
Effects of Unauthorized Immigration on the Actuarial Status of the 
Social Security Trust Funds (Apr. 2013) (``For the year 2010, we 
estimate that the excess of tax revenue paid to the [Social 
Security] Trust Funds over benefits paid from these funds based on 
earnings of unauthorized workers is about $12 billion.''), available 
at https://www.ssa.gov/oact/NOTES/pdf_notes/note151.pdf.
    \106\ Rouse et al., supra note 93 (citing Elizabeth U. Cascio & 
Ethan G. Lewis, Distributing the Green (Cards): Permanent Residency 
and Personal Income Taxes after the Immigration Reform and Control 
Act of 1986, 172 J. Pub. Econ. 135 (2019)); Davis et al., supra note 
104.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The benefits of facilitating access to employment authorization for 
this particular population far outweigh the potential costs to American 
workers or to the U.S. economy. First, a review of economic studies 
concludes that providing legal status to unauthorized noncitizens does 
not harm U.S.-born and other workers in the longer term, as the impact 
of immigration on wages overall is both limited and very small.\107\ 
Second, the impact on public benefits at both the State and Federal 
level is expected to be minimal, at least initially, as these 
noncitizens would be ineligible to access most means-tested benefits 
for five years after being granted parole in place, as discussed in 
detail in Section VII.C. of this notice.\108\ See additional discussion 
of benefits related to the economy and labor market in Section VIII.A. 
of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ See, e.g., National Academies, The Economic and Fiscal 
Consequences of Immigration (2017), available at https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/economic-and-fiscal-impact-of-immigration.
    \108\ USCIS, Appendix: Eligibility for Public Benefits 
(describing limitations on when ``qualified aliens,'' including 
parolees and LPRs, can access public benefits, typically after five 
years), available at https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/policy-manual-resources/Appendix-EligibilityforPublicBenefits.pdf; see also 8 U.S.C. 1641(b) 
(defining ``qualified alien''). Cuban and Haitian nationals who are 
granted parole, however, are generally eligible for ``Cuban-Haitian 
Entrant Program'' (CHEP) benefits. See Refugee Education Assistance 
Act of 1980, Public Law 96-422, sec. 501 (8 U.S.C. 1522 note); 8 CFR 
212.5(h); see also U.S. Dep't of Health and Human Services, Office 
of Refugee Resettlement, Benefits for Cuban/Haitian Entrants (Fact 
Sheet), available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/fact-sheet/benefits-cuban/haitian-entrants. Eventually, with LPR status, these 
parolees could potentially become eligible for other public 
benefits, but their uptake of these public benefits would likely be 
curtailed by their access to lawful employment and offset by the 
increased taxes they would pay as formal contributors to the 
economy. Rouse et al., supra note 93. However, as discussed 
elsewhere in this section, DHS estimates that only 13 percent of 
noncitizens likely to access this parole in place process are 
nationals of Western Hemisphere countries other than Mexico, 
Guatemala, Honduras, or El Salvador.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Advancing Diplomatic Relationships and Key Foreign Policy Objectives of 
the United States
    This process responds to the requests and interests of key foreign 
partners and aligns with the U.S. government's broader foreign policy 
objectives to collaboratively manage migration and promote economic 
stability in countries throughout the Western Hemisphere.
    The significant majority of noncitizens who stand to benefit from 
this process are nationals of Western Hemisphere countries that serve 
as key migration management partners of the United States. An estimated 
64 percent of the noncitizens who are likely to access this process are 
Mexican nationals, while 20 percent are from Guatemala, Honduras, and 
El Salvador.\109\ An additional 13 percent are nationals of other 
Western Hemisphere countries.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \109\ OHSS Analysis, supra note 3, tbl. 3.
    \110\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The United States continues to engage with partner countries in the 
Western Hemisphere to manage extraordinary levels of migration. These 
efforts include addressing the root causes of migration, expanding 
access to lawful pathways, and disrupting human smuggling, trafficking, 
and criminal networks that prey on the most vulnerable individuals. As 
part of the strategy to reduce irregular migration and ensure migrants 
have access to protection, services and employment, the United States 
has worked with its partners to ensure migrants in other countries have 
access to regularization programs.
    For example, as part of a multilateral process involving 21 
countries, in May 2024, Ecuador announced a new regularization program 
under which certain migrants are able to obtain a temporary resident 
permit, while others are able to apply for a temporary visa.\111\ 
Colombia has given 10-year temporary protected status to approximately 
2.5 million Venezuelans,\112\ and announced a plan for parents and 
legal guardians of children with such status to obtain special permits. 
Colombia also announced a new special permanent visa for Latin American 
and Caribbean migrants without regular status in the country. 
Similarly, Costa Rica committed to expand its Special Temporary 
Category regularization pathway and reduce barriers to access with 
continued assistance from the international community.\113\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \111\ The White House, Fact Sheet: Third Ministerial Meeting on 
the Los Angeles Declaration on Migration and Protection in Guatemala 
(May 7, 2024) (``White House Fact Sheet''), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/05/07/fact-sheet-third-ministerial-meeting-on-the-los-angeles-declarationon-migration-and-protection-in-guatemala/.
    \112\ See U.S. Dep't of State, Secretary Antony J. Blinken and 
Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas at a Joint Press 
Availability (Apr. 27, 2023), available at https://www.state.gov/secretary-antony-j-blinken-and-secretary-of-homeland-security-alejandro-mayorkas-at-a-joint-press-availability.
    \113\ White House Fact Sheet, supra note 111.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This parole in place process demonstrates U.S. partnership and 
commitment to the shared goals of addressing migration through the 
Western Hemisphere. Partner countries have requested regularization of 
their respective nationals who have lived in the United States for long 
periods of time without lawful status.\114\ For

[[Page 67468]]

example, the Government of Mexico has urged the United States to 
regularize Mexican nationals who are long-term residents of the United 
States.\115\ Further, the Government of Colombia has requested that the 
United States regularize certain Colombian nationals living in the 
United States. Both Mexico and Colombia have partnered closely with the 
United States to address irregular migration.\116\ This parole in place 
process will therefore strengthen the United States' ability to 
cooperate and engage with these and other key partners in the region. 
This cooperation and engagement extends to matters of national and 
border security as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ The White House, Mexico-U.S. Joint Communique: Mexico and 
the United States Reaffirm Their Shared Commitments on an Orderly, 
Humane and Regular Migration (Dec. 28, 2023), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/12/28/mexico-u-s-joint-communique-mexico-and-the-united-states-reaffirm-their-shared-commitments-on-an-orderly-humane-and-regular-migration/.
    \115\ See, e.g., Government of Mexico, En di[aacute]logo con su 
hom[oacute]logo estadounidense, presidente L[oacute]pez Obrador 
ratifica propuesta en materia migratoria (In Dialogue with His 
American Counterpart, President L[oacute]pez Obrador Ratifies 
Proposal on Immigration Matters) (Feb. 3, 2024), available at 
https://www.gob.mx/presidencia/prensa/en-dialogo-con-su-homologo-estadounidense-presidente-lopez-obrador-ratifica-propuesta-en-materia-migratoria.
    \116\ See, e.g., Department of State, U.S.-Colombia Joint 
Commitment to Address the Hemispheric Challenge of Irregular 
Migration (June 4, 2023), available at https://www.state.gov/u-s-colombia-joint-commitment-to-address-the-hemispheric-challenge-of-irregular-migration/; see also Department of State, U.S. Relations 
with Mexico (Sept. 13, 2023), available at https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-mexico/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This process will also further the key foreign policy objectives of 
increasing economic stability in countries that are major sources of 
migration to the United States. By providing certain noncitizen long-
term residents of the United States the ability to access employment 
authorization and adjustment of status, this process will enhance their 
ability to send remittances to family members in their countries of 
origin, promoting stability and reducing incentives for those family 
members or others to irregularly migrate to the United States.\117\ 
Remittances play a pivotal role in origin countries' economies in the 
Western Hemisphere. In 2023, remittances received by the countries of 
Latin America and the Caribbean reached $154 billion.\118\ Remittances 
are crucial to low- and middle-income countries, as they can improve a 
country's ability to repay debt and national banks can use future 
inflows as collateral to lower the costs of international 
borrowing.\119\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ See, e.g., Jose Ivan Rodriguez-Sanchez, An Economic 
Lifeline? How Remittances from the U.S. Impact Mexico's Economy, 
Baker Institute of Rice University (Nov. 13, 2023), available at 
https://www.bakerinstitute.org/research/economic-lifeline-how-remittances-us-impact-mexicos-economy.
    \118\ Jeremy Harris and Ren[eacute] Maldonado, Migrant wages and 
remittances to Latin America and the Caribbean in 2023, Migration 
Unpacked, Inter-American Development Bank (May 15, 2024), available 
at https://blogs.iadb.org/migracion/en/migrant-wages-and-remittances-to-latin-america-and-the-caribbean-in-2023/.
    \119\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reducing Strain on Limited U.S. Government Resources
    The process will also provide the significant public benefit of 
preserving and more effectively using limited U.S. government resources 
for DHS (including USCIS and ICE), DOS, and DOJ (EOIR). USCIS 
anticipates that this process will ultimately reduce pressure on the 
overlapping, lengthier, and more complex Form I-601A, Application for 
Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver, workload.\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ Certain immigrant visa applicants may use Form I-601A to 
request a provisional waiver of the unlawful presence grounds of 
inadmissibility under INA section 212 (a)(9)(B) before departing the 
United States to appear at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate for an 
immigrant visa interview. 8 CFR 212.7(e)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As of the third quarter of FY 2024, nearly 124,000 Forms I-601A 
were pending adjudication, and the median processing time to adjudicate 
a Form I-601A was 41.7 months. Of these pending applications, 
approximately 44,000, or 35 percent, were filed by noncitizens who have 
been in the United States for 10 years or more and are married to a 
U.S. citizen. While increased resources have allowed USCIS to complete 
more Form I-601A adjudications in FY 2024 year-to-date than in all of 
FY 2023, the backlog has only been reduced by 5,000 since the start of 
FY 2024. Although USCIS will carefully consider parole in place 
requests under this process on a case-by-case basis, USCIS expects that 
these adjudications will require fewer resources than those required to 
adjudicate the Form I-601A, given the nature of the adjudication. For 
example, requestors for this parole in place process will be required 
to file online, allowing for a more efficient adjudication, while the 
Form I-601A can only be filed on paper through the mail. USCIS has 
leveraged many of the efficiencies \121\ developed for the online Form 
I-131 in the development of Form I-131F, which will be both filed and 
adjudicated electronically. Furthermore, as described elsewhere in this 
notice, the Form I-601A is a more complex adjudication involving the 
determination of various factors, including whether the noncitizen has 
met their burden to show they would be inadmissible only under INA 
section 212(a)(9)(B)(i) at the time of their consular interview, and 
whether they have demonstrated extreme hardship to a qualifying 
relative as required under INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(v), issues that are 
inherently more difficult to assess in comparison to a discretionary 
parole request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ Every submission completed online rather than through 
paper provides cost savings and operational efficiencies to both 
USCIS and its customers. USCIS scans some applications, petitions, 
and requests received on paper so that they can be processed 
electronically. USCIS offers recommendations to avoid delays when 
filing paper; if more documents were filed electronically, it would 
reduce the time spent on scanning paper documents and free up more 
time for adjudication rather than administrative tasks. See U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Fee Schedule and Changes to 
Certain Other Immigration Benefit Request Requirements, 89 FR 6194 
(Jan. 31, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    USCIS also anticipates that a significant number of noncitizens who 
may have otherwise filed Form I-601A as a step towards obtaining lawful 
permanent residence will instead pursue a parole in place request under 
this process. If future I-601A workloads are reduced, USCIS will be 
better able to focus on reducing the I-601A backlog, while assuming 
fewer new I-601A filings.
    Although USCIS created a new Form I-131F to support this process, 
and USCIS will assume a new workload by accepting these parole in place 
requests, it will offset this new workload by charging a filing fee of 
$580 as it generally does for parole requests filed online.\122\ Thus, 
USCIS anticipates it will recover the costs associated with this new 
workload through the fees collected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ See 8 CFR 106.2(a)(7); 106.1(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because this process may result in fewer noncitizens filing Forms 
I-601A and pursuing immigrant visa applications at U.S. embassies or 
consulates, the parole in place process is also expected to reduce 
strain on DOS. Consular processing of an immigrant visa application 
after USCIS approves a Form I-601A involves significant DOS resources. 
The provisional unlawful presence waiver does not take effect until the 
applicant departs the United States, appears for an immigrant visa 
interview at a U.S. embassy or consulate, and is determined by a 
consular officer to be otherwise eligible for an immigrant visa in 
light of the approved provisional waiver.\123\ If the consular officer 
finds that the noncitizen is inadmissible based on a ground other than 
INA section 212(a)(9)(B)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(i), the provisional 
unlawful presence waiver is automatically revoked, and the noncitizen 
must seek a waiver of inadmissibility for all waivable grounds of 
inadmissibility through filing a Form I-601, Application for Waiver of

[[Page 67469]]

Grounds of Inadmissibility.\124\ In such cases, the noncitizen must 
await USCIS adjudication of the Form I-601, which has a median 
processing time of 20.5 months. This revocation followed by a new 
adjudication adds to the DOS workload and reduces interview 
availability for other visa applicants. The parole in place process may 
thus help decrease future wait times for other noncitizens who have a 
visa number and are waiting for a visa interview at a U.S. embassy or 
consulate. Despite considerable efforts, some U.S. consular sections 
are still working to reduce backlogs caused by the COVID-19 
pandemic.\125\ As of June 2024, DOS's National Visa Center (NVC) had 
394,836 individuals awaiting an immigrant visa interview; on average, 
the NVC can schedule 48,898 applicants for interviews each month.\126\ 
If, as anticipated, more noncitizens pursue adjustment of status 
instead of consular processing, DOS could save consular interview 
appointments for other immigrant and nonimmigrant visa categories. 
While this would result in an increase in USCIS' adjustment of status 
workload, those filings will be accompanied by the required fee; USCIS 
believes that on net, implementation of the parole in place process 
will result in saving government resources compared to the status quo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \123\ 8 CFR 212.7(e)(12)(i).
    \124\ 8 CFR 212.7(e)(14).
    \125\ U.S. Dep't of State, Immigrant Visa Interview-Ready 
Backlog Report (July 2024), available at https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/us-visas/visa-information-resources/visas-backlog.html.
    \126\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The parole in place process also may save resources for ICE and the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) Executive Office for Immigration Review 
(EOIR) if, as a result of being granted parole in place and pursuing 
adjustment of status, fewer members of this population are placed in or 
remain in removal proceedings. Additionally, noncitizens who meet the 
criteria and are not priorities for enforcement may request to be 
considered for parole in place under this process, despite currently 
being in removal proceedings. If granted parole in place, they may seek 
to have their removal proceedings terminated or dismissed \127\ and 
apply to adjust their status.\128\ In the currently overburdened 
immigration court system, cases that are terminated or dismissed free 
up court time and permit immigration judges and ICE OPLA attorneys to 
focus on priority cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \127\ A grant of parole in place pursuant to this process does 
not automatically result in removal proceedings before DOJ EOIR 
being terminated or dismissed. Generally, a party to the removal 
proceedings (either the noncitizen or ICE) must move for termination 
or dismissal of removal proceedings. DOJ EOIR (either an immigration 
judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals) will evaluate and issue a 
decision on the motion for termination or dismissal under applicable 
standards. See, e.g., 8 CFR 1003.1(m), 1239.2(b); 8 CFR 1003.18(d).
    \128\ If removal proceedings are not terminated or dismissed, 
the immigration judge generally retains exclusive jurisdiction to 
adjudicate any application for adjustment of status. 8 CFR 
1245.2(a)(1) (providing that in ``the case of any [noncitizen] who 
has been placed in . . . removal proceedings (other than as an 
arriving alien), the immigration judge . . . has exclusive 
jurisdiction to adjudicate any application for adjustment of 
status''); see also 8 CFR 1245.2(a)(1)(ii) (describing exceptions 
for certain ``arriving aliens''); 8 CFR 245.2(a)(1) (providing that 
USCIS ``has jurisdiction to adjudicate an application for adjustment 
of status filed by any [noncitizen], unless the immigration judge 
has jurisdiction to adjudicate the application'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Furthering National Security, Public Safety, and Border Security 
Objectives
    This process will promote national security, public safety, and 
border security by requiring noncitizens who choose to request parole 
in place under this process to submit biometric and biographic 
information to DHS and undergo background and security checks. The 
information collected through this process will be used to thoroughly 
vet every requestor and may identify and disqualify individuals who 
pose a national security, public safety, or border security 
threat.\129\ DHS has also determined that the criteria outlined in this 
notice--such as the requirements that the requestor have 10 years of 
continuous physical presence in the United States and that the marriage 
to a U.S. citizen must have occurred on or before June 17, 2024--
promote process integrity, prevent potential fraud, and provide greater 
certainty about the scope of the potential population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \129\ As discussed further in Section V.A. of this notice, there 
is an exception for border security concerns for stepchildren who 
otherwise meet the criteria for parole in place under this process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, noncitizens granted parole may be more willing to report 
crimes because they will be less fearful that interacting with law 
enforcement will result in an immigration enforcement action.\130\ One 
study found that 59 percent of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals 
(DACA) recipients would report a crime that they would not have 
reported before receiving DACA.\131\ In that same study, two-thirds of 
respondents said they were less afraid of law enforcement after 
receiving DACA.\132\ Additionally, studies have shown that when 
vulnerable communities feel safer reporting crimes, law enforcement can 
create more comprehensive strategies to effectively target 
perpetrators.\133\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \130\ See, e.g., Stefano Comino et al., Silence of the 
Innocents: Undocumented Immigrants' Underreporting of Crime and 
their Victimization, 39 J. of Pol'y Analysis, 1214, 1215 (2020) 
(``Undocumented victims' reporting rate is less than half the size 
of documented ones.'').
    \131\ See Roberto G. Gonzales, Here's How DACA Changed the Lives 
of Young Immigrants, According to Research, Vox (Feb. 16, 2018), 
available at https://www.vox.com/2017/9/2/16244380/daca-benefits-trump-undocumented-immigrants-jobs. Similar to deferred action, 
however, parole may be revoked at any time and does not constitute a 
right against enforcement action.
    \132\ Id.
    \133\ See, e.g., Stacey Ivie & Natalie Nanasi, The U Visa: An 
Effective Resource for Law Enforcement, 78 FBI Law Enforcement 
Bulletin 10, 10-16 (Oct. 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Eligibility

A. Criteria

    To be considered for a discretionary grant of parole in place under 
this process, a requestor who is the noncitizen spouse of a U.S. 
citizen must meet the following criteria:
     Be present in the United States without admission or 
parole;
     Have been continuously physically present in the United 
States since at least June 17, 2014 through the date of filing the 
parole in place request;
     Have a legally valid marriage to a U.S. citizen on or 
before June 17, 2024;
     Have no disqualifying criminal history; and
     Submit biometrics, undergo required background checks and 
national security, public safety, and border security vetting, and be 
found not to pose a threat to national security or public safety.
    To be considered for a discretionary grant of parole in place under 
this process, a requestor who is the stepchild of a U.S. citizen must 
meet the following criteria:
     Be present in the United States without admission or 
parole;
     Have a parent who entered into a legally valid marriage 
with a U.S. citizen on or before June 17, 2024 and before the child's 
18th birthday;
     Have been continuously physically present in the United 
States since at least June 17, 2024 through the date of filing;
     Have no disqualifying criminal history; and
     Submit biometrics, undergo required background checks and 
national security and public safety vetting, and be found not to pose a 
threat to national security or public safety.
    The burden is on the requestor to demonstrate by a preponderance of 
the evidence that they meet the criteria outlined in this notice, and 
that parole

[[Page 67470]]

is warranted as a matter of discretion for urgent humanitarian reasons 
or significant public benefit. Meeting the requirements for parole in 
place under this process does not establish eligibility for other 
immigration benefits, including LPR status.
Present in the United States Without Admission or Parole
    A requestor must be present in the United States without admission 
or parole. Noncitizens who were last admitted with a valid nonimmigrant 
visa but have remained in the United States beyond the period of stay 
authorized are not eligible for parole in place.\134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \134\ Noncitizens who are immediate relatives of a U.S. citizen 
and had a valid nonimmigrant visa but have remained in the United 
States beyond the period of stay authorized were admitted and 
paroled may be eligible to apply for adjustment of status without 
seeking parole in place. See INA sec. 245(a), 8 U.S.C. 1255(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Continuous Physical Presence Since June 17, 2014
    Noncitizen spouses of U.S. citizens requesting parole in place 
under this process must have been continuously physically present in 
the United States since at least June 17, 2014, through the date of 
filing the parole in place request. Requestors should provide 
documentation to account for as much of the period as reasonably 
possible, but there is no requirement that every day or month of that 
period be specifically accounted for through direct evidence.\135\ 
USCIS will evaluate the totality of the evidence to determine whether 
the requestor has established by a preponderance of the evidence 
continuous physical presence for the required period of time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \135\ See section VI.B. of this notice for a list of documents 
that may be provided to establish continuous physical presence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Marriage to a U.S. Citizen
    To be eligible for parole in place as the noncitizen spouse of a 
U.S. citizen, the requestor must have entered into a valid marriage to 
a U.S. citizen on or before June 17, 2024, and be married on the date 
of filing the parole in place request (with an exception for widows and 
widowers as discussed below). USCIS will generally recognize a marriage 
as valid for purposes of this parole in place process if it is legally 
valid in the place where the marriage was celebrated.\136\ This 
includes termination of any prior marriage. Although States and foreign 
countries may have specific laws governing jurisdiction, the place of 
celebration is generally where the ceremony took place or where the 
officiant of the ceremony was located and where the marriage 
certificate was issued.\137\ Even if a marriage is valid in the place 
of celebration, there are circumstances where USCIS may not recognize a 
marriage as valid for purposes of this process, consistent with 
existing case law and policies for family-based immigrant visa 
petitions and other benefits.\138\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \136\ See Matter of Hosseinian, 19 I. & N. Dec. 453, 455 (BIA 
1987) (``the validity of a marriage for immigration purposes is 
generally governed by the law of the place of celebration of the 
marriage''); Matter of Rodriguez-Cruz, 18 I. & N. Dec. 72, 73 (BIA 
1981) (citing Matter of P-, 4 I. & N. Dec. 610, 613-14 (A.G. 1952) 
(observing that in the absence of a legislative definition of 
marriage for immigration purposes, ``the generally accepted rule is 
that the validity of a marriage is governed by the law of the place 
of celebration'')).
    \137\ See 8 CFR 204.2(a)(2) (requiring certificate of marriage 
issued by civil authorities).
    \138\ See Adjudicator's Field Manual, Chapter 21, Family-based 
Petitions and Applications available at https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/policy-manual-afm/afm21-external.pdf; see 
also USCIS Policy Manual Volume 12, Part G, Spouses of U.S. 
Citizens, Chapter 2, Marriage and Marital Union for Naturalization, 
Section A, Validity of Marriage [12 USCIS-PM G.2(A)], available at 
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-g-chapter-2 (last 
updated June 28, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with the INA and case law, examples of the types of 
marital relationships that USCIS generally will not recognize for 
purposes of this process include, but are not limited to:
     Civil unions, domestic partnerships, or other 
relationships that do not confer the same legal rights and 
responsibilities to the parties as in a marriage recognized by a civil 
authority;
     Marriages that are contrary to public policy in the United 
States; \139\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \139\ This includes polygamous marriages and marriages involving 
minors, or marriages involving close relatives. See Matter of 
Manjoukis, 13 I. & N. Dec. 705 (BIA 1971) (14 year old not able to 
enter into legally valid marriage as it would be void under state 
law); Matter of H-, 9 I. & N. Dec. 640 (BIA 1962) (a polygamous 
marriage, though valid where contracted, is not recognized for 
immigration purposes); see also INA sec. 101(a)(35), 8 U.S.C. 
1101(a)(35); Matter of Lovo-Lara, 23 I. & N. Dec. 746, 752 n.3 (BIA 
2005); Matter of B-, 5 I. & N. Dec. 698 (BIA 1954).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Marriages where one or both parties to the marriage are 
not legally free to marry or have not given consent to the 
marriage.\140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \140\ USCIS does not recognize marriages that violate strong 
Federal public policy, see Matter of H-, 9 I. & N. Dec. 640 (BIA 
1962), and there is a strong Federal policy against marriages to 
which one or both parties do not consent. The Violence Against Women 
Act Reauthorization Act of 2022 added a definition of forced 
marriage (``a marriage to which 1 or both parties do not or cannot 
consent, and in which 1 or more elements of force, fraud, or 
coercion is present''), and provided for grants for victims' 
services and legal assistance for victims of forced marriage. See 34 
U.S.C. 12291(a)(16).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A noncitizen may be eligible for parole in place if their U.S. 
citizen spouse is deceased, as long as a legally valid marriage was 
entered into on or before June 17, 2024. However, there are additional 
requirements separate from the parole in place process that the 
noncitizen must meet to be eligible for adjustment of status. A 
noncitizen widow(er) must have a pending or approved Form I-130 filed 
on their behalf at the time of the U.S. citizen spouse's death or must 
file a Form I-360, Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special 
Immigrant, within two years from the date of the U.S. citizen spouse's 
death. The noncitizen must not have been legally separated from the 
U.S. citizen spouse at the time of the U.S. citizen spouse's death and 
must not have since remarried.\141\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \141\ See INA sec. 201(b)(2)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(2)(A)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noncitizen Stepchildren of U.S. Citizens
    Noncitizen children of a noncitizen married to a U.S. citizen may 
be considered for parole in place under this process. For a child to 
qualify as the stepchild of a U.S. citizen, the child must have been 
under age 18 at the time of the marriage that created the stepparent-
stepchild relationship and must have been unmarried and under the age 
of 21 \142\ as of June 17, 2024.\143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \142\ An immediate relative child's age is frozen at the time 
their Form I-130 or Form I-360 is filed in order to protect them 
from aging out before being able to adjust status. See INA sec. 
201(f), 8 U.S.C. 1151(f).
    \143\ See INA sec. 101(b)(1)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1101(b)(1)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The stepchild does not need to demonstrate continuous physical 
presence since June 17, 2014. However, they must have been continuously 
physically present in the United States since at least June 17, 2024, 
through the date of filing.\144\ In addition, the stepchild's 
noncitizen parent must have entered into a legally valid marriage with 
a U.S. citizen on or before June 17, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \144\ See Section VI.B. of this notice for a list of documents 
that may be provided to establish continuous physical presence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the marriage between the noncitizen parent and U.S. citizen 
spouse is terminated, either through divorce or death of one or both 
parents, the stepchild may still be eligible for parole in place if a 
valid marriage was entered into on or before June 17, 2024, and the 
stepchild meets the above criteria.\145\ An

[[Page 67471]]

eligible stepchild may file on their own with their birth certificate 
and evidence of their parents' valid marriage without the participation 
of either parent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \145\ For the stepchild to be eligible for an immigrant visa 
petition or adjustment of status, additional requirements must be 
met, including that a bona fide relationship exists between the 
stepchild and U.S. citizen stepparent and, if applicable, 
eligibility for certain surviving relative benefits. See Matter of 
Pagnerre, 13 I. & N. Dec. 173 (BIA 1971) (when marriage is 
terminated by death but there was a continuing relationship 
thereafter between petitioner and beneficiary, petitioner is 
regarded as the stepparent of beneficiary for immigration purposes 
and petition); Matter of Mowrer, 17 I. & N. Dec. 613 (BIA 1981) 
(where the parents have legally separated or where the marriage has 
been terminated by divorce or death, the appropriate inquiry is 
whether a family relationship has continued to exist as a matter of 
fact between the stepparent and stepchild); see also INA secs. 
201(b)(2)(A)(i) and 204(l), 8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(2)(A)(i), 1154(l) 
(describing additional requirements with respect to benefits for 
certain surviving relatives); 8 CFR 204.2(b) (same).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lack of Criminal History, National Security Concerns, Public Safety 
Concerns, or Border Security Concerns
    Requestors must not have a disqualifying criminal history or 
otherwise constitute a threat to national security, public safety, or 
border security.\146\ All pending criminal charges are disqualifying, 
regardless of the nature of the charges. A noncitizen may apply for 
parole in place once those charges are resolved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \146\ Indicators of national security concerns include, but are 
not limited to, participation in activities that threaten the United 
States or gang membership. Indicators of public safety concerns 
include, but are not limited to, serious criminal conduct or 
criminal history. Indicators of border security concerns include 
recent apprehension while attempting to enter the U.S. unlawfully or 
apprehension following unlawful entry after November 1, 2020; 
however, there is an exception for border security concerns for 
stepchildren who otherwise meet the criteria for parole in place 
under this process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All felony convictions, including felony driving under the 
influence (DUI) offenses, are disqualifying. Additionally, 
disqualifying criminal history includes convictions for the following 
offenses, regardless of whether the offense is classified as a 
felony.\147\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \147\ These categories of convictions also generally overlap 
with inadmissibility grounds for purposes of adjustment of status. 
See INA sec. 212(a), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a). DHS reserves its discretion 
to determine that other offenses are disqualifying, even if not 
listed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Murder, torture, rape, or sexual abuse;
     Offenses involving firearms, explosive materials, or 
destructive devices;
     Offenses relating to peonage, slavery, involuntary 
servitude, and trafficking in persons;
     Aggravated assault;
     Offenses relating to child pornography, sexual abuse or 
exploitation of minors, or solicitation of minors;
     Domestic violence, stalking, child abuse, child neglect, 
or child abandonment; and
     Controlled substance offenses (other than simple 
possession of 30 grams or less of marijuana).\148\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \148\ Noncitizens who were under the age of 18 but convicted of 
a felony or a disqualifying misdemeanor are considered to have 
disqualifying criminal history and are not eligible for this 
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    All other criminal convictions,\149\ excluding minor traffic 
offenses, will result in a rebuttable presumption of ineligibility for 
parole in place. This presumption can be rebutted on a case-by-case 
basis by weighing the seriousness of the conviction against mitigating 
factors relating to the conviction as well as other positive factors 
that suggest that the noncitizen merits a favorable exercise of 
discretion. The weight of the rebuttable presumption will be guided by 
the seriousness of the conviction.\150\ A less serious conviction, or a 
conviction that does not raise public safety concerns, will result in a 
presumption that carries less weight and can be more easily rebutted. 
In adjudicating parole in place requests on an individualized, case-by-
case basis, the nature and seriousness of the conviction will determine 
the evidence needed to overcome it. Factors that can be considered in 
overcoming the presumption may include, for example:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \149\ Although not generally considered convictions for 
immigration purposes, USCIS will nonetheless consider juvenile 
delinquency adjudications as resulting in a presumption of 
ineligibility. However, the presumption may be overcome by factors 
such as the nature of the underlying offense, requestor's age at the 
time of the commission of the underlying offense, the length of time 
that has passed since the adjudication, the sentence or penalty 
imposed, evidence of rehabilitation, and any other relevant 
information.
    \150\ Arrests or criminal charges that do not result in a 
conviction, such as where a requestor had been arrested but no 
charges were lodged, or a requestor had been arrested with charges 
lodged that were later dismissed, does not result in a presumption 
of ineligibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Age of the conviction(s) (remoteness in time);
     Requestor's age at the time of the offense and conviction, 
including whether the requestor was a juvenile at the time of the 
offense;
     Sentence or penalty imposed;
     Evidence of subsequent rehabilitation;
     Nature of the conviction, including whether the conduct at 
issue was non-violent;
     Whether the conviction was an isolated offense when 
considered against the rest of the requestor's history (including 
consideration of whether multiple criminal convictions were on the same 
date and may have arisen out of the same act);
     Existence of a mental or physical condition that may have 
contributed to the criminal conduct;
     Requestor's particular vulnerability, including any 
physical or mental condition requiring treatment or care in the United 
States;
     Requestor's status as a victim of or witness to criminal 
activity, including domestic violence, or civil rights violation or 
labor rights violation under investigation by a labor agency, 
particularly if related to the criminal conduct at issue;
     Requestor's status, or that of their U.S. citizen spouse, 
as a current or former member of the U.S. military;
     Requestor's status as the primary caregiver for a U.S. 
citizen child or elderly parent or in-law;
     Evidence of requestor's good character, such as property 
ties, business ties, or value and service to the community;
     Length of requestor's presence in the United States;
     Requestor's status as a caregiver for an individual with 
disabilities, including U.S. citizen in-laws or siblings;
     Impact on other family members, including family members 
who are U.S. citizens and LPRs or
     Other factors USCIS considers relevant in its exercise of 
discretion.

B. Requestors with Unexecuted Final Removal Orders or Currently in 
Section 240 Proceedings

Requestors With Unexecuted Final Removal Orders
    Noncitizens with unexecuted final removal orders \151\ will be 
presumptively ineligible for parole in place under this process. 
However, DHS will evaluate, in the exercise of its discretion on a 
case-by-case basis, the facts and circumstances underlying the 
unexecuted final removal order in determining whether the noncitizen 
may overcome the presumption of ineligibility and be granted parole. 
Examples of information that may be relevant to DHS in its 
determination of whether the requestor has overcome the presumption of 
ineligibility include, but are not limited to:\152\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \151\ Presumptive ineligibility applies to any removal order 
issued under INA 240, 8 U.S.C. 1229a, INA 235(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. 
1225(b)(1), or any other provision of law. A final removal order 
under INA 240, 8 U.S.C. 1229a, is defined at INA 101(a)(47), 8 
U.S.C. 1101(a)(47), and 8 CFR 1241.1.
    \152\ These examples solely concern DHS's determination 
regarding whether the presumption of ineligibility for parole in 
place has been overcome; they are distinct from any standards 
considered by DOJ EOIR in the context of a motion to reopen.

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

[[Page 67472]]

     Lack of proper notice;
     Age of the noncitizen at the time the removal order was 
issued;
     Ineffective assistance of counsel or being a victim of 
fraud in connection with immigration representation; or
     Other extenuating factors or considerations such as:
    [cir] Inability to understand proceedings because of language 
barriers;
    [cir] Status as a victim of domestic violence;
    [cir] Other extenuating personal factors, such as requestor's 
limited resources (e.g., lack of housing that would have impacted 
ability to appear);
     A physical or mental condition requiring care or treatment 
during immigration proceedings.\153\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \153\ A decision by USCIS to grant parole in place to a 
requestor with an unexecuted removal order does not rescind, cancel, 
vacate, or otherwise remove the existence of the unexecuted removal 
order. DOJ EOIR has sole jurisdiction over the decision to reopen 
removal proceedings under INA section 240, 8 U.S.C. 1229a, see INA 
sec. 240(c)(7), 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(7); such reopening vacates any 
final removal order issued under INA section 240, 8 U.S.C. 1229a, 
see Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 429 n.1 (2009). An unexecuted 
removal order issued by DOJ EOIR under INA section 240, 8 U.S.C. 
1229a, remains in existence, notwithstanding a grant of parole in 
place, unless and until the INA section 240 proceedings are reopened 
by an immigration judge or the BIA. Unexecuted removal orders issued 
by DHS (such as an order of expedited removal under INA section 
235(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1), or an administrative order of 
removal under INA section 238(b), 8 U.S.C. 1228(b)), likewise remain 
in existence unless and until they are vacated, canceled, or 
rescinded by the relevant issuing authority within DHS in that 
agency's sole discretion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Requestors in Section 240 Removal Proceedings
    Eligible noncitizens who are currently in removal proceedings under 
INA section 240, including those who have been released under INA 
section 236(a) on bond or their own recognizance, and those without a 
final removal order, may submit a request to be considered for parole 
in place on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the totality of 
the circumstances, under this process.\154\ Note, however, that a 
noncitizen who constitutes a national security, public safety, or 
border security concern is ineligible for parole under this 
process.\155\ Further, this process does not preclude DHS from, in its 
discretionary authority, taking enforcement actions as deemed 
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \154\ This includes those with a pending appeal to the BIA, as 
their removal order would not be administratively final pending 
resolution of the appeal.
    \155\ See, e.g., September 2021 Guidelines, supra note 81. As 
noted in the September 2021 Guidelines, noncitizens present border 
security concerns if they were apprehended while attempting to enter 
the U.S. unlawfully or if they entered unlawfully after November 1, 
2020. There is an exception to this for stepchildren who otherwise 
meet the criteria for parole in place under this process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Factors Considered

    As discussed in this notice, DHS's decision whether to grant parole 
in place to a requestor is a discretionary, case-by-case determination. 
Even if a requestor establishes that they have met all of the criteria 
for eligibility, USCIS will examine the totality of the circumstances 
in the individual case to determine whether the requestor merits a 
grant of parole in place as a matter of discretion for significant 
public benefit or urgent humanitarian reasons. In doing so, USCIS will 
weigh the positive factors against the negative factors that are 
present in the record. Requestors may provide evidence of positive 
factors to establish that they merit a favorable exercise of 
discretion, which may relate to, but are not limited to:
     Community ties;
     Advanced or young age;
     Length of presence in the United States;
     Status as a parent or caregiver of a U.S. citizen child or 
elderly parent or in-law;
     Status as a caregiver for an individual with disabilities, 
including U.S. citizen in-laws or siblings;
     Physical or mental condition requiring care or treatment 
in the United States;
     Status as a victim of or witness to a crime or civil 
rights violation, or labor rights violation under investigation by a 
labor agency;
     Impact on other family members, including family members 
who are U.S. citizens and LPRs;
     Status, or that of their U.S. citizen spouse, as a current 
or former member of the U.S. military; or
     Other positive factors about which the requestor wishes to 
provide information.
    This is a non-exhaustive list of factors; USCIS may consider any 
relevant fact in the discretionary analysis.

VI. Filing Requirements and Processing Steps

A. Form

    Requestors seeking parole in place as the spouse or stepchild of a 
U.S. citizen must submit Form I-131F, Application for Parole in Place 
for Certain Noncitizen Spouses and Stepchildren of U.S. Citizens, 
online with the appropriate fee. To submit Form I-131F, requestors must 
both complete the required form fields and submit the required evidence 
establishing eligibility.

B. Documentation

    Requestors must submit the required evidence establishing 
eligibility, in compliance with Form I-131F instructions. Required 
documentation for noncitizen spouse requestors includes the following:
     Proof of identity, which may include:
    [cir] Valid State or country driver's license or identification;
    [cir] Birth certificate with photo identification;
    [cir] Valid passport; or
    [cir] Any government issued document bearing the requestor's name, 
date of birth, and photo.\156\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \156\ Expired documents may be provided in conjunction with 
other documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Evidence establishing their continuous physical presence 
since at least June 17, 2014, which may include, but is not limited to:
    [cir] Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax transcripts listing tax 
information;
    [cir] Rent receipts or utility bills;
    [cir] Deeds, mortgage statements, or rental contracts;
    [cir] Bank, credit card, or loan statements showing regular 
transactions;
    [cir] Insurance policies;
    [cir] Automobile license receipts, title, or registration;
    [cir] Hospital or medical records;
    [cir] School records (letters, report cards, etc.);
    [cir] Attestations to the requestor's physical presence by 
religious entities, unions, or other civic or community organizations;
    [cir] Official records from a religious entity confirming the 
requestor's participation in a religious ceremony;
    [cir] Birth certificates for children born in the United States;
    [cir] Money order receipts for money sent into or out of the United 
States; or
    [cir] Any other document that shows that the requestor maintained 
continuous physical presence in the United States for the requisite 
time period.
     Evidence establishing a valid marriage between the 
noncitizen spouse and U.S. citizen:
    [cir] Current marriage certificate showing a legally valid marriage 
took place on or before June 17, 2024;
    [cir] Any divorce decree, annulment decree, or death certificate 
showing that the noncitizen spouse's and their U.S. citizen spouse's 
prior marriages were terminated (if applicable); and
    [cir] Death certificate of U.S. citizen spouse (if applicable).
     Proof of the U.S. citizenship status of the spouse/
stepparent, which must include one of the following:

[[Page 67473]]

    [cir] The spouse's/stepparent's U.S. birth certificate (if the 
spouse has held U.S. citizenship since birth);
    [cir] The spouse's/stepparent's Certificate of Naturalization;
    [cir] The spouse's/stepparent's Certificate of Citizenship;
    [cir] The spouse's/stepparent's Form FS-240, Consular Report of 
Birth Abroad; or
    [cir] The biographical page of the spouse's/stepparent's current 
U.S. passport.
     Arrest records and court dispositions of any arrests, 
charges, and convictions (if applicable).
    Required documentation for noncitizen stepchild requestors includes 
the following:
     The birth certificate of the stepchild listing the name of 
the noncitizen parent as a natural parent;
     Proof of identity (as listed above);
     Evidence establishing their continuous physical presence 
since June 17, 2024 (as listed above);
     Evidence establishing a legally valid marriage between the 
noncitizen stepchild's noncitizen parent and the noncitizen stepchild's 
U.S. citizen stepparent took place on or before June 17, 2024 (as 
listed above);
     Proof of the U.S. citizenship status of the spouse/
stepparent (as listed above);
     Arrest records and court dispositions of any arrests, 
charges, and convictions (if applicable).

C. Processing Steps

    This parole in place process will be implemented in accordance with 
the lessons learned from similar processes, while building on 
technological advances and efficiencies in USCIS processing.
Filing Procedure
    Each requestor must submit Form I-131F with the applicable filing 
fee, as listed on Form G-1055, Fee Schedule (currently $580). Fee 
waivers are not available, and requests must be submitted online. For 
information on creating a USCIS online account, visit www.uscis.gov/file-online/how-to-create-a-uscis-online-account. Each requestor, 
including noncitizen stepchild requestors, must file a separate Form I-
131F and pay the fee individually.
Biometrics Submission
    After the requestor files Form I-131F, they will be required to 
provide biometrics to USCIS, including fingerprints, photographs, and a 
signature. The requestor's biometric information will be used to 
conduct background checks, including checks for criminal history 
records, verify identity, determine eligibility for requested benefits, 
create immigration documents (e.g., Employment Authorization 
Documents), or for any other purpose authorized by the INA.\157\ After 
the requestor files the Form I-131F online, USCIS will notify the 
noncitizen in writing of the time and location for a biometric services 
appointment. Failure to appear for biometrics submission may result in 
a denial of the parole in place request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \157\ As authorized by the INA, biometric information collected 
in this process may be used by other DHS components. See also 8 CFR 
103.16. See also discussion on information use and disclosure in 
this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Case-by-Case Consideration for Parole
    Noncitizens who meet the criteria listed in this notice may be 
considered for a discretionary grant of parole on a case-by-case basis. 
USCIS may grant parole in place to the requestor if USCIS determines 
that there is a significant public benefit or urgent humanitarian 
reason for parole and that the requestor merits a favorable exercise of 
discretion in the totality of the circumstances.
    USCIS may prioritize the adjudication of Form I-131F for 
noncitizens who previously filed a Form I-601A. In establishing this 
parole in place process, DHS considered that certain noncitizens 
eligible for the parole in place process will have already prepared, 
filed, and paid a filing fee for a Form I-601A. USCIS has determined 
that prioritizing the adjudication of Forms I-131F filed by these 
noncitizens is justified in recognition that they availed themselves of 
existing processes to pursue an immigrant visa but may nonetheless wish 
to pursue parole in place to avoid the costs and potential separation 
or disruption to their family that consular processing entails. 
Additionally, prioritizing this population may have the downstream 
effect of reducing the adjudicatory resources needed for pending Forms 
I-601A as noncitizens who are granted parole in place through this 
process may subsequently apply, and be approved, for adjustment of 
status to that of an LPR.
    Upon a grant of parole in place, the noncitizen will receive a Form 
I-797, Notice of Action, and a Form I-94, Arrival/Departure Record.
Parole Period
    If granted parole in place on a case-by-case basis in the exercise 
of discretion, parole will generally be granted for a period of up to 
three years. Parole may be terminated at any time upon notice at DHS's 
discretion pursuant to 8 CFR 212.5(e)(2)(i). DHS does not contemplate a 
re-parole process at this time.
    In addition, USCIS, in its sole discretion, may impose conditions 
on a grant of parole with respect to any noncitizen under this process, 
and it may request verification of the noncitizen's compliance with any 
such condition at any time.\158\ Violation of any condition of parole 
may lead to termination of the parole in accordance with 8 CFR 
212.5(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \158\ See INA sec. 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Employment Authorization
    If parole in place is granted, the parolee will be eligible to 
request an Employment Authorization Document (EAD) pursuant to 8 CFR 
274a.12(c)(11), as recipients of parole under INA section 212(d)(5), 8 
U.S.C. 1182(d)(5). An individual seeking employment authorization as a 
parolee (category (c)(11)) may request a waiver of the Form I-765, 
Application for Employment Authorization, fee by submitting Form I-912, 
Request for Fee Waiver along with the Form I-765.
Subsequent Form I-130 or Form I-485
    A grant of parole in place does not establish eligibility for an 
immigrant visa petition or a presumption that the marriage is bona fide 
for purposes of an immigrant visa petition or other immigration 
benefits. Following a grant of parole to a noncitizen, the U.S. citizen 
spouse or stepparent of the noncitizen is encouraged to file a Form I-
130, or, in the case of certain widow(er)s, the noncitizen may file 
Form I-360, concurrently with the Form I-485 if they have not filed a 
standalone Form I-130 or Form I-360 already. For purposes of Form I-130 
based on marriage, a petitioner must demonstrate that they entered into 
a bona fide marriage with the beneficiary, and for a Form I-130 for a 
stepchild, the petitioner must demonstrate they entered into a bona 
fide marriage to the beneficiary's noncitizen parent. There are 
additional requirements for Form I-360 for certain widow(er)s and their 
children, including filing deadlines, residence requirements, and 
marital status requirements.\159\ A stepchild may remain eligible for 
an immigrant visa despite their parent's marriage to a U.S. citizen 
being terminated through death of either parent or divorce, so long as 
a bona fide stepparent-stepchild relationship continued to exist 
following the death or divorce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \159\ See INA secs. 201(b)(2)(A)(i), 204(l), 8 U.S.C. 
1151(b)(2)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1154(l).

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

[[Page 67474]]

    Further, a discretionary grant of parole does not in itself 
establish eligibility for adjustment of status to that of an LPR under 
INA section 245(a), 8 U.S.C. 1255(a). As discussed elsewhere in this 
notice, a grant of parole would satisfy the requirement under INA 
section 245(a), 8 U.S.C. 1255(a), that the applicant has been inspected 
and admitted or paroled by an immigration officer. The noncitizen, 
however, must satisfy all other requirements for adjustment of status, 
including establishing that they are not inadmissible under any 
applicable grounds.\160\ As noted, if the noncitizen is granted parole 
in place, the noncitizen and their spouse or stepparent would need to 
file Form I-130 (if not previously filed) and Form I-485.\161\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \160\ Furthermore, by avoiding the need to depart the United 
States to seek an immigrant visa at a U.S. embassy or consulate, the 
noncitizen would not trigger the inadmissibility grounds at INA sec. 
212(a)(9)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B), by seeking admission after 
such departure.
    \161\ Additionally, there may be instances where the noncitizen 
would also have to file the Form I-601, Application for Waiver of 
Grounds of Inadmissibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Information Use and Disclosure
    DHS generally will not use information contained in a request for 
parole in place under this process for the purpose of initiating 
immigration enforcement action against the requestor unless DHS 
determines, in its discretion, the requestor poses a threat to national 
security, public safety, or border security.\162\ This process does not 
preclude DHS from, in its discretionary authority, taking enforcement 
actions as deemed appropriate, in accordance with the INA and 
consistent with governing policies and practices, against noncitizens 
who may be eligible or who have pending applications for parole under 
this process. Information provided under this process may be otherwise 
disclosed consistent with statutory authorities, obligations, and 
restrictions, as well as governing privacy and information-sharing 
policies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \162\ See, e.g., September 2021 Guidelines, supra note 81.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Termination and No Private Rights

    As provided under INA section 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A), 
parole decisions are made by the Secretary ``in his discretion.'' This 
process is being implemented as a matter of the Secretary's discretion, 
and the Secretary retains the sole discretion to terminate parole in 
place under this process at any point. It is not intended to, shall not 
be construed to, may not be relied upon to, and does not create any 
rights, privileges, benefits, substantive or procedural, enforceable by 
any party in any matter, civil or criminal, against the United States, 
its departments, agencies, or other entities, its officers or 
employees, or any other person.

VII. Considerations in the Establishment of This Parole in Place 
Process

    In establishing this process, DHS considered various alternatives, 
as well as the impacts on resources and processing and the broader 
impacts on both the Federal government and State and local governments.

A. Alternatives to This Process

    In exercising the Secretary's discretionary parole authority to 
establish a parole in place process, DHS considered various 
alternatives to the process.
    First, DHS considered whether it could instead dedicate additional 
resources to the processing of pending Forms I-601A. As discussed 
elsewhere in this notice, the provisional unlawful presence waiver 
process allows certain noncitizens, including spouses of U.S. citizens, 
to obtain a provisional unlawful presence waiver prior to their 
departure from the United States to pursue an immigrant visa at a U.S. 
embassy or consulate abroad. It is intended to reduce the time 
noncitizens must spend apart from their U.S. citizen family members 
while increasing certainty that they will be granted a waiver of the 
inadmissibility ground that is triggered once they depart.\163\ 
However, the provisional unlawful presence waiver process still entails 
some period of families being separated because it requires consular 
processing abroad after approval of the Form I-601A, often at great 
financial cost. It also involves some level of uncertainty and risk. 
The grant of a provisional waiver is not a guarantee that the waiver of 
inadmissibility or the immigrant visa, will ultimately be granted.\164\ 
Likewise, a grant of parole in place does not guarantee that an 
application for adjustment of status will be approved, but because the 
application process takes place while the applicant is in the United 
States, noncitizens may be more likely to pursue this option. For some 
families, even a short-term separation from a family member, whose 
income or other household contributions are needed, may be untenable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \163\ See 78 FR 536 (Jan. 6, 2013).
    \164\ See 8 CFR 212.7(e)(12)(i) (noting the conditions that must 
be satisfied for the provisional unlawful presence waiver to take 
effect).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, even if, as an alternative to this process, USCIS 
dedicated additional resources to provisional waiver processing, doing 
so would not provide the previously noted significant public benefit of 
this process. As described in Section IV of this notice, this process 
furthers diplomatic relationships and foreign policy objectives. It 
also sets out a streamlined and less resource intensive adjudication, 
as compared to the more complex and resource intensive provisional 
waiver process which involves determining if the applicant has met 
their burden of proving they would be inadmissible only for unlawful 
presence upon departure, and that they have demonstrated extreme 
hardship to a qualifying relative.\165\ Although USCIS has 
significantly increased resources devoted to the Form I-601A backlog 
relative to previous years, the backlog of pending applications will 
still take at least three years to be meaningfully reduced. 
Accordingly, although USCIS considered dedicating even more resources 
to Form I-601A processing, it concluded that doing so would not 
effectively address the backlog in the near term or support timely 
adjudications of other workloads as compared to the processing 
efficiencies gained through implementation of this parole in place 
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \165\ 8 CFR 212.7(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    USCIS anticipates that its adjudication of parole requests under 
this process will be less resource-intensive than the adjudication of 
Form I-601A applications, given process efficiencies that USCIS has 
identified in adjudicating parole requests in other parole processes, 
and considering the complexity and resources required for the I-601A 
adjudication. And unlike the provisional waiver process, parole in 
place will not entail a period of separation from U.S. citizen family 
members or, alternatively, require U.S. citizen family members to 
depart the United States with the noncitizen. Additionally, it will 
obviate the need for consular processing, thereby diverting noncitizens 
with parole in place from DOS backlogs and reducing wait times for 
other noncitizens seeking visas at U.S. consulates.
    While the Form I-601A process will remain critical for other 
categories of immigrant visa applicants who are not eligible for this 
process, parole in place offers a less onerous path for a subset of the 
I-601A-eligible population who have lived in the United States for at 
least 10 years, are married to U.S. citizens or are the noncitizen

[[Page 67475]]

stepchildren of U.S. citizens, have no disqualifying factors, and merit 
a favorable exercise of discretion.
    DHS acknowledges that there will be an increase in filings of Form 
I-765, as well as an increase in Form I-130 and Form I-485 filings but 
notes that these forms have associated filing fees that cover the cost 
of adjudication, and USCIS has implemented streamlined processing for 
certain categories of employment authorization documents, and other 
immigration benefit requests, including those filed by parolees. In 
considering all the factors, DHS determined that the benefits of 
implementing this process, as discussed in Section IV of this notice, 
outweigh any additional workload assumed by USCIS.
    Second, DHS has considered alternative approaches in designing this 
process. Specifically, in proposing parameters for this process, DHS 
considered the following alternatives:
     Length of requisite physical presence: DHS considered the 
time period by which a requestor would likely have established deep 
ties to their communities in the United States in determining the 
period of continuous physical presence required to access this process. 
In making this determination, DHS considered whether a longer period 
(such as 15 years) or a shorter period (such as five or eight years) 
was more appropriate and considered estimates of the potential 
population for each of these time periods. Because Congress has 
articulated a 10-year length of continuous presence as a prerequisite 
for certain non-LPR noncitizens to seek lawful permanent residence 
through a separate process known as cancellation of removal,\166\ DHS 
concluded that 10 years would be an appropriate length of time to 
require noncitizens to have been present in the United States to access 
this process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \166\ See INA sec. 240A(b)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS also considered whether the noncitizen could continue to accrue 
the required 10 years of continuous physical presence until the time a 
parole request is filed, or whether the noncitizen must have accrued 
the 10 years by the time the process was announced. DHS determined that 
requiring continuous physical presence to have accrued by a certain 
date provides greater predictability and certainty about the scope of 
the potential population, which in turn will assist DHS in determining 
the appropriate resources to dedicate to this process. Requiring 10 
years of continuous physical presence by June 17, 2024 for noncitizen 
spouses of U.S. citizens also provides clarity to the public and avoids 
unintentionally incentivizing any irregular migration by noncitizens 
who might otherwise seek to enter the United States to access this 
process.
     Marriage to a U.S. citizen: In requiring noncitizen 
spouses of U.S. citizens to have a legally valid marriage on or before 
June 17, 2024, DHS considered whether marriages that took place after 
this date could nevertheless be qualifying. DHS determined that 
requiring marriages to have taken place by June 17, 2024 would better 
promote process integrity, prevent potential fraud, and provide greater 
certainty about the scope of the potential population.
    DHS also considered whether marriage to an LPR could be a 
qualifying factor and determined against it because a primary goal of 
establishing this proposed process is to remove a barrier to an 
immigration benefit that may otherwise be immediately available to the 
noncitizen. When a noncitizen marries a U.S. citizen, they qualify as 
an ``immediate relative'' under the INA and are able to immediately 
apply for LPR status (i.e., without needing to wait for an immigrant 
visa to become available).\167\ Noncitizen spouses of LPRs who lack 
lawful status do not qualify as ``immediate relatives'' and therefore 
do not have an immediate path to adjustment of status (even if granted 
parole) because they must wait for an immigrant visa to become 
available before they can apply for LPR status. They also are subject 
to other ineligibility provisions barring adjustment of status that are 
not applicable to spouses of U.S. citizens.\168\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \167\ See INA sec. 201(b)(2)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(2)(A)(i); 8 
CFR 204.1(a)(1).
    \168\ See, e.g., INA sec. 245(c)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1255(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS considered whether the marriage must be of a specified duration 
(e.g., two years) at the time of the parole in place request, 
particularly to address potential concerns about marriage fraud and 
integrity of this process. The fixed date by which the marriage must 
have taken place (June 17, 2024), eliminates any concern that 
individuals may marry solely to take advantage of this process. 
Moreover, USCIS will further assess the validity of the marriage for 
immigration purposes, including a thorough review of the bona fides of 
the marriage, during its consideration of the Form I-130 and Form I-
485. In its consideration of these forms, USCIS will employ its 
standard, rigorous procedures to detect potential marriage fraud, 
further ensuring that fraudulent marriages will not serve as the basis 
for a grant of adjustment of status following access to this parole in 
place process. Finally, USCIS can grant adjustment of status to 
conditional lawful permanent residents on the basis of marriage to a 
U.S. citizen when the marriage is less than two years in length. 
Therefore, DHS determined that this process will not require that the 
marriage be of a specified length, though DHS requires that the 
marriage be legally valid in the place of celebration as of June 17, 
2024.
    DHS also decided to include widow(er)s who entered into a legally 
valid marriage with a U.S. citizen prior to June 17, 2024. DHS believes 
that including this population furthers the goals of the process 
because widow(er)s of U.S. citizens may continue to be eligible for 
immigrant visa petition approval and to apply to adjust status if 
certain requirements are met. DHS also notes that including this 
population is consistent with the process for family members of 
military service members, in which the widow(er) of a deceased U.S. 
citizen service member is eligible for parole in place. To be eligible 
for immigrant visa petition approval and be eligible to apply to adjust 
status, the widow(er) must have a Form I-130 filed on their behalf at 
the time of the U.S. citizen's death or file a Form I-360 within two 
years of the U.S. citizen's death. The widow(er) must also be unmarried 
when their immigrant visa petition is adjudicated. A widow(er)'s 
children may also be eligible for immigrant visa petition approval and 
to adjust status as the derivative child of the widow(er). For these 
reasons, DHS determined that, based on continued eligibility to apply 
for an immigration benefit and adjustment of status, spouses and 
stepchildren of deceased U.S. citizens could qualify for this parole 
process if they demonstrate the additional qualifying criteria at the 
time of filing an immigrant visa petition.
     Stepchildren of a U.S. citizen: Noncitizens who are 
granted parole under this process may have children in the United 
States who lack lawful status and who are unable to adjust their status 
without facing the same barriers that their noncitizen parents would 
encounter in the absence of a parole in place grant under this process.
    DHS determined that providing these noncitizen stepchildren access 
to this process is necessary to fully meet its objective of promoting 
the unity and stability of families in which a U.S. citizen is married 
to a noncitizen who lacks lawful status. DHS estimates that 50,000 
noncitizen children of

[[Page 67476]]

noncitizen spouses who are married to U.S. citizens may be eligible to 
request consideration under this process. However, DHS is requiring 
that the noncitizen stepchild have been continuously physically present 
in the United States without admission or parole since at least June 
17, 2024, and through the date of filing, since children may be under 
the age of 10 or otherwise unable to meet the 10 years required for 
noncitizen spouses of U.S. citizens. Additionally, as with the physical 
presence requirement for spouses, requiring physical presence in the 
United States as of a date prior to announcing this process avoids 
unintentionally incentivizing any irregular migration by noncitizens 
who might otherwise seek to enter the United States to access this 
process.
    DHS also considered limiting this parole in place process to 
children whose noncitizen parent was also requesting parole. DHS 
determined that noncitizen stepchildren of a U.S. citizen may apply for 
an immigrant visa petition separately even if the noncitizen parent 
does not have an immigrant visa or status, and therefore should not be 
excluded from this process. A qualifying noncitizen stepchild of a U.S. 
citizen may be eligible as a beneficiary of Form I-130 based on their 
relationship with the U.S. citizen stepparent. This is the case even if 
the parents divorced or the noncitizen parent died. As such, DHS 
determined that noncitizen stepchildren who would otherwise be eligible 
as a beneficiary of Form I-130 based on a stepparent-stepchild 
relationship, notwithstanding divorce of the parents or death of the 
noncitizen parent, should also be eligible to request parole in place 
under this process.
     Criminal history and threats to national security, public 
safety or border security: DHS determined that noncitizens with serious 
criminal convictions will be ineligible for parole under this 
process.\169\ DHS also determined that other criminal convictions 
(other than minor traffic offenses) will result in a presumption of 
ineligibility for parole. This presumption can be rebutted on a case-
by-case basis by weighing the seriousness of the conviction against 
positive factors that overcome the presumption.\170\ Additionally, all 
requestors will undergo rigorous national security and public safety 
vetting as part of this process. Those individuals who pose a threat to 
national security, public safety or border security \171\ will be 
disqualified from this process and, where appropriate, will be referred 
to law enforcement. In making these determinations, DHS considered that 
certain criminal convictions were likely to render a noncitizen 
statutorily ineligible for adjustment of status, and decided that those 
criminal convictions that are disqualifying for this process would 
generally overlap with the statutory inadmissibility grounds. In 
addition, DHS determined that noncitizens with pending criminal charges 
will be ineligible for parole in place under this process until those 
charges are resolved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \169\ See Section V.A. of this notice for the full list of 
disqualifying criminal convictions.
    \170\ See id. for a list of factors USCIS may consider in 
determining whether the requestor has overcome the presumption.
    \171\ There is an exception for border security concerns for 
stepchildren who otherwise meet the criteria for parole in place 
under this process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Parole period length: DHS determined that a three-year 
grant of parole was most appropriate for this process, though it 
considered both shorter and longer periods of time. Other processes, 
such as the family reunification parole processes, provide for up to a 
three-year grant of parole.
    After being granted parole in place, the noncitizen will generally 
be eligible to apply to adjust their status if they have an approved 
Form I-130 or their Form I-485 is accompanied by a Form I-130. The 
benefits of parole (including lawful presence and employment 
authorization) will remain in effect for the period of parole. 
Currently, the median processing time for an immediate relative Form I-
130, when filed separately from a Form I-485, is 11.4 months, for Form 
I-360 (all categories) is 3.2 months, and the median processing time 
for a family-based Form I-485, when filed separately from a Form I-130, 
is 9.4 months.\172\ Concurrent filing of these two forms is permitted 
for noncitizen spouses of U.S. citizens. Assuming that noncitizens 
would need time to compile evidence for these applications, save the 
necessary funds to pay fees, and file these applications, a three-year 
grant of parole will provide an appropriate amount of time to obtain 
adjustment of status following the grant of parole in place based on 
median USCIS processing times. A shorter timeframe would likely be 
insufficient to cover the time needed to prepare and file the 
adjustment application, while a longer timeframe would risk 
disincentivizing parolees from timely applying for adjustment of 
status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \172\ See Historical National Median Processing Time (in Months) 
for All USCIS Offices for Select Forms by Fiscal Year, available at 
https://egov.uscis.gov/processing-times/historic-pt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In making this determination, DHS considered that parole in place 
is granted for certain military family members for a one-year period, 
which currently is subject to subsequent periods of parole in one-year 
increments, and is also fee exempt. Additionally, military parole in 
place is available for a broader category of relatives: spouses, 
widow(er)s, parents, and sons and daughters of U.S. citizen or LPR 
military members and veterans, whereas this process is open only to 
certain noncitizen spouses and stepchildren of U.S. citizens who may 
have an immediate path to adjustment of status. However, in more recent 
parole processes, DHS has found that a longer parole period is more 
efficient for the public and the agency as it reduces the need for 
recipients to seek re-parole.\173\ A three-year parole period was 
therefore determined to be appropriate for certain noncitizen spouses 
and stepchildren of U.S. citizens to ensure that they have sufficient 
time to obtain adjustment of status during their parole period, 
especially given that re-parole for requestors granted parole under 
this process is not contemplated at this time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \173\ See, e.g., Implementation of a Family Reunification Parole 
Process for Colombians, 88 FR 43591 (July 10, 2023); Implementation 
of a Family Reunification Parole Process for Ecuadorians, 88 FR 
78762 (Nov. 16, 2023); Implementation of a Family Reunification 
Parole Process for Salvadorans, 88 FR 43611 (July 10, 2023); 
Implementation of a Family Reunification Parole Process for 
Guatemalans, 88 FR 43581 (July 10, 2023); Implementation of a Family 
Reunification Parole Process for Hondurans, 88 FR 43601 (July 10, 
2023); Implementation of Changes to the Cuban Family Reunification 
Parole Process, 88 FR 54639 (Aug. 11, 2023); Implementation of 
Changes to the Haitian Family Reunification Parole Process, 88 FR 
54635 (Aug. 11, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Removal proceedings: DHS considered whether and how a 
parole in place process should be available to noncitizens in pending 
removal proceedings under INA section 240, 8 U.S.C. 1229a. Given that 
some noncitizens in removal proceedings may be eligible to adjust 
status if granted parole, USCIS will consider requests for otherwise 
eligible noncitizens in pending removal proceedings who do not have a 
final order of removal. This includes those who have been released on 
bond or their own recognizance under INA section 236(a), 8 U.S.C. 
1226(a), provided they remain applicants for admission. USCIS will 
coordinate with ICE OPLA as it deems appropriate. A noncitizen who is 
considered a national security, public safety or border security 
concern will be generally disqualified from receiving

[[Page 67477]]

parole in place pursuant to this process. However, given the overall 
objective to preserve family unity, there is an exception for border 
security concerns for stepchildren who were placed into proceedings 
after November 1, 2020, who otherwise meet the criteria for parole in 
place under this process. In such cases, USCIS will consider any 
extenuating or mitigating factors, including family unity, age at the 
time of placement in proceedings, or other factors that USCIS considers 
relevant in the exercise of discretion. The exception for border 
security for certain noncitizen stepchildren of a U.S. citizen is 
consistent with the eligibility requirement for this process as stated 
in section V.A. of this preamble (explaining that noncitizen 
stepchildren may request parole in place under this process), the 
requirement for continuous physical presence in the United States only 
covers June 17, 2024 through the date of filing.
     Prior removal orders: DHS considered whether noncitizens 
with unexecuted final removal orders should be eligible for this 
process. DHS determined that noncitizens with unexecuted final removal 
orders will be presumptively ineligible for parole under this process. 
DHS recognizes that a noncitizen may have grounds to request that an 
immigration judge or the BIA reopen their immigration proceedings when 
they are otherwise eligible for adjustment of status, and thus 
determined that categorical ineligibility for this parole process would 
be inappropriate. As a result, DHS will evaluate, in the exercise of 
its discretion on a case-by-case basis, the facts and circumstances 
underlying the unexecuted final removal order and all other mitigating 
factors presented in determining whether the noncitizen may overcome 
the rebuttable presumption of ineligibility and be granted parole in 
place.\174\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \174\ See Section V.A. of this notice for a list of examples of 
information that may be relevant to DHS in its determination as to 
whether the requestor has overcome the presumption of ineligibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS acknowledges that granting parole in place to requestors with 
unexecuted removal orders could increase the volume of motions to 
reopen removal proceedings that EOIR will receive, and which ICE OPLA 
will review and respond to, as appropriate. DHS believes that a 
rebuttable presumption of ineligibility, and consideration of the 
factors listed in Section V.B. of this notice strike an appropriate 
balance to providing access to parole in place under this process to 
noncitizens who may have grounds to support the granting of parole in 
place. If granted parole in place, noncitizens who are prima facie 
eligible for adjustment of status may independently pursue reopening 
and dismissal of their case before EOIR to permit the filing of an 
adjustment of status application before USCIS.
     Form I-130: DHS considered whether the noncitizen should 
be required to have an approved Form I-130 prior to being granted 
parole in place under this process, given that it is a prerequisite for 
access to the FRP processes. However, DHS anticipates that many 
noncitizens who will benefit from this process may not yet have filed a 
Form I-130 because they are currently ineligible to adjust status and 
may not wish to pursue consular processing given the prospect of 
prolonged separation from their U.S. citizen family members. Requiring 
a previously approved Form I-130 could disqualify a significant portion 
of this population from this process and would be less effective in 
achieving the significant public benefits described in this notice, 
including of stabilizing and unifying families and enabling these 
noncitizens to contribute more fully to the U.S. economy. Moreover, 
immediate relatives who have been paroled are eligible to file their 
Form I-130 concurrently with their Form I-485. Requiring that a 
noncitizen file a Form I-130--either alone, or concurrently with a Form 
I-485--to request parole in place under this process would create 
significant inefficiencies and run counter to DHS' goal of reducing 
strain on limited government resources.
     Form I-134: DHS considered whether the noncitizen should 
be required to file Form I-134, Declaration of Financial Support, which 
USCIS uses in certain circumstances to determine whether applicants or 
beneficiaries of certain immigration benefit requests have sufficient 
financial resources or financial support to pay for expenses during 
their temporary stay in the United States.\175\ However, DHS declined 
to include a requirement for submission of Form I-134 for this parole 
in place process. USCIS has not generally required Form I-134 for 
parole in place requests. For the existing military parole in place 
process, noncitizen family members of U.S. military service members who 
are granted parole in place are required to file Form I-864, Affidavit 
of Support Under INA Section 213A when they file for adjustment of 
status. Form I-864A is executed by a sponsor as evidence that the 
noncitizen has adequate means of financial support and are not likely 
at any time to become a public charge under INA section 212(a)(4)(A), 8 
U.S.C 1182(a)(4)(A). Similarly, following a grant of parole in place 
through this process, noncitizen spouses and noncitizen stepchildren 
are expected to apply to adjust status, at which time they too will be 
required to submit a Form I-864. Once adjustment of status is granted, 
the sponsorship obligations associated with the Form I-864 remain in 
effect until, for example, the noncitizen naturalizes or is credited 
with 40 quarters of work.\176\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \175\ DOS also requests applicants or beneficiaries of certain 
immigration benefit requests submit Form I-134 in certain 
circumstances.
    \176\ See 8 CFR 213a.3(e)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS has, therefore, determined that requiring a noncitizen to 
submit a Form I-134 as part of their parole in place request when 
shortly thereafter, they will be required to submit a Form I-864 with 
their adjustment of status application, is unnecessarily duplicative 
and adds an extra burden on requestors. Moreover, requiring USCIS 
officers to adjudicate similar but unrelated evidence related to 
financial support would create inefficiencies that run counter to DHS's 
goals of reducing strain on limited government resources and 
facilitating access to adjustment of status through this process.
     Inadmissibility: DHS additionally considered requiring the 
requestor to demonstrate that they are not inadmissible under any 
ground set forth in INA section 212(a), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a), to be granted 
parole under this process. This parole in place process is meant for 
those requestors who are otherwise eligible to adjust status. As noted 
elsewhere in this notice, serious criminal convictions, including 
certain convictions that would render the requestor inadmissible and 
therefore ineligible for adjustment of status, will be disqualifying 
for this process; other criminal convictions, as well as prior, 
unexecuted removal orders, will trigger a rebuttable presumption of 
ineligibility for this process. However, detailed consideration of 
grounds of inadmissibility--including whether applicable grounds can be 
waived--is a complex analysis undertaken during the Form I-485 
adjustment of status adjudication. Requiring parole in place 
adjudicators to conduct the inadmissibility analysis that is normally 
conducted at the adjustment of status stage would be an inefficient, 
duplicative, and costly use of USCIS resources. Therefore, when 
assessing eligibility for parole in place, while DHS will consider the 
requestor's criminal and immigration history and any other

[[Page 67478]]

adverse factors that could bear upon admissibility, it will not import 
the admissibility analysis conducted at the Form I-485 stage into the 
parole adjudication.
    As discussed elsewhere in this notice, a grant of parole in place 
would satisfy the requirement under INA section 245(a), 8 U.S.C. 
1255(a), that the adjustment applicant has been ``inspected and 
admitted or paroled'' by an immigration officer. This process is meant 
for requestors who are otherwise eligible for adjustment of status and 
who merit a favorable exercise of discretion; the noncitizen, however, 
when applying to adjust status, must satisfy all other requirements for 
adjustment of status, including establishing that the requestor is not 
inadmissible under any applicable grounds.

B. Resource Considerations and Impacts on USCIS Processing

    DHS has considered the potential impact of this process on 
noncitizens applying for other immigration benefits. While there could 
be an impact initially on wait times for other USCIS-administered 
immigration programs and processes, over time, this process will assist 
USCIS in creating efficiencies in other workloads. For example, USCIS 
will be able to reduce processing times more quickly for the Form I-
601A because some noncitizens who would have filed a Form I-601A and 
pursued consular processing would instead request parole in place and 
adjustment of status. DHS also considered the potential impact of this 
process on USCIS operations. This process will result in an increased 
number of individuals visiting USCIS Application Support Centers (ASC) 
to have their biometrics collected and will require USCIS to divert 
some resources to develop the technical solutions to administer this 
process and complete the adjudications. However, because USCIS will 
require all parole in place requestors to pay a fee, it is anticipated 
that the agency will recover fully the costs associated with this 
workload.
    USCIS also anticipates that this process will lead to increased 
filings of Forms I-485 because some noncitizens who would otherwise 
seek lawful permanent residence via consular processing, or would have 
remained without status, will now seek adjustment of status. However, 
USCIS expects that the costs to the agency of adjudicating increased 
volumes of Forms I-485 will be in large part recovered by the Form I-
485 fees. DHS has also determined that any additional adjudicatory 
costs are warranted by the significant public benefits described 
throughout this notice.
    Finally, the process will provide needed relief to U.S. embassies 
and consulates, some of which have significant backlogs of noncitizens 
awaiting interviews for immigrant visa applications.

C. Potential Impact on Federal Government and Access to Federal 
Benefits

    DHS has considered the impact of the proposed process on 
eligibility for Federal public benefits. Only noncitizens who are 
considered ``qualified aliens'' may access certain Federal public 
benefits programs.\177\ ``Qualified aliens'' include noncitizens 
paroled under INA section 212(d)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5), for a period 
of at least one year, as well as lawful permanent residents and several 
other categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \177\ See Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), Public Law 104-193, title IV, 
110 Stat. 2105, 2260-77 (Aug 22, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, nearly all of these benefits programs are available only 
to noncitizens who have been in ``qualified'' status for at least five 
years. For example, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 
(SNAP) generally requires noncitizens to have been in ``qualified'' 
status for five years before they may potentially receive benefits. 
Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and the 
Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) similarly generally require 
five years in ``qualified'' status for noncitizens who entered after 
August 22, 1996.\178\ Given that noncitizens eligible for this process 
are estimated on average to have lived in the United States for 23 
years,\179\ DHS anticipates that the majority of those who may be 
considered for parole in place will have entered after this date. 
Accordingly, most noncitizens who receive parole pursuant to this 
process will not be eligible to access public Federal benefits for at 
least five years. And, although the provision of parole in place will 
start the five-year waiting period prior to adjustment of status, DHS 
anticipates that the uptake of these public benefits would likely be 
curtailed by the noncitizen's access to lawful employment. Upon receipt 
of employment authorization and gainful employment, spouses and 
stepchildren of U.S. citizens may no longer need or qualify for public 
benefits. Additionally, noncitizens' eventual potential ability to 
access benefits after being granted parole through this process may 
well be offset by increased tax revenue and other economic benefits 
created by their ability to obtain lawful employment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \178\ 8 U.S.C. 1613.
    \179\ OHSS Analysis, supra note 3, tbl. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Unlike the analysis that most noncitizens who receive parole 
pursuant to this process will not be eligible to access public benefits 
for at least five years, Cuban and Haitian nationals who are granted 
parole are eligible for special ``Cuban-Haitian Entrant Program'' 
(CHEP) benefits.\180\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \180\ See Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980, Public Law 
96-422, sec. 501 (8 U.S.C. 1522 note); 8 CFR 212.5(h); see also U.S. 
Dep't of Health and Human Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement, 
Benefits for Cuban/Haitian Entrants (Fact Sheet), available at 
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/fact-sheet/benefits-cuban/haitian-entrants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Potential Impact on States

    DHS considered the potential impact of the proposed process on 
State budgets, including noncitizens' access to means tested benefits, 
driver's licenses, and public education. As discussed elsewhere in this 
notice, DHS also considered the potential economic benefit to State and 
local governments through the provision of employment authorization to 
eligible parolees, and increased tax revenue to States that will result 
from this process. A comprehensive quantified accounting of local and 
State fiscal impacts specifically due to this parole in place process 
is not possible, in part due to the case-by-case nature of the 
determinations. DHS cannot predict with the available information the 
impact these noncitizens might have on State and local programs or the 
degree they will contribute to State and local budgets.
    Access to means-tested benefits for eligible noncitizens varies at 
the State level. States can accept Federal funds to assist them with 
providing such benefits and have the authority to determine the 
eligibility of qualified noncitizens for certain designated Federal 
programs including TANF, Medicaid, and CHIP. Several States-including 
Indiana, Mississippi, Ohio, South Carolina, and Texas-deny some 
qualified noncitizens access to TANF even after the five-year waiting 
period has elapsed. While means-tested benefit costs at both the 
Federal and State levels could increase because of potential earlier 
access to qualified noncitizen status for the purpose of benefits 
eligibility than would otherwise be the case absent this parole in 
place process, for most States, any increase in benefit-based spending 
for these parolees will be delayed by the five-year waiting period. 
Upon receipt of employment authorization and gainful employment, 
spouses and stepchildren of U.S. citizens may no

[[Page 67479]]

longer need or qualify for public benefits. Additionally, noncitizens' 
eventual potential ability to access benefits after being granted 
parole through this process may well be offset by increased tax revenue 
and other economic benefits created by their ability to obtain lawful 
employment.
    The extent to which this process will impact States in the short 
term because of noncitizens granted parole gaining access to driver's 
licenses will depend on State policy. Although 19 States, the District 
of Columbia, and Puerto Rico already provide noncitizens access to 
driver's licenses regardless of immigration status, other States make 
access to driver's licenses contingent on lawful immigration status. 
However, the REAL ID Act of 2005 \181\ and its implementing regulations 
exclude parolees from the list of categories of individuals eligible 
for REAL ID-compliant licenses. Therefore, whether noncitizens who are 
granted parole under this process can receive driver's licenses will 
depend upon States' willingness to continue to issue non-REAL ID 
compliant licenses to this population, either because they issue 
driver's licenses to noncitizens regardless of their immigration status 
or because they contemplate issuing licenses to noncitizens in 
immigration statuses beyond those included in the REAL ID Act. DHS 
acknowledges that the provision of parole in place may enable 
noncitizens to pursue adjustment of status sooner than they otherwise 
would, and in States where a noncitizen would not have access to a 
driver's license before becoming an LPR, this process would render them 
eligible to apply for a driver's license sooner. However, many States 
may also charge fees for driver's licenses, and therefore the cost to 
States caused by additional noncitizens becoming eligible for driver's 
licenses following a grant of parole in place under this process may be 
mitigated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \181\ See Public Law 109-13, div. B, secs. 201-207 (codified at 
49 U.S.C. 30301 note); see also 6 CFR pt. 37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS also considered the impact of this process on State education 
costs. DHS recognizes that undocumented noncitizen students receive K-
12 education that is publicly funded. Although the provision of parole 
to some of these undocumented noncitizen students may result in some 
indirect fiscal effects on State and local governments, the direction 
of the effect is dependent on multiple factors. Given the criteria 
requiring stepchildren of U.S. citizens to be continuously physically 
present in the United States since at least June 17, 2024, these 
noncitizens would already be present in the United States and likely 
attending public school even in the absence of this process.
    While some States may allow noncitizens with parole to qualify for 
in-state tuition rates at public universities, which may not be 
available to similarly situated noncitizens without parole, the costs 
to the States will depend on choices they make and will be location-
specific. The fiscal impact is therefore difficult to quantify, let 
alone predict. However, any cost associated with additional access to 
in-state tuition rates at public universities may be offset by the 
further pursuit of education and the resultant economic benefits. The 
provision of parole and employment authorization may motivate 
recipients to continue their education, pursue post-secondary and 
advanced degrees, and seek additional vocational training, which 
ultimately provides greater opportunities, financial stability, and 
disposable income for themselves and their families.\182\ This in turn 
benefits their communities at large and increases the potential 
economic benefit to State and local governments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \182\ See, e.g., Zachary Liscow and William Woolson, Does Legal 
Status Matter for Educational Choices? Evidence from Immigrant 
Teenagers, American Law and Economics Review (Dec. 11, 2017), 
available at https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3083026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As described throughout this notice, this process will provide 
multiple significant benefits to the U.S. public. DHS has identified 
and considered the interests of the parties affected by establishment 
of this process and has, to the extent possible, determined that the 
significant public benefits of the case-by-case parole of noncitizens 
under this process to the United States outweigh the anticipated costs 
to Federal and State governments alike. Additionally, given that the 
population eligible to request parole in place under this process is 
limited to those who have been continuously physically present in the 
United States since June 17, 2014, or in the case of stepchildren of 
U.S. citizens, since at least June 17, 2024, DHS does not believe this 
process will meaningfully affect or create incentives for noncitizens 
to enter the United States.

VIII. Regulatory Requirements

A. Analysis of Benefits, Costs, and Governmental Transfers

Estimated Population
    According to DHS analysis from the Office of Homeland Security 
Statistics, this process could benefit an estimated 500,000 
unauthorized noncitizen spouses of U.S. citizens as well as an 
estimated 50,000 unauthorized noncitizen stepchildren of U.S. citizens. 
The estimated 500,000 unauthorized noncitizen spouses is the average of 
the estimated interval of 300,000 to 700,000 potential noncitizen 
spouses of U.S. citizens. To provide a more informed analysis when 
estimating costs, benefits, and transfers of this process, DHS assumes 
two scenarios: one designates ``scenario 350K'' as a low population 
estimate scenario that includes 300,000 spouses and 50,000 
stepchildren, and the other designates ``scenario 750K'' as a high 
population estimate that includes 700,000 spouses and 50,000 
stepchildren.\183\ For the final estimated numbers DHS takes the point 
estimate, that is the average between the low estimate and high 
estimate scenarios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \183\ DHS cannot accurately predict the behavior of the affected 
population and hence cannot accurately forecast how many individuals 
would choose to pursue this policy. The two population scenarios can 
therefore better inform stakeholders of possible impacts, showing 
estimated impacts if less (more) individuals than the point estimate 
of 550,000 choose to pursue this policy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Using data on the estimated unauthorized immigrant population 
living in the United States,\184\ DHS first estimates the broader 
unauthorized population present in the United States for at least 10 
years. DHS then separates the unauthorized populations into two 
categories, making assumptions on the population that is PWAP 
(previously known as entered without inspection or EWI) and the 
population that overstayed their period of admission. The PWAP 
population is the population of interest under this process. Once the 
PWAP population in the United States is estimated, DHS filters this 
population by the proportion of the unauthorized population married to 
a U.S. citizen,\185\ which yields the estimated 500,000 unauthorized 
noncitizen spouses present in the United States for at least 10 years. 
To arrive at the estimated number of 50,000 stepchildren, DHS uses 
fertility data to assume a rate of children per marriage as well as 
assumptions on the average household composition of U.S. citizen 
children and unauthorized stepchildren.\186\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \184\ Bryan Baker and Robert Warren, Estimates of the 
Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: 
January 2018-January 2022, available at https://ohss.dhs.gov/topics/immigration/unauthorized-immigrants/estimates-unauthorized-immigrants (last visited June 17, 2024).
    \185\ This rate is on average 12%. Source: Migration Policy 
Institute, Profile of the Unauthorized Population: United States, 
available at https://www.migrationpolicy.org/data/unauthorized-immigrant-population/state/US (last visited June 17, 2024).

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

[[Page 67480]]

Wages
    DHS estimates that this process would result in increased earnings 
for the population that gains work authorization by removing the ``wage 
penalty'' that affects undocumented individuals in the United States. 
Determining the magnitude of this increase in earnings requires 
identifying the percentage of the population that applies for parole 
that is in the labor force, the size of the wage penalty, and the wages 
of this population in the baseline.
    First, DHS assumes the labor participation rate of this population 
is similar to that of foreign-born workers. Therefore, DHS estimates 
that approximately 67 percent of this population are currently in the 
informal labor force,\187\ or 234,500 individuals for scenario 350K, 
and 502,500 individuals for scenario 750K. DHS assumes these estimates 
remain constant with this process, i.e., the same percentage in this 
population would transition to or chose to participate in the formal 
labor market once authorized under this process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \187\ In 2023, the labor force participation rate of the foreign 
born increased to approximately 67 percent (rounded value). See BLS 
Foreign-Born Workers: Labor Force Characteristics--2023 (May 21, 
2024) https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/forbrn_05212024.pdf.
    Calculation: 350,000 * 67 percent = 234.500, and 750,000 * 67 
percent = 502,500.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS recognizes that providing employment authorization could induce 
additional entry into the labor force. For example, Pope (2016) found 
DACA increased the likelihood of a sample of noncitizens in DACA-
eligible age groups working by 3.7-4.8 percentage points and their 
number of hours worked per week by 0.9-1.7 hours, stemming from an 
increase in labor force participation and a decrease in 
unemployment.\188\ Pope also notes that because the non-citizen sample 
analyzed was comprised of nearly 40% authorized immigrants, the true 
effect would be approximately 1.6 times larger (5.9-7.7 percentage 
points). Additional research from Pan (2012) \189\--studying the 
effects of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986--and Orrenius 
and Zavodny (2015) \190\--studying the effects of Temporary Protected 
Status--provides more granular detail that, following receipt of lawful 
status, wage increases (discussed below) may be clustered among men and 
higher employment rates may be clustered among women. However, DHS 
assumes no increase in employment resulting from this process. As a 
result, the assumption of a static employment rate could result in an 
underestimate of the total impact.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \188\ Nolan G. Pope, The Effects of DACAmentation: The Impact of 
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals on Unauthorized Immigrants, 
Journal of Public Economics, vol. 143, 2016: 98-114.
    \189\ Pan, Y. The Impact of Legal Status on Immigrants' Earnings 
and Human Capital: Evidence from the IRCA 1986. J. Labor Res. 33, 
119-142 (2012).
    \190\ Orrenius, Pia M., and Madeline Zavodny. 2015. ``The Impact 
of Temporary Protected Status on Immigrants' Labor Market 
Outcomes.'' American Economic Review, 105(5): 576-80.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, there is an extensive literature showing that documented 
immigrants tend to earn higher wages than those who are undocumented. 
This difference is known as the wage penalty,\191\ which Borjas and 
Cassidy (2019) define as the wage difference between observationally-
equivalent documented and undocumented immigrants.\192\ In order to 
quantify the marginal impact of providing employment authorization on 
earnings for undocumented spouses, DHS consulted several studies. Table 
1 shows the studies and the various wage penalty percentages from their 
findings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \191\ Despite being labeled as a ``wage penalty,'' such 
estimates are generally reported as a percentage of earnings before 
work authorization, rather than after.
    \192\ See George J. Borjas and Hugh Cassidy, The wage penalty to 
undocumented immigration, Lab. Econ. 61, art. 101757 (2019) 
(hereinafter Borjas and Cassidy (2019)), https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/gborjas/files/labourecon2020.pdf.

                             Table 1--Studies on Undocumented Worker Wage Penalties
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Wage penalty                       Author                        Title and descriptor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4% to 6%.............................  Borjas & Cassidy (2019)  The wage penalty to undocumented immigration.
                                                                Wage earned as a documented noncitizen could be,
                                                                 on average, 4 to 6 percent higher than the wage
                                                                 of an individual working as an undocumented
                                                                 noncitizen.
5%...................................  Ortega & Hsin (2022)...  Occupational barriers and the productivity
                                                                 penalty from lack of legal status.
                                                                The wage gap between documented and undocumented
                                                                 workers in the period 2010-2012 is 12 percent
                                                                 in occupations with entry barriers (30.1% of
                                                                 undocumented workers) and 2 percent in
                                                                 occupations without entry barriers (69.9% of
                                                                 undocumented workers) when accounting for
                                                                 observable characteristics (similar education
                                                                 and skills) other than occupation.
8%...................................  Albert (2021)..........  The Labor Market Impact of Immigration: Job
                                                                 Creation versus Job Competition.
                                                                Using data from 1994-2016, the wage gap--
                                                                 conditional on observable characteristics--
                                                                 between undocumented and document immigrants is
                                                                 8 percent.
14% to 24%...........................  Kossoudji & Cobb-Clark   Coming Out of the Shadows: Learning about Legal
                                        (1998).                  Status and Wages From the Legalized Population.
                                                                The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986
                                                                 (IRCA) authorized the granting of lawful status
                                                                 to approximately 1.7 million long[hyphen]term
                                                                 unauthorized workers in an effort to bring them
                                                                 ``out of the shadows'' and improve their labor
                                                                 market opportunities. An analysis of wages
                                                                 using panel data for a sample of men granted
                                                                 lawful status provides evidence that wage
                                                                 determinants are structurally different after
                                                                 legal status was available for them but not for
                                                                 the comparison group as measured during the
                                                                 same time periods. The wage penalty for being
                                                                 unauthorized is estimated to range from 14% to
                                                                 24%.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Borjas and Cassidy (2019) examine the wage differential between 
informal and formal work for immigrant populations finding that the 
wage earned as a documented noncitizen could be, on average, 4 to 6 
percent higher than the wage of an individual working as an 
undocumented noncitizen.\193\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \193\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ortega and Hsin (2022) find that the wage penalty between 
documented and undocumented workers in the period 2010-2012 is 12 
percent in occupations with entry barriers (30.1% of undocumented 
workers) and 2 percent in occupations without entry barriers (69.9% of 
undocumented workers) when accounting for observable

[[Page 67481]]

characteristics (similar education and skills) other than 
occupation.\194\ In aggregate, the wage penalty is 5%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \194\ Francesc Ortega and Amy Hsin, Occupational barriers and 
the productivity penalty from lack of legal status, https://docs.iza.org/dp11680.pdf Labour Economics 76 (2022): 102181, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0927537122000720.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Albert (2021) uses data from 1994-2016 to estimate that the wage 
gap--conditional on observable characteristics--between undocumented 
and document immigrants is 8 percent.\195\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \195\ Albert, Cristoph The Labor Market Impact of Immigration: 
Job Creation versus Job Competition, American Economic Journal: 
Macroeconomics 13(1) 2021, https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/mac.20190042.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Kossoudji & Cobb-Clark (1998) used the change in policy caused by 
the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA)--which authorized 
the granting of lawful status to approximately 1.7 million 
long[hyphen]term unauthorized workers--to analyze the question of 
whether and how legal status influences wages.\196\ The policy 
effectively brought unauthorized immigrants out of the informal labor 
market and improved their labor market opportunities. Their analysis of 
wages used panel data for a sample of Mexican and Central American 
legalized men which provided evidence that wage determinants are 
structurally different after legal status was extended to this group. 
The analysis suggests that upon arrival in the U.S. labor market, 
unauthorized men's wages would have been 14 percent higher if they had 
been authorized workers; if they had been authorized for all their U.S. 
working lives, wages in 1992 would be 24 percent higher than actual 
wages.\197\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \196\ Kossoudji & Cobb-Clark Coming Out of the Shadows: Learning 
About Legal Status and Wages from the Legalized Population, Lab. 
Econ. 20(3) 2002, https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/epdf/10.1086/339611.
    \197\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, estimating baseline wages cannot be done through use of 
traditional sources for wages, such as the Department of Labor Bureau 
of Labor Statistics' (BLS) data, as they do not provide wage estimates 
for undocumented workers. Consequently, DHS considered several studies 
to get a range of estimates for earnings of undocumented workers.
    A 2022 report by the Center for Migration Studies states that 
``mean and median annual wages of Hispanic undocumented immigrants who 
are employed (ages 16 and above) are $28,252 and $25,000, 
respectively.'' \198\ Given that two-thirds of the estimated 
undocumented immigrant population is Hispanic,\199\ DHS considers the 
mean wage of $28,252, which we adjust up using the Employment Cost 
Index (wages and salaries for private industry workers) to $33,302 
(2023 dollars), a reasonable lower estimate for this population's 
earnings.\200\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \198\ Evin Millet and Jacquelyn Pavilon, Demographic Profile of 
Undocumented Hispanic Immigrants in the United States (Oct. 14, 
2022), at https://cmsny.org/publications/hispanic-undocumented-immigrants-millet-pavilon-101722/. This report also provides that, 
in comparison, the mean and median wages for Hispanic documented 
immigrants are $40,032 and $30,000, respectively. Accordingly, the 
2022 Center for Migration Studies (CMS) data indicate a wage gap of 
40 percent for mean earnings and 20 percent for median earnings. 
However, DHS excludes the 20 percent to 40 percent wage gap 
identified in the report from this analysis because the CMS report 
compares only the average wages between documented and undocumented 
workers. The CMS report did not state it made any adjustments for 
other factors that may affect the differences in wages between the 
two populations, such as age, education, or skills. Without these 
adjustments, the wage gap between the two populations may not 
necessarily equate to the wage penalty for being undocumented.
    Note: This study uses 2019 Census ACS data. Earnings to be 
adjusted to 2023 dollars.
    \199\ Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population 
Residing in the United States: January 2018-January 2022, DHS, 
Office of Homeland Security Statistics (May 6, 2024), at https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2024-05/2024_0418_ohss_estimates-of-the-unauthorized-immigrant-population-residing-in-the-united-states-january-2018%E2%80%93january-2022.pdf, Table 2 Unauthorized 
Immigrant Population Estimates by Top 10 Countries of Birth: 2018-
2020 and 2022.
    \200\ Source: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ECIWAG. 
Calculation: Earnings CY 2019 *(Average CY 2023 ECIWAG/Average CY 
2019 ECIWAG) = $28,252 * 1.17874 = $33,302 (rounded).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In other regulations, USCIS has used the 10th percentile wage as a 
proxy for low-paying or entry-level jobs weighted to include benefits 
for full compensation.\201\ The 10th percentile wage is not specific to 
undocumented workers; however, it is an example of a lower wage that we 
have used in other rules. DHS presents wage data from BLS National 
Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates for an unweighted, 10th 
percentile wage estimate for all occupations to provide another point 
of comparison.\202\ DHS takes the hourly wage of $13.97 and adjusts it 
by 1.45 to account for worker benefits to get the average total rate of 
compensation as $20.26 per hour.\203\ This wage estimate adjusted by 
1.45 is appropriate, even if workers are in the informal labor market 
and do not receive similar benefits. It is appropriate in this analysis 
because the 10th percentile of full compensation is being estimated 
based on the 10th percentile wage estimate in order to serve as a 
plausible benchmark for this population's average earnings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \201\ See Temporary Increase of the Automatic Extension Period 
of Employment Authorization and Documentation for Certain Employment 
Authorization Document Renewal Applicants, 89 FR 24628 (Apr. 8, 
2024) (final rule), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-04-08/pdf/2024-07345.pdf; Classification for Victims of Severe Forms of 
Trafficking in Persons; Eligibility for ``T'' Nonimmigrant Status, 
89 FR 34864 (Apr. 30, 2024) (final rule), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-04-30/pdf/2024-09022.pdf.
    \202\ See Occupational Employment Statistics program, All 
Occupations, available at https://www.bls.gov/oes/2023/may/oes_nat.htm#00-0000. 10th percentile hourly wages used here are 
available in the ``national_M2023_dl'' excel file at https://www.bls.gov/oes/special.requests/oesm23nat.zip (last visited July 
11, 2024).
    \203\ The benefits-to-wage multiplier is calculated as follows: 
(total employee compensation per hour)/(wages and salaries per hour) 
= $42.48/$29.32 = 1.45 (rounded). See Bureau of Labor Stat., U.S. 
Dep't of Labor, ``Employer Costs for Employee Compensation--December 
2023,'' https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_03172023.pdf 
(last visited July 11, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Assuming approximately 1,784 hours worked per year (34.3 average 
weekly hours worked as of 2023, multiplied by 52 weeks in a year),\204\ 
someone earning compensation of $20.26 per hour would earn 
approximately $36,136 annually. DHS does not rule out the possibility 
that this population might earn higher wages than shown in this 
analysis on average, but we believe that these earnings represent a 
reasonable estimate of the range of incomes that undocumented spouses 
may be able to earn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \204\ Bureau of Labor Stat., U.S. Dep't of Labor, https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_01052024.htm (last visited 
July 10, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Table 2, we apply the various wage penalty estimates from Table 
1 to the wage estimates for unauthorized workers discussed above to 
estimate a range of increase in potential income--from 4 percent to 24 
percent--as a result of obtaining parole. We also include a simple 
arithmetic mean of the central estimate of the three articles used to 
generate these estimates, 9%, to illustrate a potential central 
estimate of the wage penalty.\205\ The result is a range of estimates 
for the increased marginal earnings due to work authorization. DHS 
estimates that receiving employment authorization can increase an 
immigrant's earnings by about $1,332 to $8,672 per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \205\ Calculation: ((4% + 6%)/2 + 5% + 8% + (14% + 24%)/2)/4 = 
9% (rounding).

[[Page 67482]]



 Table 2--Estimated Increased Marginal Earnings per Worker and per Year
                             [2023 Dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Scenarios for earnings without work
                                                authorization
         Wage penalty (%)          -------------------------------------
                                       $33,302 \1\        $36,135 \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.................................             $1,332             $1,445
5.................................              1,665              1,807
6.................................              1,998              2,168
8.................................              2,664              2,891
9.................................              2,997              3,252
14................................              4,662              5,059
24................................              7,992              8,672
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
Estimated marginal earning per worker calculated for each scenario by
  multiplying the wage penalty by the earnings without work
  authorization, for example: $33,302 x 4% = $1,332.
\1\ CMS: https://cmsny.org/publications/hispanic-undocumented-immigrants-millet-pavilon-101722.
Adjusted 2019 estimate using Employment Cost Index to 2023 dollars.
\2\ 10% Percentile: https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_research_estimates.htm.
Adjusted to include benefits as reported by BLS, https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_03132024.htm.

    DHS assumes that the estimated 234,500 in scenario 350K and 502,500 
individuals in scenario 750K are currently in the informal labor force 
and would receive parole as well as employment authorization--
increasing their earnings--as a result of this process. Consistent with 
standard practice in regulatory impact analyses, as well as current 
evidence in the labor market,\206\ DHS assumes full employment (that 
is, that all workers looking for work can find employment in the labor 
market); accordingly, there is no need to consider the extent to which 
the labor of affected individuals substitutes for the labor of workers 
already employed in the economy. For further discussion of the 
literature on labor substitution and immigration, see ``Labor Market 
Impacts'' below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \206\ The prime-age (25-54) employment-to-population ratio has 
been over 80% since November 2022. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12300060 (last accessed July 10, 2024). Methods that 
isolate the effect of population aging (capturing, for example, 
aging within the 25-54 cohort) indicate that the adjusted 
employment-to-population ratio is at historical highs. https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2023/07/27/labor-market-indicators-are-historically-strong-after-adjusting-for-population-aging/. Other measures of full employment provide evidence that 
there is not substantial slack in the labor market; for example, in 
the July 2024 Summary of Economic Projections of the Board of 
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the unemployment rate is 
projected to remain below the longer-run stable value in 2024. 
https://www.federalreserve.gov/monetarypolicy/2024-07-mpr-part3.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The increased gross annual earnings from the process are estimated 
by multiplying the marginal increased earnings per worker due to 
employment authorization (Table 2) by the estimated labor force 
participation population numbers under scenario 350K (234,500) and 750K 
(502,500), respectively. Table 3 presents these estimates.

                              Table 3--Total Gross Annual Marginal Earnings Gained
                                                 [2023 Dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Earnings $33,302                      Earnings $36,135
          Wage penalty (%)           ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Scenario 350k      Scenario 750k      Scenario 350k      Scenario 750k
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4...................................       $312,372,760       $669,370,200       $338,946,300       $726,313,500
5...................................        390,465,950        836,712,750        423,682,875        907,891,875
6...................................        468,559,140      1,004,055,300        508,419,450      1,089,470,250
8...................................        624,745,520      1,338,740,400        677,892,600      1,452,627,000
9...................................        702,838,710      1,506,082,950        762,629,175      1,634,205,375
14..................................      1,093,304,660      2,342,795,700      1,186,312,050      2,542,097,250
24..................................      1,874,236,560      4,016,221,200      2,033,677,800      4,357,881,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Total annual earnings is calculated by taking the benefits estimated from work authorization in Table 2
  for each scenario and multiplying it by the population participating in the labor market. For example: under
  the 350k scenario where the relevant population are earning, on average, $33,302/year and the wage penalty is
  4%, then the benefit of work authorization is $1,332/year; when multiplied by the working population of
  234,500, the total annual increase of gaining work authorization for this population is $312 million/year.


[[Page 67483]]

    Using the 9% wage penalty as the preferred measure of central 
tendency, it implies increased earnings of $0.70 billion to $1.63 
billion in additional earnings per year. To produce a point estimate, 
DHS takes the average across the two scenarios (using the 9% wage 
penalty) to arrive at $1.15 billion (rounded), as its preferred 
estimate of the gross annual increased earnings resulting from this 
process.
Benefits
    As noted above, DHS estimates an additional $1.15 billion in annual 
earnings stemming from this process.\207\ As noted in Ortega & Hsin 
(2022), these short-term increased earnings are explained by group-
specific occupational barriers associated with a lack of legal status 
that cause a misallocation of talent and human capital. The study found 
that providing legal status to these workers increases the productivity 
of these workers, and therefore represent net economic gains.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \207\ Not all of these earnings are retained by workers; some 
are taxed, both through payroll taxes and other taxes, as previously 
discussed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To the extent that the long-term increase in productivity is not 
fully captured by the increase in earnings--for example, due to 
employer labor market power--this earnings estimate understates the 
true economic gains.\208\ And as previously noted, to the extent that 
this process leads to additional labor force participation--as per Pope 
(2016), Pan (2012), and Orrenius and Zavodny (2015)--the earnings 
estimate may also understate the benefit of this process. The total 
increase in earnings will also be understated if individuals, after 
gaining lawful status, switch from industries where they currently face 
lower wage penalties to industries where they would currently face 
higher wage penalties. In the Ortega and Hsin (2022) estimation of the 
effects of grants of lawful status on GDP, the direct wage effect is 
less than a fifth of the total increase in earnings, meaning the true 
effect of lawful status on earnings may be five times higher than the 
wage penalty estimate. In addition, Ortega & Hsin note that the long-
term productivity gain may be higher because the affected population 
anticipates labor market barriers in occupations with high skill 
requirements, leading to under-investment in human capital. To the 
extent the process leads to closer-to-optimal investment in human 
capital (in a manner not reflected in the literature used to estimate 
the wage penalty), the long-term benefits of this process could be 
higher.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \208\ See, e.g., David Card, Who Set Your Wage?, American 
Economic Review, vol. 112, no. 4, April 2022: 1075-90.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Beyond earnings, the process's immediate benefits include a sense 
of security and belonging for the affected population, their families, 
and communities due to the program offering a less burdensome path to 
adjustment of status. The population that could be eligible for parole 
in place through this process subsequently could apply for adjustment 
of status to that of an LPR and, if granted, would gain the freedom and 
ability to travel internationally.
    Noncitizens in the population granted parole in place under this 
process would benefit from being able to earn lawful wages through 
participation in the labor market (less the value of their leisure time 
prior to this process) including expanded employment options not 
previously available to them. Noncitizens who work would contribute to 
Federal, State, and local taxes and would benefit from the Social 
Security system in retirement. Additionally, and generally, some 
noncitizens could benefit from eventually having access to public 
assistance programs only available to qualified noncitizens and U.S. 
citizens if a need for such assistance arises and if they are not 
already a beneficiary of assistance through their U.S. citizen spouse 
or parent.\209\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \209\ For example, without this policy and all else equal, 
stepchildren that become adults and become independent of parents 
would not have access to public assistance program only available to 
authorized noncitizens or naturalized citizens. The same could apply 
in the cases of divorce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Research provides a variety of more specific evidence on the 
benefits of gaining lawful status for populations that have resided in 
the United States for periods of time without lawful status. For 
example, Patler and Pirtle (2018) find that reports of current 
psychological wellness increase for DACA recipients.\210\ Hasager 
(2024) finds that in conditions where women's resident status is 
contingent on remaining married to their husbands, grants of legal 
status (in this case, asylum) to such women decreases their risk of 
being victims of violence.\211\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \210\ Caitlin Patler and Whitney Laster Pirtle, From 
Undocumented to Lawfully Present: Do Changes to Legal Status Impact 
Psychological Wellbeing Among Latino Immigrant Youth Adults?, Social 
Science & Medicine, vol. 199 (2018): 39-48.
    \211\ Linea Hasager, Does Granting Refugee Status to Family-
Reunified Women Improve Their Integration?, Journal of Public 
Economics, vol. 234 (2024): 105119.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Research also indicates that benefits can spillover to additional 
individuals. For example, Cascio, Cornell, and Lewis (2024) found that 
the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 led to higher 
birthweights among mothers who gained legal status.\212\ This effect 
arose immediately after applications opened--long before the affected 
women would have been able to become eligible for Medicaid--indicating 
that the causality stemmed from factors other than improved access to 
prenatal care, such as higher family income and reductions in stress 
that come from gaining legal status. As Cascio, Cornell, and Lewis 
(2024) note, birthweight is a predictor of later school achievement 
\213\ as well as adult educational attainment rates, IQ, health, and 
labor market outcomes.\214\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \212\ Elizabeth U. Cascio, Paul Cornell and Ethan G. Lewis, The 
Intergenerational Effects of Permanent Legal Status, NBER Working 
Paper No. 32635 (June 2004), https://www.nber.org/papers/w32635.
    \213\ Figlio, David, Jonathan Guryan, Krzysztof Karbownik, and 
Jeffrey Roth. 2014. ``The Effects of Poor Neonatal Health on 
Children's Cognitive Development.'' American Economic Review 
104(12): 3921-3955.
    \214\ Behrman, Jere R. and Mark R. Rosenzweig. 2004. ``Returns 
to Birth Weight.'' Review of Economics and Statistics. 86(2): 586-
601; Black, Sandra E., Paul J. Devereux, and Kjell G. Salvanes. 
2007. ``From the Cradle to the Labor Market? The Effect of Birth 
Weight on Adult Outcomes.'' Quarterly Journal of Economics 122(1): 
409-439; Philip Oreopoulos, Mark Stabile, Randy Walld, and Leslie L. 
Roos, Short-, Medium-, and Long-Term Consequences of Poor Infant 
Health: An Analysis Using Siblings and Twins, Journal of Human 
Resources, January 2008, 43 (1) 88-138; Royer, Heather. 2009. 
``Separated at Girth: U.S. Twin Estimates of the Effects of Birth 
Weight.'' American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 1(1): 49-85.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Costs
    The costs to the population affected by this process will include 
the various application costs (one person, parent or stepchild, per 
application). These costs include opportunity costs of time (OCT) of 
requestors and, if applicable, their representatives for filing Forms 
I-131F, I-765, I-130, and I-485 (OCT = [value of time based on relevant 
wages] * [estimated time burden to complete and submit required 
forms]). Requestors would also be responsible for any travel costs 
associated with a required biometrics collection appointment at a USCIS 
ASC.
    The process to request parole in place requires an individual to 
file Form I-131F. Currently, Form I-131F has an estimated time burden 
of 1.1667 hours with a filing fee of $580.\215\ To request employment 
authorization, an individual is required to file Form I-765, with a 
time burden of 4.317 hours,\216\ and a fee of $470 if filing

[[Page 67484]]

online.\217\ Parolees who later choose to apply for adjustment of 
status must file Form I-485, with a time burden of 6.987 hours \218\ 
and submit a fee of $1,440.\219\ In addition to the Form I-485, U.S. 
citizen spouses or parents must file Form I-130, with a time burden of 
1.817 hours \220\ and a fee of $625 if filed online.\221\ DHS assumes 
that if given the option, requestors will submit the required forms 
online. For all forms together, the total time burden is 14.2877 hours.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \215\ Estimated burden hours, subject to revision based on 
public comments.
    \216\ See USCIS, Form I-765, Instructions for Application for 
Employment Authorization, OMB Control Number 1615-0040 (expires Feb. 
28, 2027), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/forms/i-765instr.pdf (last visited July 11, 2024).
    \217\ See USCIS, Form G-1055, Fee Schedule, Effective April 1, 
2024, p. 33 of 39, https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/forms/g-1055.pdf (last visited July 11, 2024).
    \218\ See USCIS, Form I-485, Instructions for Application to 
Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, OMB Control Number 
1615-0023 (expires Feb. 28, 2026), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/forms/i-485instr.pdf (last visited July 11, 
2024).
    \219\ See USCIS, Form G-1055, Fee Schedule, Effective April 1, 
2024, p. 14 of 39, https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/forms/g-1055.pdf (last visited July 11, 2024).
    \220\ See USCIS, Form I-130, Instructions for Form I-130, 
Petition for Alien Relative, and Form I-130A, Supplemental 
Information for Spouse Beneficiary, OMB Control Number 1615-0012 
(expires Feb. 28, 2027), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/forms/i-130instr.pdf (last visited July 11, 2024).
    \221\ See USCIS, Form G-1055, Fee Schedule, Effective April 1, 
2024, p. 7 of 39, https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/forms/g-1055.pdf (last visited July 11, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS calculates the costs of applying under this process as follows. 
Under the two earnings scenarios previously discussed, we convert the 
annual earnings of $33,302 and $36,135 to per hour earnings, arriving 
at an estimated $18.67 and $20.26 per hour, respectively. (DHS herein 
refers to the estimated $18.67 hourly wage as ``earnings scenario 1'' 
and the estimated $20.26 hourly wage as ``earnings scenario 2.'') We do 
not include any wage penalty adjustments for application costs purposes 
as the population is not authorized at the time of application, so 
their OCT is their estimated informal labor earnings. For applications 
that are prepared by a representative, DHS estimates an hourly total 
compensation rate of $123.02 (rounded) using the national average 
hourly wage for attorneys, adjusted to include benefits, as a 
reasonable proxy of the opportunity cost of time.\222\ Using the 
behavior of I-601A filers as a best-approximation for the data, DHS 
estimates that 81 percent of applicants could seek assistance from a 
lawyer or an accredited representative and 19 percent would not.\223\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \222\ DHS assumes the preparers with similar knowledge and 
skills necessary for filing an application have average wage rates 
equal to the average lawyer wage of $84.84 per hour. DHS adjusts by 
the benefits-to-wage multiplier for a total compensation rate of 
84.84 * 1.45 = $123.02 (rounded). See Bureau of Labor Stat., DOL, 
Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, ``Occupational 
Employment and Wages, May 2023, 23-1011 Lawyers,'' https://www.bls.gov/oes/2023/may/oes231011.htm.
    \223\ Source: OP&S, PRD, C3. Queried July 17, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Biometrics collection occurs at a designated USCIS ASC. While 
travel times and distances vary, DHS estimates that the average 
roundtrip distance to an ASC is 50 miles \224\ and travel takes about 
2.5 hours on average to complete a roundtrip.\225\ Furthermore, DHS 
estimates that a requestor spends an average of 1 hour and 10 minutes 
(1.17 hours) at an ASC to submit biometrics,\226\ adding up to a total 
biometrics collection-related time burden of 3.7 hours per requestor. 
The per requestor biometrics travel costs are approximately $99.77 
under earnings scenario 1, and $105.60 under earnings scenario 2.\227\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \224\ A mileage rate for travel-related automobile costs is 
assumed. A rate of $0.625 per mile is adopted from the U.S. General 
Services Administration website at https://www.gsa.gov/travel/plan-book/transportation-airfare-pov-etc/privately-owned-vehicle-mileage-rates/pov-mileage-rates-archived for privately owned vehicle mileage 
reimbursement rates. Rate effective July 1, 2022.
    \225\ See Employment Authorization for Certain H-4 Dependent 
Spouses, 80 FR 10284 (Feb. 25, 2015); Provisional and Unlawful 
Presence Waivers of Inadmissibility for Certain Immediate Relatives, 
78 FR 536, 572 (Jan. 3, 2013).
    \226\ Source: USCIS, DHS, Instructions for Application to 
Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status (Form I-485), OMB No. 
1615-0023 (expires Feb. 28, 2026), https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/forms/i-485instr.pdf.
    \227\ Calculations: (((50 * $0.625) + ((2.5+1.17) * $18.67))) = 
$99.77 (rounded).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The costs are calculated under the two earnings scenarios and the 
two population scenarios, scenario 350K and scenario 750K. For scenario 
350K, we estimate that approximately 66,500 individuals would not use a 
representative to file the required forms and 283,500 would use a 
representative. For scenario 750K, we estimate 142,500 individuals 
would not use a representative and 607,500 would use a representative. 
Table 4 presents the total cost estimates, including total time burden 
for filing required forms, per hour OCT estimates for requestors and 
representatives, population estimates, and biometrics travel costs 
estimates. To arrive at a point estimate, DHS takes the average across 
each population scenario and each earning scenario. As a result, the 
point estimate is approximately $868,583,362 ($0.87 billion).

                                    Table 4--Total Program Application Costs
                                                 [2023 Dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Earnings $33,302 ($18.67/hour)        Earnings $36,135 ($20.26/hour)
                Costs                ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Scenario 350k      Scenario 750k      Scenario 350k      Scenario 750k
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forms...............................       $516,039,219     $1,105,798,327       $517,549,929     $1,109,035,563
Biometrics..........................         34,919,115         74,826,675         36,961,470         79,203,150
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...........................        550,958,334      1,180,625,002        554,511,399      1,188,238,713
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: For example, forms costs under scenario 350k and $18.67/hour OCT, are calculated as the time burden for
  all forms, 14.2877 hours, multiplied by the applicant population of 66,500 and their OCT, plus the total forms
  time burden, 14.2877 hours, multiplied by the population using a representative, 283,500, and their respective
  OCT. This is (14.2877 * 66,500 * $18.67) + (14.2877 * 283,500 * $123.02) = $17,738,965 + $498,300,254 =
  $516,039,219 (rounded). Biometrics costs are approximately $99.77 * 350,000 = $34,919,115. Numbers are
  slightly off due to rounding.

Transfer Payments
    All the fees paid for the required forms for this process represent 
a transfer to the federal government (see Table 5). As previously 
noted, an individual must file Form I-131F to request parole in place 
and pay a (online) filing fee of $580; file Form I-765 to request work 
authorization and pay a (online) filing fee of $470 and file Form I-485 
to apply for adjustment of status and pay a (mail-in) fee of $1,440. 
Concurrently with Form I-485, U.S. citizen spouses or parents must file 
Form I-130, with (online) fee of $625.

[[Page 67485]]

If the option exists to submit a form online, DHS assumes that 
requestors would take advantage of this option to save costs and hence 
we use the online form submission fees to calculate the fee transfers. 
Any fee waivers granted for filing forms would reduce transfers from 
the affected population to USCIS.\228\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \228\ DHS cannot accurately and confidently estimate how many 
potential waivers could be granted across all of the required forms. 
For the purposes of this FRN, DHS assumes that if requestors have 
the ability to submit a new form I-131F and pay the $580 fee, they 
would generally have the ability to pay the rest of the required 
form filing fees in this process created by this policy and would 
generally not qualify for any fee waivers. Nevertheless, if some fee 
waivers were to be granted, the total amount of transfer payments 
would not change, but the fee waivers would represent a transfer 
from the USCIS-fee paying population to the requestors.

                              Table 5--Form Fee Transfers to the Federal Government
                                                 [2023 Dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Forms                                  Fee           Scenario 350K      Scenario 750K
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-131F.................................................               $580       $203,000,000       $435,000,000
I-765..................................................                470        164,500,000        352,500,000
I-130..................................................                625        218,750,000        468,750,000
I-485..................................................              1,440        504,000,000      1,080,000,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    Total..............................................              3,115      1,090,250,000      2,336,250,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The point estimate is the average of the two scenarios, $1,713,250,000.

Tax Revenue Transfer Payments
    Increased earnings would result in increased tax revenue to 
different levels of government. For Federal income taxes, DHS presents 
an estimate using the simplified assumption that all individuals have 
marginal earnings taxed at a 12% rate. This is the tax rate that DHS 
believes would be applicable to such earnings for most 
individuals.\229\ The gross earnings estimates are multiplied by 12% to 
yield the results in Table 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \229\ Internal Revenue Service, Federal Income Tax Rates and 
Brackets, https://www.irs.gov/filing/federal-income-tax-rates-and-brackets.

                             Table 6--Total Federal Income Tax Transfers at 12% Rate
                                                 [2023 Dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Earnings $33,302                      Earnings $36,135
          Wage penalty (%)           ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Scenario 350K      Scenario 750K      Scenario 350K      Scenario 750K
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4...................................        $37,484,731        $80,324,424        $40,673,556        $87,157,620
5...................................         46,855,914        100,405,530         50,841,945        108,947,025
6...................................         56,227,097        120,486,636         61,010,334        130,736,430
8...................................         74,969,462        160,648,848         81,347,112        174,315,240
9...................................         84,340,645        180,729,954         91,515,501        196,104,645
14..................................        131,196,559        281,135,484        142,357,446        305,051,670
24..................................        224,908,387        481,946,544        244,041,336        522,945,720
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The point estimate is the average across the 9% row, which is $138,172,686.

    Following the same approach to calculating the point estimate as 
was done previously produces an estimate of approximately $138 million 
in additional annual Federal income tax revenue as a result of the 
process.
    It is difficult to quantify State tax transfers because taxation 
rules imposed by different levels of government vary widely.\230\ For 
that reason, DHS is not able to monetize State income tax revenue 
increases that will occur as a result of this process, but DHS 
anticipates that at least some states will see tax revenue increases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \230\ See, e.g., Tonya Moreno, ``Your Guide to State Income Tax 
Rates,'' The Balance, https://www.thebalance.com/state-income-tax-rates-3193320 (last updated July 11, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS is also able to estimate the increase in transfer payments to 
Federal employment tax programs, namely Medicare and Social Security, 
which have a combined payroll tax rate of 7.65 percent (6.2 percent and 
1.45 percent, respectively).\231\ With both the employee and employer 
paying their respective portion of Medicare and Social Security taxes, 
the total estimated increase in tax transfer payments from employees 
and employers to Medicare and Social Security is 15.3 percent. DHS 
takes this rate and multiplies it by the total marginal increase in 
pre-tax, gross, income earnings from Table 3 to estimate the increase 
in employment tax transfers resulting from work authorization. Table 7 
presents these estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \231\ Internal Revenue Service, Topic No. 751 Social Security 
and Medicare Withholding Rates, https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc751 
(last updated July 11, 2024).

                           Table 7--Total Federal Payroll Tax Transfers at 15.3% Rate
                                                 [2023 Dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Earnings $33,302                      Earnings $36,135
          Wage penalty (%)           ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Scenario 350K      Scenario 750K      Scenario 350K      Scenario 750K
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4...................................        $47,793,032       $102,413,641        $51,858,784       $111,125,966
5...................................         59,741,290        128,017,051         64,823,480        138,907,457
6...................................         71,689,548        153,620,461         77,788,176        166,688,948

[[Page 67486]]

 
8...................................         95,586,065        204,827,281        103,717,568        222,251,931
9...................................        107,534,323        230,430,691        116,682,264        250,033,422
14..................................        167,275,613        358,447,742        181,505,744        388,940,879
24..................................        286,758,194        614,481,844        311,152,703        666,755,793
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: The point estimate is the average across the 9% row, which is $176,170,175.

    Following the same approach to calculating the point estimate as 
was done previously, this produces an estimate of approximately $176 
million in additional annual Federal payroll tax revenue as a result of 
the process, half from employers and half from the employed population.
    Additionally, DHS has considered the impact of the process on 
eligibility for Federal public benefits. Only noncitizens who are 
considered ``qualified aliens'' may access certain Federal public 
benefits programs. ``Qualified aliens'' include noncitizens paroled 
under INA section 212(d)(5) for a period of at least one year. However, 
nearly all benefits programs are available only to noncitizens who have 
been in ``qualified'' status for at least five years. For example, the 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) generally requires 
noncitizens to have been in ``qualified'' status for five years before 
they can receive benefits. Similarly, Medicaid, Temporary Assistance 
for Needy Families (TANF), and the Children's Health Insurance Program 
(CHIP) generally require five years in ``qualified'' status for 
noncitizens who entered the United States after August 22, 1996. Given 
that noncitizens eligible for this process are estimated on average to 
have lived in the United States for 23 years, DHS anticipates that the 
majority of those who may be considered for parole in place will have 
entered after this date. Accordingly, most noncitizens who receive 
parole pursuant to this process will not be eligible to access public 
Federal benefits for at least five years. Beyond five years, DHS is not 
able to monetize the degree of additional outlays from Federal public 
benefit programs.
    The potential fiscal impacts of this process on State and local 
governments would vary based on a range of factors, such as the social 
and economic characteristics of the population within a particular 
jurisdiction at a particular time (or over a particular period), 
including a parolee's age, educational attainment, income, and level of 
work-related skill as well as the number of dependents in their 
families. Fiscal effects would also vary significantly depending on 
local rules governing eligibility for public benefits. Under this 
process, additional earnings have the effect of increasing tax 
revenues. With regard to drawing on public assistance programs, the 
effects would be uncertain and depend on a range of factors, including 
personal circumstances and any State and local policies' eligibility 
criteria.
    Compared to the baseline, there are multiple reasons to believe 
that any burden on State and local fiscal resources caused by the 
process are unlikely to be significant, and further that the rule may 
have a positive net effect on their fiscal resources. In the baseline, 
the vast majority of this population would remain in the country, but 
without the additional measure of security, employment authorization, 
and lawful presence promoted by this process. In addition, because 
State and local governments are already expending resources on public 
goods for the population gaining lawful status due to this process--for 
example, public K-12 education--the marginal effect of gaining lawful 
status on State and local public expenditures is likely to be small. By 
contrast, the increased earnings stemming from lawful status clearly 
increase tax revenues relative to baseline (State and local income tax 
revenues; higher earnings leading to higher spending, and therefore 
higher sales tax revenues; higher earnings leading to higher spending 
on property, and therefore higher property tax revenues), albeit one 
that DHS cannot fully monetize.
    In the long term, DHS expects State and local governments to 
continue to choose how to finance public goods, set tax structures and 
rates, allocate public resources, and set eligibilities for various 
public benefit programs, and to adjust these approaches based on the 
evolving conditions of their respective populations. DHS acknowledges 
that though this process may result in some indirect fiscal effects on 
State and local governments, such effects would be extremely 
challenging to quantify fully and would vary based on a range of 
factors, including policy choices made by such governments, and may 
very well be offset by increases in tax revenue and economic 
productivity that are equally challenging to quantify.
Labor Market Impacts
    The labor market impacts of increased immigration are largely not 
relevant to the analysis of this process because it applies to 
individuals who have resided in the United States for more than 10 
years. Such individuals would likely continue to reside in the United 
States with or without this process. Nevertheless, for completeness and 
to the extent relevant, DHS has included discussion of the effects of 
increased immigration on native-born workers' employment and earnings.
    Although the estimated population is small relative to the total 
U.S. and individual State labor forces, DHS recognizes that, in 
general, any potential increase in worker supply may affect wages and, 
in turn, the welfare of other workers and employers. However, the 
effects are not obvious or straightforward as changes in wages depend 
on many factors and various market forces, such as the type of 
occupation and industry, geographic market locations, employer 
preferences, worker preferences, worker skills, experience, and 
education levels, and overall economic conditions. For example, in a 
tight labor market, certain industries' labor demand might outpace 
labor supply, such as in healthcare, food services, and software 
development sectors. BLS projects that home health and personal care 
aide occupations will grow by about 34 percent over the next 10 years, 
cooks in restaurants by about 23 percent, and software development 
occupations by about 22 percent.\232\ In

[[Page 67487]]

growing industries or sectors such as these, holding everything else 
constant, any increases in the labor supply might not be enough to 
temporarily satisfy labor demand. As a result, employers might offer 
higher wages to attract workers. The opposite could happen in a slack 
labor market for industries or sectors where labor supply is greater 
than labor demand due to these industries not growing and/or too many 
workers entering theses industry relative to labor demand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \232\ See BLS, Employment Projections (Sept. 2020), Occupations 
with the most job growth, Table 1.4. Occupations with the most job 
growth, 2019 and projected 2029, available at https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/occupations-most-job-growth.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS also notes the possibility of positive dynamic effects from 
employing the population relevant to this process. Hiring persons from 
this population might permit businesses to grow and thus have positive, 
rather than negative, effects on other workers, including U.S. 
citizens. DHS cannot predict the degree to which this population of 
interest is substituted for other workers in the U.S. economy since 
this depends on factors such as industry characteristics as described 
above as well as on the hiring practices and preferences of employers, 
which depend on many factors, such as worker skill levels, experience 
levels, education levels, training needs, and labor market regulations, 
among others.
    Assuming this population of interest would remain in the United 
States even without this process, there is the possibility that 
unauthorized noncitizens looking for work without authorization may be 
exploited, and employers may pay substandard wages, which in turn could 
potentially depress wages for some native and authorized noncitizen 
workers. By reducing this possibility, this process may help to protect 
U.S. workers and employers against the possible effects of unauthorized 
labor.
    Generally, the benefits of facilitating access to employment 
authorization for this population outweigh potential costs to American 
workers or to the U.S. economy. A 2017 National Academies of Sciences, 
Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) publication concludes that providing 
legal status to unauthorized migrants does not harm U.S.-born and other 
immigrant workers in the longer term, as overall the impact of 
immigration on wages is very small.\233\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \233\ See, e.g., National Academies, The Economic and Fiscal 
Consequences of Immigration (2017), https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/economic-and-fiscal-impact-of-immigration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Research has found little evidence that immigration significantly 
affects the overall employment rate of native-born workers. The 2017 
NAS publication synthesizes the then-current peer-reviewed literature 
on the effects of immigration along with empirical findings from 
various publications.\234\ With respect to wages, in particular, the 
2017 NAS Report described recent research showing that, when measured 
over a period of more than 10 years, the impact of immigration on the 
wages of natives overall is very small.\235\ However, the NAS Report 
described research finding that immigration reduces the number of hours 
worked by native teens (but not their employment rate). Moreover, as 
with wage impacts, there is some evidence that recent immigrants reduce 
the employment rate of prior immigrants, suggesting a higher degree of 
substitutability between new and prior immigrants than between new 
immigrants and natives.\236\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \234\ NAS, The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration 
(2017), at 195 https://www.nap.edu/catalog/23550/the-economic-and-fiscal-consequences-of-immigration.
    \235\ Id. at 5.
    \236\ Id. at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the characteristics of local economies matter with respect 
to wage and employment effects. For instance, the impacts to local 
labor markets can vary based on whether such market economies are 
experiencing growth, stagnation, or decline. On average, immigrants 
tend to locate to areas with relatively high labor demand or low 
unemployment levels where worker competition for available jobs is 
low.\237\ This dissipates short-term localized labor supply shock 
effects and increases the efficiency of labor markets.\238\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \237\ Id. at 5.
    \238\ Joan Monras, Immigration and Wage Dynamics: Evidence from 
the Mexican Peso Crisi, Journal of Political Economy, 2020, vol. 
128, no. 8: 3017-89.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2017 NAS Report also discusses the economic impacts of 
immigration and considers effects beyond labor market impacts. Similar 
to citizens, immigrants also pay taxes; stimulate the economy by 
consuming goods, services, and entertainment; engage in the real estate 
market; and take part in domestic tourism. Such activities contribute 
to further growth of the economy and create additional jobs and 
opportunities for both citizen and noncitizen populations.\239\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \239\ NAS Report at 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More recent evidence provides a stronger evidentiary basis that 
immigration increases the employment rate of native-born workers. 
Empirical evidence from Peri, Rury, and Wiltshire (2024) of the effect 
of Puerto Ricans who were displaced to Orlando following Hurricane 
Maria found ``evidence that the migration event induced by Hurricane 
Maria caused employment growth in Orlando, in aggregate and also within 
sectors most likely to be affected by labor supply and demand shocks.'' 
\240\ Peri, Rury, and Wiltshire (2024) found that this held for non-
Hispanic workers and less-educated workers as well. Clemens and Hunt 
(2019) as well as Peri and Yasenov (2019) found evidence that previous 
approaches to examining the labor market effects of the Mariel Boatlift 
were methodologically flawed, concluding that--when properly 
controlled--no significant difference in labor market outcomes could be 
discerned.\241\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \240\ Giovanni Peri, Derek Rury, and Justin C. Wiltshire, The 
Economic Impact of Migrants from Hurricane Maria, Journal of Human 
Resources (2022): 0521-11655R1.
    \241\ Clemens, M.A., & Hunt, J. (2019). The Labor Market Effects 
of Refugee Waves: Reconciling Conflicting Results. ILR Review, 
72(4), 818-857; Giovanni Peri and Vasil Yasenov, The Labor Market 
Effects of a Refugee Wave: Synthetic Control Method Meets the Mariel 
Boatlift, Journal of Human Resources, vol. 54, no. 2 (2019): 267-
309.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More comprehensively, Caiumi and Peri (2024) extends and improves 
upon a series of previous influential articles in the field that 
estimated how the supply of immigrant workers affected native wages in 
the U.S. by extending the years studies (through 2022) and using 
improved identification methods.\242\ They find that the effect of 
immigration at every skill level ``on natives' employment-population 
ratio is positive, significant and between 0.05% and 0.095%, in 
response to a 1% increase in immigrant employment.'' On the wage side, 
Caiumi and Peri (2024) estimate that the ``average increase of native 
wage by 0.01% to 0.02% for each 1% growth of immigrant share can be 
fully due to shifts of natives into better-paying types of occupations 
in response to immigration.'' These estimates imply that the 2000 to 
2019 immigrant flows increased the wages of native workers with a high 
school degree or less by 1.7% to 2.6%, had no significant wage effect 
on native workers with a college degree, and in aggregate increased 
wages for all workers by an average of 0.5% to 0.8%; regarding 
employment in this period, this implies that these immigrant flows 
increased natives' employment rate by 2.4%. Similar, but smaller, 
estimates are generated for the 2019-2022 period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \242\ Alessandro Caiumi and Giovanni Peri, Immigration's Effect 
on US Wages and Employment Redux, NBER Working Paper No. 32389 (Apr. 
2024), https://www.nber.org/papers/w32389.

[[Page 67488]]



                                              Accounting Statement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Category                  Primary estimate        Dollar year    Discount rate      Time horizon
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BENEFITS:
    Annualized monetized benefits  $1.15 billion...........            2023             N/A  Annual.
    Annualized quantified, but     N/A.....................             N/A             N/A  N/A.
     non-monetized benefits.
    Unquantified benefits........  To Population That                   N/A             N/A  N/A.
                                    Benefits from the
                                    Process:
                                    Increased sense
                                    of security and
                                    belonging, and
                                    psychological wellness.
                                    Freedom and
                                    ability to travel
                                    internationally and
                                    access travel documents.
                                    Access to a
                                    college education.
                                    Reduced risk of
                                    being subject to
                                    violence.
                                   Other:
                                    Higher birth
                                    weights for children of
                                    population, and
                                    consequent lifetime
                                    benefits to those
                                    children.
                                    Preserve and
                                    more effectively use
                                    limited resources of
                                    the Federal government..
COSTS:
    Total monetized costs........  $0.87 billion...........            2023             N/A  Year 1.
    Total quantified, but non-     N/A.....................
     monetized costs.
    Unquantified costs...........
TRANSFERS:
    Year 1 monetized Federal       $2.03 billion...........            2023             N/A  Year 1.
     budgetary transfers.
    Year 2+ annualized monetized   $0.31 billion...........            2023             N/A  Annual.
     Federal budgetary transfers.
                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Bearers of transfer gain and     From fees (Year 1) and taxes from applicants and employers to the Federal
     loss?                                                      government (annual).
                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NET BENEFITS:
    Year 1 monetized net benefits  $0.28 billion...........            2023             N/A  Year 1.
    Year 2+ annualized monetized   $1.15 billion...........            2023             N/A  Annualized.
     net benefits.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Administrative Procedure Act

    This Federal Register notice is exempt from notice-and-comment 
rulemaking requirements for the following reasons.
    First, DHS is merely adopting a general statement of policy,\243\ 
i.e., a ``statement issued by an agency to advise the public 
prospectively of the manner in which the agency proposes to exercise a 
discretionary power.'' \244\ As INA section 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
1182(d)(5)(A), provides, parole decisions are made by the Secretary of 
Homeland Security ``in his discretion'' and this process leaves USCIS 
adjudicators the discretion to approve or deny requests consistent with 
the guidance described in section V.C. of this Notice as they perform 
their case-by-case review.\245\ DHS has generally exercised its parole 
authority without rulemaking on the substance of parole processes 
through the issuance of such general statements of agency policy.\246\ 
And it is well established that ``the mere fact that an agency 
action,'' including a policy statement, ``may have a substantial impact 
does not transform it into a legislative rule.'' \247\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \243\ 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A).
    \244\ See Lincoln v. Vigil, 508 U.S. 182, 197 (1993) (quoting 
Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 302 n.31 (1979)).
    \245\ A general policy statement typically uses permissive, 
rather than binding, language that leaves the agency free to 
exercise discretion. See, e.g., Nat'l Mining Ass'n v. McCarthy, 758 
F.3d 243, 251-52 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (distinguishing legislative rules 
from general statements of policy, observing that ``[a]n agency 
action that merely explains how the agency will enforce a statute or 
regulation--in other words, how it will exercise its broad 
enforcement discretion or permitting discretion under some extant 
statute or rule--is a general statement of policy''); Appalachian 
Power Co. v. EPA, 208 F.3d 1015, 1023 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (rejecting 
the EPA's characterization of its document as guidance exempt from 
notice-and-comment rulemaking, reasoning that the guidance 
``commands, . . . requires, . . . orders, [and] dictates''); Cmty. 
Nutrition Inst. v. Young, 818 F.2d 943, 946 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per 
curiam) (noting as primary considerations whether the agency action 
(1) ``impose[s] any rights and obligations,'' or (2) ``genuinely 
leaves the agency and its decisionmakers free to exercise 
discretion'' (quotation marks omitted)).
    \246\ See, e.g., Cuban Family Reunification Parole Program (Nov. 
21, 2007), supra note 65; Central American Minors Parole Program 
(Dec. 1, 2014), discussed at 82 FR 38926; Haitian Family 
Reunification Parole Program (Oct. 27, 2014), supra note 66; 
Filipino World War II Veterans Parole Policy (May 9, 2016), supra 
note 67; Implementation of a Family Reunification Parole Process for 
Colombians, et al. (July 10-Aug. 11, 2023), supra notes 68-72. Prior 
to these parole policy statements, even after Congress's limiting 
amendment to the parole statute in 1996 to require ``case-by-case'' 
consideration, the parole authority continued to be used expansively 
to create new parole programs and processes. In 2000, for example, 
the parole authority was used to entirely replace the statutorily 
sunsetting Visa Waiver Pilot Program under INA section 217, in order 
to provide the significant public benefit of avoiding the wholesale 
disruption of international travel and commerce, and the serious 
harm to the U.S. economy and foreign relations that would have been 
caused by suddenly imposing visa requirements on visitors for 
business or pleasure from most developed countries. See, e.g., Visa 
Waiver Pilot Program Expires; INS Puts In Place Interim Procedures, 
77 Interpreter Releases 597 (May 8, 2000); Congressional Research 
Service, Visa Waiver Program (revised Aug. 1, 2016) at 29, available 
at https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL32221/42. Under 
that parole process, tens of millions of foreign visitors were 
paroled into the United States on a case-by-case basis between May 1 
and October 30, 2000, without rulemaking. Although DHS prescribed 
certain guidelines for determinations on parole from custody of 
certain noncitizens, see 8 CFR 212.5(b), and established the 
international entrepreneur parole process, see 8 CFR 212.19, through 
notice-and-comment rulemaking, this does not preclude the Department 
from electing, consistent with the APA, to forgo formal rulemaking. 
See, e.g., Hoctor v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 82 F.3d 165, 171-72 (7th 
Cir. 1996) (observing that there is nothing in the APA that forbids 
an agency's use of notice-and-comment procedures even if not 
required under the APA, and that courts should attach no weight to 
an agency's varied approaches involving similar rules).
    \247\ Cent. Texas Tel. Coop. v. FCC, 402 F.3d 205, 214 (D.C. 
Cir. 2005) (cleaned up); accord Sec. Indus. and Fin. Mkts. Ass'n v. 
CFTC, 67 F. Supp. 3d 373, 423 (D.D.C. 2014) (citing cases).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, even if this process were considered to be a legislative 
rule that would normally be subject to requirements for notice-and-
comment rulemaking and a delayed effective date, the process is exempt 
from such requirements because it involves a foreign affairs function 
of the United

[[Page 67489]]

States.\248\ Courts have held that this exemption applies when the rule 
in question `` `is clearly and directly involved' in `a foreign affairs 
function.' '' \249\ In addition, although the text of the 
Administrative Procedure Act does not require an agency invoking this 
exemption to show that such procedures may result in ``definitely 
undesirable international consequences,'' some courts have required 
such a showing.\250\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \248\ See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1).
    \249\ Mast Indus., Inc. v. Regan, 596 F. Supp. 1567, 1582 
(C.I.T. 1984) (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 79-1980, at 23 (1946)).
    \250\ See, e.g., Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 427, 437 (2d Cir. 
2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This process is exempt under both standards. Specifically, as 
discussed above, this process is one part of the United States' ongoing 
efforts to engage hemispheric partners to increase their efforts to 
collaboratively manage irregular migration. Regularizing certain 
noncitizens who have lived in and established deep ties to the United 
States is a key request of our partner countries, and establishment of 
this proposed process will help ensure our partners' continued 
collaboration to address irregular migration in the Western Hemisphere 
and improve economic stability and security in countries that are 
common sources of irregular migration to the United States.\251\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \251\ See, e.g., The White House, Fact Sheet: The Los Angeles 
Declaration on Migration and Protection U.S. Government and Foreign 
Partner Deliverables (June 10, 2022), available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/06/10/fact-sheet-the-los-angeles-declaration-on-migration-and-protection-u-s-government-and-foreign-partner-deliverables/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Delaying issuance and implementation of this process to undertake 
rulemaking would complicate ongoing conversations with key foreign 
partners about migration management on a range of priorities. These 
priorities include collaborating with partner countries on initiatives 
aimed at disrupting human smuggling, trafficking, and transnational 
criminal networks; increasing migration controls on bus and train 
routes; \252\ imposing additional visa requirements to prevent 
individuals from exploiting legitimate travel regimes to facilitate 
their irregular journey to the United States; \253\ and expanding 
access to lawful pathways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \252\ U.S. Dep't of State, Discussions with Mexican Officials on 
Migration at the Department of State (Jan. 20, 2024), available at 
https://www.state.gov/discussions-with-mexican-officials-on-migration-at-the-department-of-state.
    \253\ Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Mexico, Visas: Important 
Information, available at https://embamex.sre.gob.mx/peru/index.php/sconsulares/visas (last visited June 16, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The delay associated with implementing this process through notice-
and-comment rulemaking would adversely affect the United States' 
ability to negotiate with our international partners, including Mexico 
and Colombia, for additional enforcement measures and increased 
cooperation with removals. In the context of ongoing discussions on 
migration management, representatives of Mexico have specifically 
requested that the U.S. government regularize Mexican nationals who 
have been long-term residents of the United States.\254\ Similarly, the 
Government of Colombia delivered a diplomatic note in April 2024 that 
requested Deferred Enforced Departure for certain nationals of Colombia 
residing in the United States, which would enable those individuals to 
remain lawfully in the United States and access work authorization. The 
Government of Colombia made similar requests in November 2022 through 
its ambassador to the United States \255\ and again in May 2023 during 
high-level dialogues to stem the flows of irregular migration through 
the Dari[eacute]n and during negotiations to establish and extend Safe 
Mobility Offices \256\ beyond the initial phase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \254\ The White House, Mexico-U.S. Joint Communique, supra note 
114.
    \255\ Manuel Rueda and Elliot Spagat, Colombia asks for legal 
status for its people already in US, Associated Press, Nov. 29, 
2022, available at https://apnews.com/article/venezuela-colombia-caribbean-united-states-immigration-7ed5fcde20338d56b04ff56925e54aff.
    \256\ The Safe Mobility Initiative is one of the many ways the 
United States facilitates access to lawful pathways from partner 
countries in the region at no cost, so migrants do not have to 
undertake dangerous journeys in search of safety and better 
opportunities. See U.S. Safe Mobility Initiative--United States 
Department of State, Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration, 
Safe Mobility Initiative, available at https://www.state.gov/refugee-admissions/safe-mobility-initiative/ (last visited July 24, 
2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The invocation of the foreign affairs exemption here is also 
consistent with DHS precedent. For example, in 2017, DHS published a 
notice eliminating an exception to expedited removal for certain Cuban 
nationals, which explained that the change in policy was consistent 
with the foreign affairs exemption because the change was central to 
ongoing negotiations between the two countries.\257\ DHS similarly 
invoked the foreign affairs exemption more recently in connection with 
the parole processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans 
\258\ and family reunification parole processes for certain nationals 
of Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, announced 
in 2023.\259\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \257\ Eliminating Exception to Expedited Removal Authority for 
Cuban Nationals Encountered in the United States or Arriving by Sea, 
82 FR 4902 (Jan. 17, 2017).
    \258\ See Implementation of a Parole Process for Cubans, 88 FR 
1266 (Jan. 9, 2023); Implementation of a Parole Process for 
Haitians, 88 FR 1243 (Jan. 9, 2023); Implementation of a Parole 
Process for Nicaraguans, 88 FR 1255 (Jan. 9, 2023); and 
Implementation of Changes to the Parole Process for Venezuelans, 88 
FR 1279 (Jan. 9, 2023).
    \259\ See U.S. Dep't of Homeland Security, DHS Announces Family 
Reunification Parole Processes for Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, 
and Honduras (July 17, 2023), https://www.dhs.gov/news/2023/07/07/dhs-announces-family-reunification-parole-processes-colombia-el-salvador-guatemala; see also Implementation of a Family 
Reunification Parole Process for Colombians, et al., supra notes 68-
72.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, all 
Departments are required to submit to the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB), for review and approval, any new reporting requirements 
they impose. The process announced by this notice requires a new 
collection of information on Form I-131F, Application for Parole in 
Place for Certain Noncitizen Spouses and Stepchildren of U.S. Citizens 
(OMB control number 1615-NEW), which will be used for the parole in 
place process for certain noncitizen spouses and stepchildren of U.S. 
citizens. The Form I-131F will be available for online filing only to 
support more efficient adjudications and will charge a filing fee of 
$580 per requestor. The Form I-131F will require the requestor to 
submit biographic data, processing information, and other supporting 
documentation in order to evaluate the criteria outlined in this 
notice, including to: establish the requestor's status as either the 
spouse or stepchild of a U.S. citizen; rigorously screen the applicant 
for public safety and national security threats; identify whether the 
requestor has previously filed Form I-601A with USCIS; instruct the 
requestor on next steps for submitting required biometrics; and 
determine whether the requestor meets other criteria related to 
presence without admission or parole and physical presence for the 
requisite period, among other questions.
    USCIS has submitted, and OMB has approved, the request for 
emergency authorization of the new Form I-131F (under 5 CFR 1320.13) 
for a period of 6 months. Within 60 days of publication of this notice 
at the Federal Register, USCIS will begin normal clearance procedures 
under the PRA to obtain

[[Page 67490]]

three-year approval for this collection.\260\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \260\ See 5 CFR 1320.8(d) and 1320.10(e).

Alejandro N. Mayorkas,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2024-18725 Filed 8-19-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P