[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 238 (Monday, December 15, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58032-58047]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-22744]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
[CIS No. 2806-25]
RIN 1615-ZC12
Termination of Family Reunification Parole Processes for
Colombians, Cubans, Ecuadorians, Guatemalans, Haitians, Hondurans, and
Salvadorans
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland Security (``DHS'') is terminating
the categorical parole processes for aliens from Colombia, Cuba,
Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, and Honduras, and their
immediate family members, under the Family Reunification Parole
processes announced, or updated, by DHS in 2023 (hereinafter referred
to as ``modernized FRP programs''). DHS is also terminating the
residual processing of legacy cases under the Cuban Family
Reunification Parole program (``legacy CFRP'') and the Haitian Family
Reunification Parole program (``legacy HFRP'') first implemented by
USCIS in 2007 and 2014, respectively (collectively, the ``legacy FRP
programs''). This Federal Register notice is intended to provide
context and guidance to the public regarding the termination of all
nine programs (hereinafter ``the FRP programs''), termination of parole
for aliens paroled under the FRP programs, and revocation of employment
authorization based on being an alien paroled under the FRP programs.
DATES: DHS is terminating the FRP programs as of December 15, 2025. The
temporary parole period of aliens who have been paroled into the United
States under the FRP programs, and whose initial period of parole has
not already expired by January 14, 2026 will terminate on that date.
There are two circumstances where an alien's parole will not terminate:
(1) the alien filed a Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent
Residence or Adjust Status, that is postmarked or electronically filed
as of December 15, 2025 that is still pending adjudication as of
December
[[Page 58033]]
15, 2025; or (2) the Secretary of Homeland Security (``the Secretary'')
determines otherwise on a case-by-case basis. Aliens without a lawful
basis to remain in the United States following the termination of their
parole must depart the United States before their parole termination
date.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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 240-721-3000.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Over the previous two years, DHS implemented updates to the
modernized FRP programs.\1\ The modernized FRP programs were available
by invitation only to certain petitioners with approved Forms I-130,
Petition for Alien Relative, filed on behalf of principal beneficiaries
who were nationals of designated countries and their immediate family
members. DHS also updated the legacy FRP programs to align with the
procedures used for the modernized FRP programs.\2\ Under the
modernized FRP programs, qualified beneficiaries who were outside the
United States could be considered, on a case-by-case basis, for
advanced authorization to travel to the United States to seek a
temporary period of parole for urgent humanitarian reasons or
significant public benefit. 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); \3\ Implementation of
Changes to the Haitian Family Reunification Parole Process, 88 FR 54635
(Aug. 11, 2023).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The five new categorical parole programs implemented in 2023
for Colombia, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, and the
two existing programs for Cuba and Haiti that were updated in August
2023, all utilize the online Form I-134A, Online Request to be a
Supporter and Declaration of Financial Support, to initiate the
process of being considered for parole by DHS. Collectively, these
seven Form I-134A-reliant programs will be referred to as the
``modernized FRP programs.'' The FRP programs created in 2007, for
Cuba, and 2014, for Haiti, utilized Form I-131, Application for
Travel Documents, Parole Documents, and Arrival/Departure Records,
to request parole from USCIS. Collectively, these Form I-131-reliant
programs will be referred to as the ``legacy FRP programs.'' All
nine programs combined, both modernized and legacy, are referred to
as the ``FRP programs.''
\2\ Cuban Family Reunification Parole Program, 72 FR 65588 (Nov.
21, 2007); Implementation of Haitian Family Reunification Parole
Program, 79 FR 75581 (Dec. 18, 2014). These programs were superseded
by the modernized processes implemented on August 11, 2023. No new
filings were accepted for these programs after August 11, 2023,
except for certain add-on derivative beneficiaries of principal
beneficiaries with a pending legacy CFRP application. However,
processing of applications that were pending under legacy CFRP
continued according to the process established in December 2014. See
Notice of Changes to Application Procedures for the Cuban Family
Reunification Parole Program, 79 FR 75579 (Dec. 18, 2014). Requests
for re-parole have continued to be processed under legacy HFRP.
\3\ See 72 FR 65588 (legacy CFRP was originally established in
2007 with a process started by filing the paper-based Form I-131
with USCIS, but the process was changed for new filings in August
2023 to adopt use of the online Form I-134A and other processing
steps used in the five FRP programs established by DHS in July
2023).
\4\ See 79 FR 75581 (legacy HFRP was originally established in
2014 with a process started by filing the paper-based Form I-131
with USCIS, but the process was changed in August 2023 to adopt use
of the online Form I-134A and other processing steps used in the
five FRP programs established by DHS in July 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order
(``E.O.'') 14165, ``Securing Our Borders.'' \5\ Section 2 of the E.O.
establishes the policy of the United States to take all appropriate
action to secure the borders of our Nation through a range of means,
including deterring and preventing the entry of illegal aliens into the
United States, and removing promptly all aliens who enter or remain in
violation of Federal law. Section 7 of the E.O. directs the Secretary
of Homeland Security (``Secretary'') to, consistent with applicable
law, take all appropriate action to ``[t]erminate all categorical
parole programs that are contrary to the policies of the United States
established in [the President's] Executive Orders.'' \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Executive Order 14165, Securing Our Borders, 90 FR 8467
(Jan. 20, 2025) (published Jan. 30, 2025).
\6\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with the President's direction, and for the independent
reasons stated in this notice, this notice terminates the FRP programs.
Although DHS established the categorical program for each country
through a separate notice in the Federal Register, the justification
for the establishment of each of the seven categorical programs was
very similar,\7\ as is the rationale for terminating them. Therefore,
DHS is announcing the termination of all seven modernized FRP programs,
in addition to any continued processing under the legacy FRP programs,
by publishing this single notice in the Federal Register. Consistent
with the Secretary's statutory and regulatory authority, the parole of
all aliens who have been paroled into the United States under the FRP
programs described in this notice, and whose initial period of parole
has not already expired by January 14, 2026, will terminate on that
date, subject to certain exceptions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Compare, e.g., 88 FR at 43593-43596, with 88 FR at 78765-
78768, 72 FR at 65588, and 79 FR at 75582 (setting out the
justifications for the parole programs for Colombia, Ecuador, Cuba,
and Haiti, respectively).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. DHS Parole Authority
The Immigration and Nationality Act (``INA'') confers upon the
Secretary the narrow discretionary authority to parole aliens into the
United States ``temporarily under such conditions as [DHS] may
prescribe only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons
or significant public benefit.'' INA 212(d)(5)(A); 8 U.S.C.
1182(d)(5)(A); see 8 CFR 212.5(a), (c)-(e) (discretionary authority for
establishing conditions of parole and for terminating parole).
Additionally, upon a finding by DHS that the purpose of the temporary,
discretionary parole has been served, the alien shall ``return or be
returned to the custody from which he was paroled and thereafter his
case shall continue to be dealt with in the same manner as that of any
other applicant for admission to the United States.'' INA 212(d)(5)(A),
8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A).
A review of the legislative history of the parole statute supports
the contention that Congress has sought to limit the use of the parole
authority to specific instances rather than as a means of circumventing
established immigration laws or processing times.\8\
[[Page 58034]]
Under the law, the determination to parole an alien into the country
should only be made on a discretionary, case-by-case basis, taking into
account each alien's unique circumstances. The ultimate determination
whether to parole an alien into the United States upon the alien's
arrival at a U.S. port of entry (``POE'') is made by U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (``CBP'') officers. See 8 CFR 212.5(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Parole was codified into immigration law in the 1952 INA. As
envisioned then, the 1952 Act authorized the Attorney General to
parole aliens temporarily under such conditions as he may prescribe
for emergent reasons or reasons deemed strictly in the public
interest. As expressed then, ``the parole of aliens seeking
admission is simply a device through which needless confinement is
avoided while administrative proceedings are conducted.'' Leng May
Ma v Barber, 357 U.S. 185, 190 (1958). However, the parole
authority, whether intended to be narrow or broad, has in fact been
used in an increasingly broad manner since its inception, often
earning the criticism of Congress. For example, the House Report for
the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of
1996 (``IIRIRA'') stated:
[i]n recent years, however, parole has been used increasingly to
admit entire categories of aliens who do not qualify for admission
under any other category in immigration law, with the intent that
they will remain permanently in the United States. This contravenes
the intent of section 212(d)(5), but also illustrates why further,
specific limitations on the Attorney General's discretion are
necessary.
See H.R. Rep. 104-469, pt. 1, at 140 (1996). In IIRIRA, Congress
struck from INA 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A), the phrase,
``for emergent reasons or for reasons deemed strictly in the public
interest'' as grounds for granting parole into the United States and
inserted ``only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian
reasons or significant public benefit.'' Public Law 104-208, div. C,
Sec. 602(a). ``The legislative history indicates that this change
was animated by concern that parole under [INA 212(d)(5)(A)] was
being used by the executive to circumvent congressionally
established immigration policy.'' Cruz-Miguel v. Holder, 650 F.3d
189, 199 n.15 (2d Cir. 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parole is inherently temporary, and parole alone is not an
underlying basis for obtaining any immigration status, nor does it
constitute an admission to the United States. See INA 101(a)(13)(B),
212(d)(5)(A); 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(13)(B), 1182(d)(5)(A). Once an alien is
paroled into the United States, the parole allows the alien to stay
temporarily in the United States for the duration of the parole period
unless and until the parole expires or is otherwise terminated. See 8
CFR 212.5(e).
Paroled aliens, including those paroled under the FRP programs, may
apply for any immigration benefit or status for which they may be
eligible, including discretionary employment authorization under the
(c)(11) employment eligibility category. See 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(11); see
also One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Public Law 119-21, secs. 100003(b),
100010(a), 139 Stat 72, 366, 372 (July 4, 2025) (8 U.S.C. 1803(b),
1809(a)) (prescribing fees and specific validity periods for parole-
based EADs). In the absence of any subsequent application conferring an
immigration benefit or status, and upon termination of parole, such
alien will remain an applicant for admission. See INA 212(d)(5)(A),
1182(d)(5)(A); see also 8 CFR 1.2 (``An arriving alien remains an
arriving alien even if paroled pursuant to section 212(d)(5) of the
Act, and even after any such parole is terminated or revoked.''),
1001.1(q) (same).
III. Rationale for Termination
When DHS established the FRP programs, DHS wrote that the programs
would provide a significant public benefit for the United States by:
(i) promoting family unity; (ii) furthering important foreign policy
objectives; (iii) providing a lawful pathway and timely alternative to
unlawful migration at the southwest land border; (iv) reducing strain
on limited U.S. resources; and (v) addressing the root causes of
migration through economic stability and development supported by
increased remittances.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See, e.g., 88 FR at 43593-96; see also 72 FR 65588 (The
legacy CFRP initial implementation notice in 2007 relied on family
unification, discouragement of unlawful migration, and furtherance
of the U.S.-Cuba Migration Accords as justifications); 79 FR at
75582 (The legacy HFRP initial implementation notice in 2014 relied
on family unification and reconstruction and development assistance
for Haiti through remittances).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the reasons discussed below, DHS has determined that it is now
appropriate to terminate the FRP programs. These programs do not serve
a significant public benefit, are not necessary to reduce levels of
unlawful immigration, and are not serving all their intended
purposes.\10\ These reasons, independently and cumulatively, support
termination of the FRP programs.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See INA 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A) (``[W]hen the
purposes of such parole shall, in the opinion of the [Secretary of
Homeland Security], have been served the alien shall forthwith
return or be returned to the custody from which he was paroled. . .
.'').
\11\ The FRP programs were promulgated under the theory that
they would, in general, provide a significant public benefit to the
United States. See, e.g., 88 FR at 43613 (``The case-by-case parole
of noncitizens with approved family-based immigrant visa petitions
under this process will, in general, provide a significant public
benefit by furthering the USG's holistic migration management
strategy . . .''). Although the Secretary retained the authority to
parole eligible aliens on a case-by-case basis based on ``urgent
humanitarian reasons,'' the driving impetus for the creation of the
FRP programs or attendant grants of parole was the significant
public benefit justification. But for the significant public benefit
justification, DHS would not have established the FRP programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, the Secretary, in her discretion, is terminating the
FRP programs. Consistent with her statutory authority, the Secretary
retains discretion to grant a new period of parole, also known as re-
parole, to any alien who was paroled into the United States under the
FRP programs, temporarily under such conditions as she may prescribe
only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or
significant public benefit. See INA 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C.
1182(d)(5)(A). The decision to do so, or not do so, is committed to the
Secretary's sole discretion.
1. Promote Family Unity
According to the notices that announced their creation, the FRP
programs were designed to provide a faster pathway for U.S. citizens
and lawful permanent residents (LPRs) to reunite with family members in
the United States while awaiting availability of their immigrant visas.
The notices justified the action by stating that nationals of those
countries often face long waits for immigrant visas before they can
travel to the United States and apply for admission.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See e.g., 88 FR at 43593-94; see also 72 FR at 65588; 79 FR
at 75582.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS acknowledges that aliens paroled into the United States under
the FRP programs may have been able to reunite with family members in
the United States. However, upon further review of the scope and impact
of the FRP programs in their totality, and in line with Executive
Orders issued by President Trump, DHS has determined that national
security and fraud concerns, and the current Administration's
priorities outweigh those interests and weigh in favor of terminating
the programs.
The modernized FRP programs, based on their specific procedures,
created security gaps not present in other paths for family members
pursuing LPR status, such as through consular processing. Through
consular processing, potential beneficiaries chose to remain outside
the United States until their immigrant visa priority dates are
current. Once a visa is available based on their priority date, the
potential beneficiary completes consular processing with the Department
of State (``State''), including submission of biometrics, an in-person
interview outside the United States, and submission of various
documents to establish the necessary family relationship with the
petitioner before a visa is issued. The use of biometrics for
background and security checks as part of consular processing allows
for robust public safety and national security vetting of the potential
beneficiary before travel to the United States on a commercial air
carrier is authorized and completed.
In contrast, under the modernized FRP programs, potential
beneficiaries would travel to the United States to seek parole at a
POE, and if paroled, they could then apply to adjust status to that of
an LPR once their immigrant visa priority dates became current. Under
these programs, DHS conducted minimal public safety and national
security vetting of the supporters based on biographic information the
supporter
[[Page 58035]]
provided on the Form I-134A. For example, DHS only vetted to ensure
that the supporter was the named petitioner on the Form I-130 for the
principal beneficiary and that supporters that were LPRs had not lost
their LPR status, in addition to TECS \13\ checks. Additionally, DHS
conducted minimal public safety and national security vetting of
potential beneficiaries by only reviewing biographic information and
photos that each beneficiary provided before being considered for an
advance travel authorization (ATA). Moreover, biometrics were not
submitted by each potential beneficiary until they arrived at the
interior POE to seek parole from CBP. Therefore, additional vetting,
that could otherwise be completed as part of consular processing before
travel is authorized, did not occur prior to issuance of an ATA or
before the potential beneficiary boarded a plane to travel to the
United States. Many of the security screening systems used by the U.S.
government to evaluate applicants for immigration benefits rely on
biometrics. Since beneficiaries were not fingerprinted before arriving
at a U.S. POE, these checks could not be conducted beforehand to
thoroughly vet the alien. Furthermore, beneficiaries under the
modernized FRP programs were not interviewed by USCIS, unlike
beneficiaries of the legacy FRP programs. In the legacy CFRP program
and legacy HFRP program, interviews provided an opportunity to gather
additional information about the beneficiary and identify any
discrepancies between their application and their in-person statements,
as well as to surface any other potential concerns through their
testimony. However, these programs were replaced by the modernized FRP
programs for Cuba and Haiti for prospective beneficiaries in 2023.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ TECS, not an acronym, is a data system and platform owned
by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). See DHS/CBP/PIA-021
TECS System: Platform for more information, available at https://www.dhs.gov/publication/dhscbppia-021-tecs-system-platform (last
updated Apr. 10, 2025).
\14\ While legacy CFRP and legacy HFRP programs were replaced by
the modernized FRP programs for Cuba and Haiti in 2023, USCIS
continued to interview pending legacy CFRP beneficiaries at the
USCIS Field Office in Havana, Cuba through January 2025 when
processing was paused.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given these critical differences, the procedures set forth under
the modernized FRP programs created an untenable likelihood that
malicious actors could enter the interior of the United States without
proper vetting, thereby posing an unacceptable level of risk to the
United States' national security and public safety.
The FRP programs also presented an unacceptable risk of abuse and
fraud. When biometrics collection and interviews do not occur prior to
a beneficiary's arrival in the U.S., the risk of fraud increases. U.S.-
based petitioners may misrepresent family relationships (e.g., falsely
claiming a familial tie) to facilitate the entry of unauthorized
aliens. Moreover, reliance solely on an approved Form I-130 does not
guarantee the ongoing legitimacy of a relationship, particularly in
cases involving spouses where circumstances may have changed since the
petition was filed. Even with an approved Form I-130, adjudicators may
have missed key indicators of fraud, and adding another layer of
scrutiny, such as an interview, can be valuable in verifying
eligibility. Additionally, beneficiaries from countries with weak civil
registry systems may submit fraudulent documents (such as birth
certificates or other identity documents) to support their claims.
Having in-country experts, such as consular officers familiar with
local documentation, can be critical in identifying and preventing
document fraud during the visa process. The process of interviewing
beneficiaries overseas and collecting their biometrics plays a critical
role in preventing fraud and abuse of the immigration system--steps
that were entirely bypassed under the modernized FRP programs.
Accordingly, the FRP programs' lack of procedural and vetting
guardrails created an unacceptable level of risk of fraud and abuse.
DHS has determined that the desire to reunite families before their
priority dates are current does not outweigh the U.S. government's
responsibility to prevent fraud and abuse of these programs and to
uphold national security and public safety for the American people.
Moreover, the FRP programs no longer accord with the
Administration's current enforcement-based priorities, namely to better
``achieve the total and efficient enforcement, including through lawful
incentives and detention capabilities'' of U.S. immigration law.\15\
The modernized FRP programs, initiatives of the prior administration,
do not align with this Administration's emphasis on enforcing
immigration law, deterring unlawful immigration, and eliminating fraud
and abuse. Indeed, E.O. 14165, ``Securing Our Borders,'' embodies the
priorities of this Administration and makes clear that ``all future
parole determinations fully comply with [the order to terminate all
categorical parole programs] and with applicable law.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See E.O. 14159, Protecting the American People Against
Invasion, 90 FR 8443 (Jan. 20, 2025) (published Jan. 29, 2025); see
also FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009)
(``[I]t suffices that the new policy is permissible under the
statute, that there are good reasons for it, and that the agency
believes it to be better, which the conscious change of course
adequately indicates.'').
\16\ See E.O. 14165, Securing Our Borders, 90 FR 8467 (Jan. 20,
2025) (published Jan. 30, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Further Important Foreign Policy Objectives
One of the stated goals of the modernized FRP programs established
in July 2023 was to promote the foreign policy objectives of the prior
administration.\17\ Indeed, DHS explained consistently in its notices
promulgating the FRP programs that implementation would advance the
foreign policy objectives of the then-current administration.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See, e.g., 88 FR at 43594.
\18\ See, e.g., Id. (``[T]he parole of noncitizens, on a case-
by-case basis, under [the FRP program for Colombians] will secure
cooperation and strengthen bilateral relations with regional
partners in furtherance of U.S. national interests.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, DHS established the legacy CFRP Program in 2007, and
modernized it in August 2023, in part to further enable the United
States to meet its commitment to ensure the lawful migration of a
minimum of 20,000 Cubans each year under the U.S.-Cuba Migration
Accords.\19\ DHS also established the legacy HFRP Program in 2014 to
support ``U.S. goals for Haiti's long-term reconstruction and
development,'' \20\ and modernized it in August 2023, in part because
``[i]mproving the efficiency and accessibility of HFRP is necessary to
ensure our foreign partners' continued collaboration on migration
issues.'' \21\ The foreign policy objectives underlying the FRP
programs, however, are not consistent with those of the current
Administration and may be achieved through other means.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ 72 FR 65588; 88 FR at 54640.
\20\ 79 FR at 75582.
\21\ 88 FR at 54639.
\22\ U.S. commitments under the Cuban Migration Accords, for
example, may be met through immigrant visa processing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E.O. 14150, ``America First Policy Directive to the Secretary of
State'', clearly sets out the President's vision that ``the foreign
policy of the United States shall champion core American interests and
always put America and American citizens first.'' \23\ E.O. 14159,
``Protecting the American People Against Invasion'' states that ``[i]t
is the policy of the United States to faithfully execute the
immigration laws against all
[[Page 58036]]
inadmissible and removable aliens, particularly those aliens who
threaten the safety or security of the American people. Further, it is
the policy of the United States to achieve the total and efficient
enforcement of those laws, including through lawful incentives and
detention capabilities.'' \24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See 90 FR 8337 (Jan. 20, 2025) (published Jan. 29, 2025).
\24\ 90 FR 8443 (Jan. 20, 2025) (published Jan. 29, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To reiterate, E.O. 14165, ``Securing Our Borders'' states that DHS
shall ``terminate all categorical parole programs that are contrary to
the policies of the United States established in [the President's]
Executive Orders.'' \25\ In the same E.O., the President directed that
as soon as practicable, the Secretary of Homeland Security, in
coordination with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General,
shall take all appropriate action to resume the Migrant Protection
Protocols in all sectors along the southwest border of the United
States and ensure that, pending section 240 removal proceedings, aliens
described in INA 235(b)(2)(C), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(2)(C), are returned to
the territories from which they came.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See 90 FR 8467, 8468 (Jan. 20, 2025) (published Jan. 30,
2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The President has pursued the cooperation of foreign partners on
migration issues in other ways as well. For instance:
On January 23, 2025, President Trump in his call with
Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele discussed working together to stop
illegal immigration and crack down on transnational gangs like Tren de
Aragua.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ The White House, ``Readout of President Donald J. Trump's
Call with President Nayib Bukele'' (Jan. 23, 2025), https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2025/01/readout-of-president-donald-j-trumps-call-with-president-bukele/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 26, 2025, the Government of Colombia agreed to
the unrestricted acceptance of all illegal aliens from Colombia
returned from the United States, including on U.S. military aircraft,
without limitation or delay.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ The White House, ``Statement From the Press Secretary''
(Jan. 26, 2025), https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2025/01/statement-from-the-press-secretary/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 27, 2025, President Trump had a productive
conversation with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who agreed to
``do what's right'' in regard to illegal migration.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Meryl Sebastian, ``Trump Says India `Will Do What's Right'
on Illegal Immigration,'' BBC News (Jan. 27, 2025), https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj91z842wlmo.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since February 1, 2025, President Trump has issued several
tariff-related executive orders in connection with the situation at the
southwest border.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ See, e.g., Executive Order 14194, Imposing Duties to
Address the Situation at our Southern Border, 90 FR 9117 (Feb. 1,
2025) (published Feb. 7, 2025); Executive Order 14198, Progress on
the Situation at Our Southern Border, 90 FR 9185 (Feb. 3, 2025)
(published Feb. 10, 2025); Executive Order 14227, Amendment to
Duties to Address the Situation at Out Southern Border, 90 FR 11371
(Mar. 2, 2025) (published Mar. 6, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 16, 2025, Panama received a first U.S.
military plane transporting 119 deportees of various nationalities,
with the plan to repatriate them to their own respective countries.
Panamanian President Jose Raul Mulino has offered his country as a
stopover for aliens expelled from the United States.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Panama Receives First US Deportation Flight Under Trump
Administration, The Tico Times (Feb. 16, 2025), https://ticotimes.net/2025/02/16/panama-receives-first-us-deportation-flight-under-trump-administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 19, 2025, a Department of State spokesperson
announced steps ``to impose visa restrictions on owners, executives,
and senior officials of travel agencies based and operating in India
for knowingly facilitating illegal immigration to the United States.''
\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ U.S. Department of State, Press Releases: Visa Restrictions
on Travel Agencies Facilitating Illegal Immigration to the United
States, May 19, 2025, https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2025/05/visa-restrictions-on-travel-agencies-facilitating-illegal-immigration-to-the-united-states/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secretary Rubio had calls with Mexican Foreign Secretary
de la Fuente on March 31, 2025,\32\ May 30, 2025 \33\ and July 2,
2025,\34\ during which they discussed efforts to secure the U.S.-Mexico
border, dismantle cartels, stop the flow of illicit drugs, firearms,
and illegal aliens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ U.S. Department of State, Press Release: Secretary Rubio's
Call with Mexican Foreign Secretary de la Fuente, March 31, 2025,
https://www.state.gov/secretary-rubios-call-with-mexican-foreign-secretary-de-la-fuente-3/.
\33\ U.S. Department of State, Press Release: Secretary Rubio's
Call with Mexican Foreign Secretary de la Fuente, May 30, 2025,
https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2025/05/secretary-rubios-call-with-mexican-foreign-secretary-de-la-fuente/.
\34\ U.S. Department of State, Press Release: Secretary Rubio's
Call with Mexican Foreign Secretary de la Fuente, July 2, 2025,
https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2025/07/secretary-rubios-call-with-mexican-foreign-secretary-de-la-fuente-3/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple agencies of the U.S. government are actively pursuing the
President's foreign policy goals. For instance, the Department of State
has announced discussions with neighboring countries regarding DHS's
ability to remove or return illegal aliens,\35\ consistent with
Secretary of State Rubio's January 22, 2025, announcement that a key
priority of the Department of State is to curb mass migration and
secure our borders.\36\ In that announcement, the Department of State
made clear that it ``will no longer undertake any activities that
facilitate or encourage mass migration'' and that ``[o]ur diplomatic
relations with other countries, particularly in the Western Hemisphere,
will prioritize securing America's borders, stopping illegal and
destabilizing migration, and negotiating the repatriation of illegal
immigrants.'' \37\ Additionally, pursuant to his authority under INA
219, 8 U.S.C. 1189, Secretary of State Rubio designated the gang Mara
Salvatrucha (active in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, among
other countries), along with other cartels and gangs, as Foreign
Terrorist Organizations.\38\ On May 5, 2025, Secretary Rubio also
designated two Haitian criminal organizations, Viv Ansanm and Gran
Grif, as designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations under INA 219, 8
U.S.C. 1189.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See, e.g., U.S. Department of State, Readout, Secretary
Rubio's Meeting with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele (Feb. 3,
2025) (``President Bukele agreed to take back all Salvadoran MS-13
gang members who are in the United States unlawfully. He also
promised to accept and incarcerate violent illegal immigrants,
including members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang, but also
criminal illegal migrants from any country.''), https://www.state.gov/secretary-rubios-meeting-with-salvadoran-president-nayib-bukele/; U.S. Department of State, Readout, Secretary Rubio's
Meeting with Panamanian President Mulino (Feb. 2, 2025) (``Secretary
Rubio also emphasized the importance of collaborative efforts to end
the hemisphere's illegal migration crisis and thanked President
Mulino for his support of a joint repatriation program, which has
reduced illegal migration through the Darien Gap.''), https://www.state.gov/secretary-rubios-meeting-with-panamanian-president-mulino/.
\36\ U.S. Department of State, Press Statement, Priorities and
Mission of the Second Trump Administration's Department of State
(Jan. 22, 2025), https://www.state.gov/priorities-and-mission-of-the-second-trump-administrations-department-of-state/.
\37\ Id.
\38\ Foreign Terrorist Organization Designations of Tren de
Aragua, Mara Salvatrucha, Cartel de Sinaloa, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva
Generaci[oacute]n, Carteles Unidos, Cartel del Noreste, Cartel del
Golfo, and La Nueva Familia Michoacana, 90 FR 10030 (Feb. 20, 2025);
see also Executive Order 14157, Designating Cartels and Other
Organizations as Foreign Terrorist Organizations and Specially
Designated Global Terrorists, 90 FR 8439 (Jan. 20, 2025) (published
Jan. 29, 2025).
\39\ Foreign Terrorist Organization Designations of Viv Ansanm
and Gran Grif, 90 FR 19065 (May 5, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The actions set forth in this notice complement and underscore the
Administration's pivot to a foreign policy that prioritizes the United
States' interests in reducing and deterring unlawful immigration.
Regardless of whether the prior Administration saw the FRP programs as
a component of a regional migration management strategy, the current
Administration is not
[[Page 58037]]
pursuing that strategy given it is no longer consistent with current
Administration's priorities. Rather, as described above, the current
Administration continues to focus its foreign policy attention on other
measures to deter and prevent the entry of illegal aliens into the
United States.
These measures will allow DHS to better ``achieve the total and
efficient enforcement'' of U.S. immigration law and, as such, champion
a core American interest in accordance with the President's vision for
American foreign policy.\40\ In short, the continued implementation of
the FRP programs does not accord with the President's stated priorities
and foreign policy objectives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ See 90 FR 8443 (Jan. 29, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Provide a Lawful Pathway and Timely Alternative to Unlawful
Migration
DHS intended for the FRP programs to provide a lawful, safe, and
orderly alternative to unlawful migration to the United States as part
of a regional migration management strategy developed by the prior
Administration.\41\ Because the INA allocates a certain number of
immigrant visas each year, beneficiaries of approved Form I-130
petitions often face years-long waits before a visa becomes available.
The prior Administration claimed that the FRP programs were designed to
discourage unlawful migration during this period by offering a faster,
lawful pathway for U.S. citizens and LPRs to reunite with family
members while awaiting availability of immigrant visas.\42\ These
programs were specifically aimed at nationals of countries who often
face especially long wait times for immigrant visas.\43\ DHS now finds,
as explained below, that the FRP programs did not adequately realize
the goal of discouraging unlawful migration, as the confirmed
beneficiaries of the FRP programs constitute a tiny fraction of the
total population of aliens from the seven FRP countries that unlawfully
attempted to enter the country during this time period.\44\ Since the
implementation of the modernized FRP programs beginning in July 2023
and the modernization of the legacy FRP programs, approximately 16,100
aliens have been granted parole under the FRP programs.\45\ In
contrast, CBP encounters of aliens from the seven FRP countries at and
between POEs on the U.S. southwest land border totaled over 888,000 in
FY2024.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ See, e.g., 88 FR at 43595.
\42\ See, e.g., 88 FR 78762, 88 FR 43591, 72 FR 65588.
\43\ Id.; see also 72 FR 65588; 79 FR 75581.
\44\ As of Feb. 18, 2025, the overall responsiveness rate to
invitations sent under the modernized FRP programs was approximately
30% based on an internal USCIS analysis. This means that 70% of
petitioners who received FRP invitations did not opt to participate
in FRP programs and did not file an I-134A as of Feb. 18, 2025. See
USCIS analysis of FRP response rates as of Feb. 18, 2025 [OHSS tab
3].
\45\ The information provided here is based on analysis of
internal data from U.S CBP tracking aliens paroled under the FRP
programs performed in June 2025. CBP shows 14,069 aliens paroled
under FRP class of admission (COAs) (Colombian Family Reunification
Parole (RCO), Cuban Family Reunification Parole (RCU), Ecuadorian
Family Reunification Parole (RED), Guatemalan Family Reunification
Parole (RGT), Honduran Family Reunification Parole (RHN), Haitian
Family Reunification Parole (RHT), and El Salvadoran Family
Reunification Parole (RSV)) as of January 20, 2025. See USCIS
analysis of CBP FRP parole data as of Jan. 23, 2025. USCIS estimates
there are 1,852 aliens with valid parole under the legacy CFRP
program and 108 aliens with valid parole under the legacy HFRP
program as of April 2, 2025. See USCIS analysis of legacy FRP
filings as of Apr. 2, 2025 [OHSS tabs 10 & 11].
\46\ See U.S. CBP Nationwide Encounters https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/nationwide-encounters (last visited Apr. 30, 2025)
(filtered by Region (Southwest Land Border) and Citizenship
(Columbia, Cuba, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, and
Honduras)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS acknowledges that some aliens who have been paroled into the
United States under the FRP programs may have otherwise sought to enter
unlawfully along the southwest border. However, upon review and further
consideration of the number of aliens that were determined to be
eligible to participate in the programs, the relatively small number
who actually chose to participate, and other more recent measures that
have dramatically reduced southwest border encounters, DHS has
ultimately determined that the FRP programs did not meaningfully reduce
unlawful migration at the southwest border and are not needed to
achieve that goal. DHS ultimately determined that policy actions such
as increasing interior enforcement actions, ramping up removals,
building physical barriers along the border, and deploying advanced
surveillance technology represent a more prudent approach to the short
and long-term challenges presented at the southwest border.
The FRP programs required that a petitioner with an approved Form
I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, first receive an invitation to
submit a request to be a supporter on behalf of the principal
beneficiary of the approved Form I-130 and the principal beneficiary's
immediate family members. Generally, invitations were issued based on
operational capacity and the period of time until the principal
beneficiary's immigrant visa was expected to become available, among
other factors. Considering the limitation on the number of aliens who
have family-sponsored immigrant visas that are expected to become
available within any given period, the number of invitations sent was
minimal compared to the flow of aliens coming from the countries for
which an FRP program existed.\47\ Even if every one of the
approximately 36,000 petitioners invited to participate in the
modernized FRP programs had filed a Form I-134A, Online Request to be a
Supporter and Declaration of Financial Support, on behalf of each
eligible beneficiary of the approved Form I-130, and all such Form I-
134A requests were confirmed and the beneficiaries granted advance
travel authorization by DHS, the number of beneficiaries who could have
been paroled into the United States would still account for a fraction
of the approximately 890,000 aliens from the FRP program countries who
were encountered by CBP in Fiscal Year (FY) 2024. DHS did not intend
for the FRP programs to, on their own, substantially decrease the
number of encounters along the southwest border. The FRP programs were
just one part of the previous administration's broader strategy of
expanding access to lawful pathways to aliens who may otherwise travel
to the United States as part of the unlawful migration flows at the
southwest border.\48\ In practice, at the time DHS paused processing
under the FRP programs in late January 2025,\49\ the participation rate
for petitioners who had been invited to these programs was
approximately 30%.\50\ Overall, other policy actions represent a more
prudent and effective path to addressing unlawful immigration generally
and especially at the southwest border.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ In FY2024, CBP encounters of unlawful aliens on the U.S.
southwest land border from the seven FRP countries totaled 888,023.
See U.S. CBP Nationwide Encounters https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/nationwide-encounters (last visited Apr. 30, 2025).
\48\ See, e.g., 88 FR at 43593.
\49\ Email from Jennifer Higgins, Acting Director, USCIS (Jan.
23, 2025).
\50\ Responsiveness rate is based on internal USCIS analysis
whereby a total of 35,666 FRP invitations were issued over the life
of the modernized FRP programs, and of those, a total of 10,608
invitees filed requests as of Feb. 18, 2025. See USCIS analysis of
FRP response rates as of Feb. 18, 2025 [OHSS tab 3].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The decision to terminate discretionary and temporary parole
programs like the FRP programs is further informed by the actions of
the prior administration, which found the parole programs for Cubans,
Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans \51\
[[Page 58038]]
(``CHNV parole programs'') and FRP programs, even when paired with the
Circumvention of Lawful Pathways rule, to be insufficient to address
very high levels of illegal immigration.\52\ For example, following the
implementation of the FRP programs and the Circumvention of Lawful
Pathways rule, DHS and the Department of Justice (``DOJ'') promulgated
the Securing the Border rule \53\ as an emergency measure to address
ongoing high levels of unlawful immigration between the southwest
border POEs.\54\ DHS and DOJ then explained that ``at current levels of
encounters and with current resources, [DHS] cannot predictably and
swiftly deliver consequences to most noncitizens who cross the border
without a lawful basis to remain . . . [DHS's] ability to refer and
process noncitizens through expedited removal thus continues to be
overwhelmed, creating a vicious cycle.'' \55\ This conclusion--that
DHS's ability to swiftly impose consequences for unlawful immigration
``continue[d] to be overwhelmed'' \56\--followed more than a year of
the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways framework, nearly a year of the
modernized FRP programs, and two years of the CHNV parole programs,
with the implementation of each being justified as facilitating
operational control of the southwest border of the United States by
discouraging unlawful immigration. The promulgation of the Securing the
Border interim final rule in June 2024 underscored the stark failure of
categorical parole programs, like the FRP programs and CHNV parole
programs, as well as the Circumvention of Lawful Pathways rule to
deliver on their promises. These policies not only fell short of
enhancing border security but also failed to curb the persistent surge
of unlawful immigration along the southwest border.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ Termination of Parole Processes for Cubans, Haitians,
Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans, 90 FR 13611 (Mar. 25, 2025). See also
``CBP Released December 2024 Monthly Update'', https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/cbp-releases-december-2024-monthly-update (last modified Jan. 14, 2025) (providing that over 531,000
aliens were granted parole under the CHNV parole programs).
\52\ See Circumvention of Lawful Pathways 88 FR 31314 (May 16,
2023).
\53\ See Securing the Border, Interim Final Rule, 89 FR 48710
(June 7, 2024); Securing the Border, Final Rule, 89 FR 81156 (Oct.
7, 2024).
\54\ ``On June 3, 2024, the President signed Proclamation 10773
under sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the INA, finding that because
border security and immigration systems of the United States were
unduly strained, the entry into the United States of certain
categories of [aliens] was detrimental to the interests of the
United States, and suspending and limiting the entry of such
[aliens].'' 89 FR at 81157-58.
\55\ 89 FR at 48714.
\56\ 89 FR at 48715.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Securing the Border framework \57\ and implementation of
President Trump's subsequent policies have resulted in a dramatic
reduction in unlawful migration to the U.S. southwest border. For
example, encounters between southwest border POEs decreased from an
average of about 4,910 per day in the six months prior to the Securing
the Border interim final rule to an average of 1,880 per day between
June and December 2024.\58\ Moreover, southwest border encounters have
declined even more dramatically since President Trump took office on
January 20, 2025, and issued a series of proclamations and orders
designed to address the urgent situation at our borders, including
Proclamation 10888, Guaranteeing the States Protection Against
Invasion, 90 FR 8333 (Jan. 20, 2025) (published Jan. 29, 2025). Indeed,
in the 161 days from January 21 through June 30, 2025, encounters
between POEs averaged fewer than 290 per day, down from over 1,600 per
day in the last 161 days of the prior administration, while encounters
at POEs averaged about 120 per day, down from over 1,580 per day.\59\
Accordingly, even assuming the FRP programs had any impact on reducing
unlawful migration, the FRP programs are no longer needed due to
reduction in southwest border encounters as a result of other, more
effective, policies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ On May 9, 2025, a district court vacated and set aside the
Securing the Border rule's limitation on asylum eligibility and
manifestation of fear requirement but allowed the rule's
``reasonable probability'' standard to remain in effect. See Las
Americas Immigr. Advocacy Ctr. v. DHS, No. 1:24-cv-1702-RC,--F.
Supp. 3d--, 2025 WL 1403811, at *21 (D.D.C. May 9, 2025).
\58\ OHSS analysis of December 2024 OHSS Persist Dataset [OHSS
tab 2].
\59\ OHSS analysis of May 2025 OHSS Persist Dataset and CBP data
downloaded from UIP on July 2, 2025 [OHSS tab 1].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ultimately, the FRP programs failed in their stated intention to
sufficiently deter unlawful migration. A July 2024 report found that,
prior to the implementation of the Securing the Border framework, ``in
the first five months of the year [2024], CBP agents encountered more
than nine hundred thousand migrants and asylum seekers at the U.S.-
Mexico border. The majority hailed from just six countries: Mexico,
Guatemala, Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, and Colombia, in descending
order.'' \60\ Despite the categorical parole programs that the previous
administration put in place, four out of six of the nationalities with
the highest entry numbers in the first half of 2024 had a dedicated FRP
program.\61\ The modernized FRP program for Haiti was implemented on
August 11, 2023. CBP data indicates that in FY2022, 53,910 Haitian
nationals were encountered at the Southwest border, in FY2023, 76,130
and in FY2024, 88,673.\62\ This year-on-year substantial increase in
encounters of Haitian nationals at the Southwest border show that the
modernized FRP program for Haiti failed to slow the increase in
unlawful migration to the Southwest border. This data reflects that the
FRP programs did not noticeably decrease unlawful migration, or at the
very least were not nearly as effective as other policies implemented
at the same time to reduce unlawful migration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ Council on Foreign Relations, ``Why Six Countries Account
for Most Migrants at the U.S.-Mexico Border'' July 9, 2024, https://www.cfr.org/article/why-six-countries-account-most-migrants-us-mexico-border.
\61\ It should be noted that Venezuela, one of the six highest
entry populations by nationality mentioned, also had a parole
program which is not addressed in this FRN. The Venezuelan parole
program, largely premised on the same justifications as those
contained in the FRP parole programs, has been terminated in another
notice. See Termination of Parole Processes for Cubans, Haitians,
Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans, 90 FR 13611 (Mar. 25, 2025).
\62\ CBP, ``Nationwide Encounters'' Filtered for Region:
Southwest Land Border, Citizenship: Haiti, https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/nationwide-encounters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the modernized FRP programs were established, they were
promoted as timely alternatives to unlawful migration and as tools to
address the root causes of migration. However, it was not adequately
recognized that the populations served by these programs were often
fundamentally different from those undertaking unlawful migration. FRP
beneficiaries had approved I-130 petitions and U.S.-based supporters
who were LPRs or U.S. citizens, and thus had a lawful immigration
pathway available to them, even if it involved a significant wait. In
contrast, aliens arriving at the southwest border may lack U.S. family
ties or access to any lawful immigration channel. It is therefore
unlikely that someone with an existing legal pathway would risk
compromising their eligibility by pursuing unlawful entry. Economic
migrants and asylum seekers, on the other hand, may resort to appearing
at the border regardless, due to the absence of viable legal
alternatives. Perhaps most significantly, although the previous
administration argued that the FRP programs would decrease unlawful
migration, there is no data to support this argument. For example, the
FRP program for Ecuadorians was implemented on November 16, 2023. CBP
data indicates that in FY2022, 24,060 Ecuadorian nationals were
encountered at the
[[Page 58039]]
Southwest border, in FY2023, 116,229 and in FY2024 122,072.\63\
Petitioners with an approved Form I-130 filed for an alien abroad were
invited to submit Form I-134A which served as a declaration of
financial support. Neither petitioners nor beneficiaries were asked
through a form or an interview prior to applying for admission at a POE
in the U.S. whether they had any intention of attempting entry to the
U.S. unlawfully as an alternative to waiting for consular processing in
their countries. DHS believes, based on available data, that the FRP
programs had no meaningful deterrent effect on nationals from these
countries considering travel to the Southwest border. The programs do
not appear to have influenced the number of attempted entries in any
meaningful way. Moreover, any limited impact they may have had on
reducing unlawful border encounters falls far short when compared to
the effectiveness of other enforcement-focused policies implemented by
the current administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ CBP, ``Nationwide Encounters'' Filtered for Region:
Southwest Land Border, Citizenship: Ecuador, https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/nationwide-encounters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department has determined that terminating the FRP programs
will allow the Administration to adopt and implement more prudent,
durable, and appropriate strategies that will lead to a sustainable
reduction of encounters at the southwest border. The Department's
objective of breaking the vicious cycle of unlawful immigration
supports termination of the FRP programs along with the implementation
of enforcement-based actions that are consistent with the policy
objectives outlined in the new presidential directives calling for
enhanced border security beyond the 2024 Securing the Border
framework.\64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ As explained above, southwest border encounters decreased
following implementation of the Securing the Border framework and
complementary actions, and border encounters decreased even more
dramatically following implementation of President Trump's policies.
Another example of President Trump's policy directives include the
Presidential Proclamation ``Guaranteeing the States Protection
Against Invasion'' which suspends entry of aliens across the
southwest border, imposes restrictions on entry for aliens, and
suspends and restricts entry for aliens posing public health,
safety, or national security risks. See Guaranteeing the States
Protection Against Invasion, 90 FR 8333 (Jan. 29, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Reduce Strain on Limited U.S. Resources
The FRP programs were designed with the goal of easing pressure on
DHS resources and personnel by lowering the number of encounters at the
Southwest border enough to offset the added processing and
administrative burden; but that outcome never materialized. Instead,
the programs failed to reduce encounters at the Southwest border and
only added to DHS' workload. There was no reduction in burden with
regards to detention, monitoring, processing, and removal of aliens for
DHS personnel and resources, and, at the same time, there was an
increased burden in for both CBP and USCIS components who processed
these applications from receipt of Form I-134A to arrival at a U.S.
POE.
As discussed in the previous section of this notice, the number of
aliens who chose to participate in the FRP programs and who otherwise
would have chosen to unlawfully migrate as an alternative option is too
uncertain or limited towards meaningfully realizing the original
justifications for their implementation and the current
Administration's shift in policy focus to deter unlawful migration and
achieve operational control of the southwest border.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\65\ 90 FR 8467, Sec. 2(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After a thorough review assessing the costs of implementing these
programs, preliminary findings show that the programs have not met
their stated goal of burden-reduction. On the contrary, these programs
have led to an increased strain on DHS personnel and resources to
process, review, and adjudicate parole requests, especially when
considering the programs did not meaningfully result in any reduction
of encounters at or between POEs.\66\ For USCIS, there have been
approximately 35,700 Form I-134A filed with USCIS under the modernized
FRP programs since July 2023, which includes approximately 420 pending
review, 19,500 confirmed by USCIS, and 15,450 non-confirmed by
USCIS.\67\ It has required significant USCIS resources to administer
these parole programs. CBP has also expended considerable resources
implementing the FRP programs. Under the modernized FRP programs, CBP
has received 16,976 advance travel authorization (ATA) requests,
including 1,987 pending review or CBP One submission, 13,983 approved
by CBP, 975 denied by CBP, and 31 that expired after being
approved.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\66\ See discussion above concerning drops in southwest land
border encounters from the months of December 2024 to June 2025. DHS
has determined, based on the available evidence, that other
enforcement-based policies, including the Circumvention of Lawful
Pathways and Securing the Border rules, proved more effective at
reducing southwest land borders. OHSS analysis of December 2024 OHSS
Persist Dataset [OHSS tab 2]; OHSS analysis of May 2025 OHSS Persist
Dataset [OHSS tab 1].
\67\ Data pulled from internal DHS reports on parole processing
[OHSS tab 12]. Further, ``Confirmed'' in this context meant that
that USCIS had determined that the supporter was eligible to be a
supporter and that they demonstrated the ability to financially
support the beneficiary, while ``non-confirmed'' meant that USCIS
had determined that the potential supporter had been determined to
be ineligible to be a supporter or failed to demonstrate ability to
financially support the beneficiary.
\68\ ATA request data is based on an internal USCIS analysis of
information provided by CBP. See USCIS analysis of CBP FRP parole
data as of Jan. 23, 2025 [OHSS tab 6].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Due to the originating location of beneficiaries of the FRP
programs and available travel routes via commercial air, approximately
70% of beneficiaries of these programs who were issued an ATA flew to
Florida POEs.\69\ With the addition of three POEs in Texas and New York
City, these POEs in just three states account for nearly 85% of all
arrivals of FRP beneficiaries requesting parole.\70\ Processing an
alien requesting parole under the modernized FRP programs requires
secondary processing and enrollment of biometrics, resulting in a more
extensive interaction with the alien and prolonged time in CBP
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ Data provided on arrivals at specific POE is based on an
internal USCIS analysis of arrival information provided by CBP. See
USCIS analysis of CBP FRP parole data as of Jan. 23, 2025 [OHSS tab
5, 7, 8, 9].
\70\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although DHS, under the previous administration, argued that aliens
who had been paroled into the U.S. may have otherwise sought to enter
unlawfully along the southwest border, there is little to no evidence
to support this argument. DHS has no way of determining whether aliens
paroled into the U.S. under the respective FRP programs might have
otherwise attempted to enter unlawfully, as they were never asked this
question at any point, either before or after the programs were
implemented. Instead, these aliens with lawful pathways available to
them likely would have remained overseas while waiting for an immigrant
visa to become available and then would have completed consular
processing so they could be admitted to the United States as an LPR.
Aliens in this portion of the population would have been processed by
the Department of State if they had gone through consular processing.
Under the FRP programs, DHS reassigned personnel from other caseloads
to work on processing Forms I-134A, requests for ATAs, and for parole
processing at interior POEs. Therefore, the FRP programs not only
shifted the strain from the Department of State to DHS personnel, they
also increased the overall strain on DHS
[[Page 58040]]
resources because of the extra processing required under the programs
combined with the little to no concomitant reduction of unlawful
entries of nationals from the seven FRP countries.
The reallocation of limited DHS personnel resources caused by the
FRP programs is unsustainable, especially given DHS' critical need to
address border and interior enforcement and other Administration
priorities. Implementation of these programs resulted in increased
expenditure of DHS personnel and resources on administering the
programs without any related burden reduction for processing,
detention, monitoring, and removal of aliens unlawfully entering or
present within the United States.
As previously noted, reports indicate that nationals of the
countries eligible for the FRP programs have continued to migrate
unlawfully at some of the highest rates among all nationalities. CBP
personnel, in particular, experienced no relief. In contrast, the
implementation of the FRP programs introduced additional demands on
DHS, increasing workloads across multiple USCIS directorates including
the Service Center Operations Directorate (SCOPS) and Field Operations
Directorate (FOD).
The FRP programs have also resulted in expanded eligibility for
Federal public benefits. This is because, for instance, an alien who is
paroled into the United States under INA 212(d)(5) for a period of at
least 1 year is considered a ``qualified alien.'' See 8 U.S.C.
1641(b)(4). Because DHS generally issued three-year periods of parole
from the outset, FRP parolees generally were considered qualified
aliens. Although qualified aliens are generally subject to a five-year
waiting period before becoming eligible for certain Federal public
benefits, see, e.g., 8 U.S.C. 1613(a) (five-year waiting period for
Federal means-tested public benefits); 8 U.S.C. 1612(a)(2)(L) (general
five-year waiting period before a qualified alien can receive
supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP) benefits), such
waiting periods do not apply to all FRP parolees with respect to all
public benefit programs. For instance, a parolee under the age of 18
may be eligible for SNAP benefits, see 7 CFR 273.4(a)(6)(ii)(J), as
might ``a Cuban or Haitian entrant (as defined in section 501(e) of the
Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980),'' see 7 CFR
273.4(a)(6)(ii)(E). Similarly, some states have extended Medicaid and
Children's Health Insurance Program benefits without a five-year
waiting period to ``lawfully residing'' children and pregnant women,
which includes an alien who is paroled into the United States under INA
212(d)(5) for a period of at least 1 year.\71\ Overall, the domestic
impact of the FRP programs counsel against their continued operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ See 42 U.S.C. 1396b(v)(4) (Medicaid); 42 U.S.C.
1397gg(e)(1)(O) (CHIP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Address the Root Causes of Migration Through Economic Stability and
Development Supported by Increased Remittances
Finally, DHS intended for the FRP programs to aid in encouraging
development and addressing economic concerns in the eligible countries
by increasing the flow of remittances to those countries.\72\ Aliens
paroled into the United States under the FRP programs are eligible for
discretionary employment authorization, and aliens with employment
authorization typically enjoy higher wages than those without
employment authorization, allowing them the opportunity to send greater
amounts of money back to their home country in the form of
remittances.\73\ However, upon review of the modernized FRP programs
more than a year and a half \74\ after they were made available, DHS
has determined that a relatively low percentage of invited petitioners
decided to participate in the programs. Because of the low acceptance
rate of invited petitioners, the volume of remittances sent by
supporters or beneficiaries was minimal and had little to no measurable
impact on the economies of their home countries. Consequently, the FRP
programs fell short of addressing the underlying economic drivers of
unlawful migration. The modernized FRP programs' failure to address the
economic motivations behind illegal immigration weighs in favor of
terminating the FRP programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ See, e.g., 88 FR at 43596.
\73\ George J. Borjas, ``The Earnings of Undocumented
Immigrants,'' National Bureau of Economic Research (Mar. 2017),
https://www.nber.org/papers/w23236 (providing that aliens without
authorization to work earn less than those with employment
authorization).
\74\ The FRP process for Ecuadorians was established in November
2023 so has been available for approximately four fewer months. See
88 FR 78762.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2023 and 2024, the countries whose nationals were eligible for
consideration for parole under the FRP programs had remittance volumes
ranging from a low of $2.5 billion in Cuba to a high of $21.6 billion
in Guatemala.\75\ The remittance volumes referenced were not tied
exclusively to aliens paroled into the United States under the FRP
programs, that is, those remittances could have been sent from anyone
in the United States, regardless of immigration status. From 2020 to
2023, remittance volumes in 6 of the 7 countries whose nationals were
eligible for an FRP process grew between 8% and 43%.\76\ Only Haiti
experienced a lower growth rate at just 1%.\77\ In 2023, remittances
accounted for over 20% of the GDP of Guatemala, with similar increases
noted in El Salvador (24.5%), and Honduras (28.0%).\78\ Comparing the
high volumes of remittances in each of the FRP countries to the small
populations from each country that were invited to participate in the
FRP programs and the even smaller populations that did participate, DHS
has determined that any contribution FRP parolees may make to the
remittance volumes in their home country is too small to substantially
impact the overall economic stability of the country or address the
root causes of migration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ Family Remittances in 2024: Looking Ahead amid Possible
Shifts in Flows, Table 2, The Dialogue: Leadership for the Americas
(Aug. 6, 2024), https://thedialogue.org/family-remittances-in-2024-looking-ahead-amid-possible-shifts-in-flows.
\76\ Id. at table 1 (The growth rates in each country were:
Cuba--43%; Guatemala--15%; Honduras--14%; Ecuador--11%; Colombia--
10%; and El Salvador--8%.).
\77\ Id.
\78\ Family Remittances to Latin America and the Caribbean 2023,
Slide 6, The Dialogue: Leadership for the Americas (Sept. 9, 2023),
https://thedialogue.org/analysis/family-remittances-to-latin-america-and-the-caribbean-2023/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FRP programs failed in their intention of addressing the root
causes of migration. A July 2024 report stated ``The Joe Biden
administration has responded by designing policies to mitigate `root
causes' of migration and displacement, enacting temporary humanitarian
protections for individuals from certain countries, while making it
more difficult for migrants to apply for asylum in the United States.
But push factors--including organized crime-fueled violence and
extortion and a lack of economic opportunities--combined with the pull
of a strong U.S. labor market, make it unlikely migration flows will
decrease substantially in the near future.'' \79\ Due to the low
numbers of participants in the FRP programs, it is also unlikely that
the remittances provided by the FRP participant population would
meaningfully impact migration flows. As previously stated, it is
unlikely that someone with an existing legal pathway would risk
[[Page 58041]]
compromising their eligibility by pursuing unlawful entry to the United
States. Economic migrants and asylum seekers, on the other hand, may
resort to the border route regardless, due to the absence of viable
legal alternatives and the push and pull factors that remain
unaddressed by the FRP programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ Council on Foreign Relations, ``Why Six Countries Account
for Most Migrants at the U.S.-Mexico Border'' July 9, 2024, https://www.cfr.org/article/why-six-countries-account-most-migrants-us-mexico-border.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More broadly, the United States cannot bear sole responsibility for
the development and economic stability of other nations. In line with
the America First Policy Directive, the President instructed the
Secretary of State to ``issue guidance bringing the Department of
State's policies, programs, personnel, and operations in line with an
America First foreign policy, which puts America and its interests
first.'' \80\ While strategic partnerships and targeted support can
play a role, U.S. immigration policy cannot serve as a surrogate for
long-term development solutions in foreign countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\80\ 90 FR 8337.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lessons Learned
The FRP programs did not achieve their stated objectives. They
failed to reduce unlawful migration or alleviate operational burdens on
DHS--particularly CBP--and instead increased administrative strain
across multiple USCIS directorates and CBP ports of entry. Moreover,
the programs had no measurable effect on addressing root causes of
migration and introduced additional vulnerabilities that actively
undermined the integrity of the U.S. immigration system and posed risks
to public safety and national security.
While the modernized FRP programs established a framework for
vetting, the processes in place proved insufficient and introduced
significant opportunities for fraud. For instance, a recent internal
audit revealed that over 700 requests to be a supporter were filed
under the names of deceased individuals of which USCIS confirmed
approximately half. Generally, if a Form I-130 petitioner dies after
approval, the Form I-130 is automatically revoked.\81\ Under program
requirements, the individual submitting the request to be a supporter
must be the same petitioner who filed the original family-based
immigrant visa petition--the same petitioner to whom the Department of
State issued the parole invitation. Additionally, the same internal
audit concluded that the vetting standards applied to co-supporters
under the modernized FRP programs were even weaker than those for
primary supporters, further compromising program integrity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ See generally 8 CFR 205.1(a)(3)(i)(B) and (C). There are
certain noted exceptions, such as INA 204(l) and humanitarian
reinstatement of a revoked petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taken together, these operational shortcomings, security
vulnerabilities, and policy failures underscore that the FRP programs
not only failed to meet their intended goals, but actively strained DHS
resources and undermined public trust. For these reasons, termination
of the FRP programs is a prudent course of action.
IV. Reliance Interests of Prospective Supporters and Parolees
In deciding whether and how to terminate the FRP programs, DHS has
considered potential reliance interests of a range of potential
supporters and beneficiaries of these programs. At the outset, however,
DHS observes that the temporary and discretionary nature of parole
indicates that reliance on the continued existence of the FRP programs
would be unwarranted. See INA 101(a)(13)(B), 212(d)(5)(A); 8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(13)(B), 1182(d)(5)(A). Further, the notices establishing the
modernized FRP programs expressly advise the public that, ``[t]he
Secretary retains the sole discretion to terminate this FRP process at
any point'' \82\ and that ``DHS may terminate parole upon notice in its
discretion at any time.'' \83\ The FRP programs were ``being
implemented as a matter of the Secretary's discretion. [They are] not
intended to and [do] not create any rights, substantive or procedural,
enforceable by any party in any matter, civil or criminal.'' \84\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\ E.g., 88 FR at 43598; 88 FR at 54643.
\83\ E.g., 88 FR at 43593; see also 88 FR at 54643.
\84\ E.g., 88 FR at 43598-99; 88 FR at 54643.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notwithstanding that DHS made very clear that reliance on these
programs would be inappropriate, and the additional notice provided in
E.O. 14165, DHS has analyzed the effects of this action on any
potential reliance interests in an abundance of caution. DHS recognizes
that this notice announces a reversal of a prior policy of which many
stakeholders have taken advantage after being invited to participate.
To analyze the reliance interests of affected parties, DHS describes
the main steps in the process below and analyzes the reliance interests
of parties who have reached that point in the process.
1. Reliance Interests of Potential Supporters and Beneficiaries
DHS first considered the potential reliance interests of those
U.S.-based I-130 petitioners invited by DHS to participate in the FRP
programs and who had intended to file or have filed a Form I-134A or
Form I-131, Application for Travel Documents, Parole Documents, and
Arrival/Departure Records, in support of a potential parolee.\85\ In
general, the costs associated with Form I-134A filings are minimal.
While there is no fee for the petitioner to file a Form I-134A and
there is no fee for a potential beneficiary to seek consideration under
the FRP programs, petitioners who have already filed Form I-134A, or
who have completed the Form I-134A in anticipation of filing, may have
incurred the opportunity cost of completing Form I-134A, estimated at
2.60 hours per response.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\ The information collection approval of Form I-134A has
expired and it is no longer available for submission. DHS sent its
most recent invitation for a petitioner to submit a Form I-134A on
June 28, 2024, and has not accepted a request from a prospective
supporter since January 28, 2025. Only 420 Forms I-134A are pending,
and USCIS will send them each nonconfirmation notices.
\86\ See SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR Online Request to be a
Supporter and Declaration of Financial Support, OMB Control No.:
1615-0157, COLLECTION INSTRUMENT(S): Form I-134A, page 10, question
12, https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewDocument?ref_nbr=202409-1615-006 (last visited Feb. 7, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are currently over 15,000 pending initial requests for parole
under the legacy CFRP program at various stages of adjudication. There
are no pending initial requests under the legacy HFRP program, so there
are no reliance interests for potential petitioners or beneficiaries
under that program. Petitioners under the legacy CFRP program were
required to pay the filing fee for Form I-131, unless they were
eligible for a fee waiver. For a Form I-131 filed before December 23,
2016, petitioners paid $360. For a Form I-131 filed after December 23,
2016, petitioners paid $575. For a Form I-131 filed after April 1,
2024, petitioners generally paid $630, although CFRP add-on derivatives
were exempt from the fee.
At this early stage in the process, the costs incurred by a
potential beneficiary in both the Form I-134A-based modernized FRP
programs, as well as the Form I-131-based legacy CFRP program are
minimal. In the Form I-134A-based process, once a petitioner's Form I-
134A is confirmed, the potential beneficiary receives instructions to
create an online account with myUSCIS, confirms biographic information
in the online account, and attests to meeting the eligibility
requirements, including the completion of a medical examination by a
panel physician. Potential beneficiaries who received notification that
the Form I-134A filed on their behalf was confirmed were instructed on
next steps in the process,
[[Page 58042]]
including completion of the medical requirements. The medical
examination required being cleared of any Class A medical conditions
and receiving certain required vaccinations. Therefore, it is possible
that a potential beneficiary took the time to complete the medical
examination and receive the required vaccinations. After confirming
biographic information and properly completing the medical examination,
the beneficiary received instructions to access the CBP One mobile
application to enter biographic information and submit a live photo.
The alien was required to complete these steps prior to being
considered for authorization to travel to the United States to seek
parole. The total estimated time to complete the CBP One part of the
ATA process was 10 minutes.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ See 88 FR 62810, 62812 (Sept. 13, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Form I-131-based legacy process, the adjudication of the
Form I-131 took place in two stages. First, a designated USCIS Service
Center adjudicator would review the application package submitted by
the petitioner and confirm that the petitioner had received a U.S.
government invitation to apply to the legacy process, and that all
documentary filing requirements were met. If the petitioner failed to
submit the required evidence, adjudicators would issue a Request for
Evidence to obtain the missing information. Unless a sufficient
response was received, the filing would be denied. For cases where all
required evidence was provided and eligibility was established, USCIS
conditionally approved the Form I-131. There were no costs to the
potential beneficiary during this first stage of the process. However,
the second stage of the process required the potential beneficiary to
report for an in-person interview at a USCIS office overseas, which
could result in travel costs and medical exam costs. During this stage,
USCIS would verify the identity and qualifying familial relationship
between the petitioner and a potential beneficiary.
In general, the costs to petitioners and potential beneficiaries
are not significant and pale in comparison to the U.S. government's
sovereign interest in determining who may be paroled into the United
States. DHS issued invitations as a use of administrative grace that
could end at any time and made no assurances that each invitation would
result in a grant of parole. DHS made no assurances that each Form I-
134A would be processed, nor did DHS assure that each Form I-134A or
Form I-131 would ultimately result in a grant of parole to a potential
beneficiary. For petitioners/beneficiaries who received a conditional
approval of Form I-131 from USCIS under the legacy CFRP program, the
conditional approval made it clear that additional steps were
required--including completion of a medical examination and in-person
interview--before parole could be authorized.\88\ Therefore, neither
the petitioner nor the potential beneficiary has a significant reliance
interest in continuation of the process at this stage. Any costs
incurred by a potential beneficiary in the Form I-131 or Form I-134A-
based process, both for completing the medical examination and for
receiving the required vaccinations, can be impactful, depending on the
country and the relative cost of these items compared to the average
wage received by that country's population and the rate of unemployment
in the country. However, both the costs of the vaccinations and the
medical examination are offset by their attendant benefit to the
beneficiary of identifying health issues that may have existed and
preventing future illness. Once again, the interest of petitioners and
potential beneficiaries in preserving the FRP programs is minimal
compared to the U.S. government's interest in exercising its discretion
to decide which programs to continue and which benefits to provide,
based on the policy priorities of the current administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ See USCIS, ``The Cuban Family Reunification Parole
Program,'' https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/humanitarian-parole/the-cuban-family-reunification-parole-program (``Process Steps'')
(last updated Oct. 11, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, DHS will issue a notice of non-confirmation for all
pending Forms I-134A. DHS will also rescind the confirmation of all
Forms I-134A that were previously confirmed and issue updated notices
of non-confirmation for any potential beneficiaries who have not yet
traveled to a POE to seek parole. Potential beneficiaries will no
longer be able to execute any attestations or seek ATA through a USCIS
online account based on a previously confirmed Form I-134A. DHS also
intends to issue denial notices for all conditionally approved Form I-
131 under the legacy CFRP program that have not been issued a travel
document. The Form I-131 filing fee will not be refunded as USCIS has
already expended resources in partially completing their adjudication.
2. Reliance Interests of Potential Beneficiaries With Approved ATAs and
Their Petitioners
DHS has canceled all pending requests for advance authorization to
travel to the United States to seek a discretionary grant of parole
under the FRP programs.
DHS considered allowing any approved ATAs to remain in place until
they were used or expired by their terms. However, DHS did not want
aliens to fly to the United States at significant personal expense to
seek parole under policies that DHS no longer supports or appear to
encourage aliens to incur additional expenses based on a belief that
they will be paroled upon arrival at the POE. DHS wants to be as
transparent as possible and not exacerbate the problems created by the
FRP programs. As is always the case, however, CBP may consider a
request for parole under DHS's existing parole authority, on a case-by-
case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public
benefit, in the exercise of discretion. If parole is not granted,
aliens may be removed to their home country at U.S. government expense
or processed for another appropriate disposition under the INA.
In sum, the FRP programs have failed to achieve their stated
objectives. They are inconsistent with the current Administration's
enforcement priorities, do not advance current U.S. foreign policy
goals, did not meaningfully reduce unlawful migration, did not
alleviate the strain on DHS personnel and resources, nor address the
root causes of migration through economic development. Instead, the
programs imposed additional administrative burdens on DHS and
introduced vulnerabilities that significantly undermined the integrity
of the U.S. immigration system. While some petitioners and
beneficiaries may have relied on the availability of FRP programs,
those reliance interests are limited in scope and involved minimal
financial or procedural burdens. Even if the reliance interests were
greater, DHS has determined that the federal government's interest in
controlling the circumstances under which foreign nationals may be
paroled into the United States outweigh those interests. Accordingly,
terminating the FRP programs is both lawful and reasonable.
V. Effect of Termination on Current Parolees Under the FRP Programs and
Corresponding Reliance Interests
The notices establishing the FRP programs explain that parole is
not an admission of the alien to the United
[[Page 58043]]
States, and a parolee remains an applicant for admission during the
period of parole in the United States. See also INA sec. 212(d)(5)(A),
8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A). DHS may set the duration of the parole based on
the purpose for granting the parole request and may impose reasonable
conditions on parole. Id. Aliens may be granted advance authorization
to travel to the United States to seek parole. See 8 CFR 212.5(f). The
Secretary may terminate parole in her discretion at any time when, in
her opinion, neither urgent humanitarian reasons nor significant public
benefit warrants the continued presence of the alien in the United
States, and parole shall be terminated when the purpose for which it
was authorized has been accomplished. See 8 CFR 212.5(e). And, finally,
aliens who are paroled into the United States, including those paroled
through the FRP programs, may generally apply for and be granted
employment authorization under the (c)(11) employment eligibility
category. See 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(11).
As noted above, since July 10, 2023, approximately 14,000 aliens
were granted parole into the United States pursuant to the modernized
FRP programs. While some aliens in this population have subsequently
pursued other lawful immigration statuses and benefits, all aliens
within this population are still within the 3-year initial period of
parole under the modernized FRP programs. Approximately 1,060 Cubans
are currently in the United States with a valid period of parole under
the legacy CFRP program. Approximately 100 Haitians are currently in
the United States with a valid period of parole under the legacy HFRP
program.
Parolees under the FRP programs may be able to seek an additional
period(s) of parole (``re-parole'') by filing Form I-131, and
demonstrating urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit
specific to his or her case and that he or she merits a favorable
exercise of discretion for re-parole. These cases and any such pending
cases will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
DHS has determined that as one aspect of the termination of the FRP
programs, and consistent with the Secretary's statutory and regulatory
authority,\89\ the parole of all aliens who have been paroled into the
United States under the FRP programs described in this notice, and
whose initial period of parole has not already expired by January 14,
2026, will terminate on that date. There are two circumstances where an
alien's parole will not terminate: (1) the alien filed a Form I-485
before December 15, 2025 that is still pending adjudication as of
January 14, 2026; or (2) the Secretary determines otherwise on a case-
by-case basis. The parole of an alien with a pending Form I-485 will
remain valid until either the expiration date provided on the alien's
Form I-94, Arrival/Departure Record, or the date a final adjudication
of the Form I-485 is completed, whichever is sooner. If the Form I-485
is denied, the alien's parole period will be terminated as of the date
of the denial and the alien is expected to depart the United States
immediately if they have no other lawful basis for remaining. Pending
Form I-131 requests for re-parole filed by aliens initially paroled
under the FRP programs will be adjudicated and may be approved on a
case-by-case basis.\90\ Note that with respect to re-parole requests
filed by aliens who were initially paroled under one of the FRP
programs, facial eligibility under those programs does not entitle an
alien to re-parole. The alien still must demonstrate urgent
humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit specific to his or
her case and that he or she merits a favorable exercise of discretion
for parole, as required by section 212(d)(5)(A) of the INA, 8 U.S.C.
1182(d)(5)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\89\ See INA 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A) (``when the
purposes of such parole shall, in the opinion of the Secretary of
Homeland Security, have been served the alien shall forthwith return
or be returned to the custody from which he was paroled and
thereafter his case shall continue to be dealt with in the same
manner as that of any other applicant for admission to the United
States''); 8 CFR 212.5(e)(2) (``. . . Upon accomplishment of the
purpose for which parole was authorized or when in the opinion of
one of the officials listed in paragraph(a) of this section, neither
humanitarian reasons nor public benefit warrants the continued
presence of the alien in the United States, parole shall be
terminated upon written notice to the alien[.].'' (emphasis added)).
\90\ Note that aliens paroled into the United States have been
able, and will continue to be able, to apply for re-parole on a
case-by-case basis by filing Form I-131. Aliens will not, however,
be able to apply for re-parole under the legacy FRP programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following this termination, and consistent with the direction in
Executive Order 14165, DHS generally intends to promptly remove aliens,
consistent with law, who entered the United States under the FRP
programs and who stay in the United States beyond their parole
termination date with no lawful basis to remain in the United States.
DHS retains its discretion to commence enforcement action, consistent
with law, against any alien at any time, including during the 30-day
waiting period created by this notice. Once parole is terminated, and
if no exception applies and no lawful immigration status, relief,
classification, or protection is obtained, aliens must return to their
home country to maintain their path to lawful immigration status or be
removed from the United States subject to a final order of removal.
Parolees without any other lawful basis to remain in the United States
following the termination of the FRP programs should depart the United
States before their parole termination date. As detailed below, aliens
whose parole period is terminated are encouraged to submit their intent
to depart through the CBP Home Mobile App. Aliens departing the United
States via land border POEs should report their departure once outside
the United States via the CBP Home Mobile App. Aliens should visit
https://i94.cbp.dhs.gov/home for more information about voluntarily
reporting their departure.
DHS has recently announced a historic opportunity for aliens to
receive both financial and travel assistance to facilitate travel back
to their home country or another country in which they have lawful
status through the CBP Home App. Once unlawful aliens submit their
intent to depart through the CBP Home Mobile App and pass vetting, they
will be deprioritized by ICE for enforcement action, detention and
removal before their scheduled departure, as long as they demonstrate
they are making meaningful strides in completing the departure.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ DHS, ``DHS Announces Historic Travel Assistance and Stipend
for Voluntary Self-Deportation'' May 5, 2025, https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/05/05/dhs-announces-historic-travel-assistance-and-stipend-voluntary-self-deportation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In implementing this approach, DHS intends to prioritize for
removal those whose parole is terminated and who have not, prior to the
publication of this notice, submitted an immigration benefit request to
obtain a lawful basis to remain in the United States. Aliens who have
since obtained a lawful immigration status or other basis that permits
them to remain in the United States are not required to depart the
United States pursuant to this notice.
Parole-based employment authorization under 8 CFR 274a.12(c)(11)
automatically terminates upon (1) the expiration date specified on the
employment authorization document, (2) DHS' institution of removal
proceedings against the alien, or (3) a grant of voluntary departure.
See 8 CFR 274a.14(a). Such employment authorization may also be revoked
on notice consistent with the procedures in 8 CFR 274a.14(b). DHS has
determined that, after termination of the parole, the condition upon
which the employment authorization was granted no longer
[[Page 58044]]
exists and thus DHS intends to revoke parole-based employment
authorization consistent with the revocation on notice procedures. See
8 CFR 274a.14(b).
DHS has considered the impacts on parolees who are affected by this
discretionary decision to terminate their parole prior to the
expiration of the parole period. DHS recognizes the costs incurred by
some aliens who have been granted parole and moved to the United
States.\92\ Parolees will have departed their native country; traveled
to the United States; obtained housing, employment authorization, and
means of transportation; and perhaps commenced the process of building
connections to the community where they reside. In addition, employers
who employ parolees may incur costs related to lost productivity and
finding new employees. Property owners who rent homes, condos, or
apartments to parolees may lose steady rent payments. Retailers and
restaurants in the communities the parolees have been living in will
lose customers. Aliens paroled under the modernized FRP programs have
been in the United States for as long as 20 months, while some aliens
initially paroled under the legacy FRP programs and subsequently
granted additional parole periods may have been in the United States
for years.\93\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ See Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 579 U.S. 211, 221-22
(2016) (``Agencies are free to change their existing policies as
long as they provide a reasoned explanation for the change. . . .
But the agency must at least display awareness that it is changing
position and show that there are good reasons for the new policy. In
explaining its changed position, an agency must also be cognizant
that longstanding policies may have engendered serious reliance
interests that must be taken into account.'' (cleaned up)).
\93\ As noted earlier in this section, there are approximately
100 aliens in this category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, any assessment of the reliance interests of FRP parolees
must account for FRP parolees' knowledge at the outset that (1) the
Secretary retained the discretion to terminate the parole programs at
any point in time, and to terminate any grants of parole at any time
when, in her opinion, the purposes of such parole have been served;
\94\ and (2) the initial period of parole would be limited to a maximum
of three years. These clear, limiting conditions of the FRP programs
served to attenuate any long-term expectations and interests amongst
FRP parolees. Accordingly, DHS has taken these limiting conditions,
along with FRP parolees' knowledge of them, into consideration when
weighing their reliance interests.\95\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ See e.g., 88 FR at 43593; 88 FR at 54643; 88 FR at 54638;
see also INA 212(d)(5)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A); 8 CFR
212.5(e)(2)(i).
\95\ See DHS v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., 591 U.S. 1, 32
(2020) (noting that DHS could conclude that reliance is
``unjustified in light of the express limitations'' in relevant
immigration policy). Note that aliens paroled into the United States
have been able, and will continue to be able, to apply for re-parole
on a case-by-case basis by filing Form I-131.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To the extent that current parolees have obtained housing and
employment authorization, or created new ties within the community
while in the United States, DHS notes these interests are qualitatively
less than any reliance interests that might be attributed to the
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA) recipient population
consistent with the discussion in DHS v. Regents of the University of
California.\96\ In Regents, the Supreme Court reviewed whether DHS had
appropriately considered the reliance interests of DACA recipients when
rescinding DACA.\97\ The reliance interests of DACA recipients, all of
whom had been present in the United States for far longer than most FRP
parolees have been, included their enrollment in degree programs, the
beginning of their careers, the starting of businesses, and the
purchasing of homes.\98\ As the Court noted, these interests, though
noteworthy, were not ``necessarily dispositive,'' and ``DHS may
determine, in the particular context before it, that other interests
and policy concerns [in rescinding DACA] outweigh any reliance
interests.'' \99\ For the purposes of the actions announced in this
notice, DHS notes the reliance interests of those paroled under the FRP
programs are far less than the population in Regents. Furthermore, as
stated above, consideration of the reliance interests under the FRP
programs must take into account the express, discretionary terms of the
parole programs. Accordingly, the reliance interests are outweighed by
the U.S. government's strong interest in promptly returning parolees
when the basis for the underlying parole no longer exists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\96\ Id.
\97\ Id. at 31.
\98\ Id.
\99\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Third parties, including employers, landlords, and others, may also
have indirect reliance interests in the availability of individual FRP
parolees, but even if DHS had allowed the grants of parole to expire at
the end of their designated terms, such third parties would have
experienced the effects of such expiration. By providing 30 days'
notice and allowing the parole period of parolees with pending Forms I-
485 to continue, DHS balances the benefits of a wind-down period for
aliens and third parties with the exigency of promptly enforcing the
law against those aliens lacking a lawful basis to remain in the United
States. For the same reasons set forth above, the Department finds the
U.S. government's interest in terminating these grants of parole
outweigh any reliance interest of third parties.
DHS considered several alternatives to termination of parole after
a 30-day wind-down period, including, (1) allowing the current period
of parole for each FRP beneficiary to expire and notifying the
beneficiary to either seek lawful immigration status or voluntarily
depart the United States prior to expiration; (2) allowing each FRP
beneficiary to continue to seek FRP re-parole until an immigrant visa
is available and the beneficiary may qualify to file Form I-485; and
(3) announcing the termination of parole for each beneficiary following
a wind down period of longer than 30 days from the date of publication
of the termination notice. After due consideration, DHS has opted to
not pursue these routes.
Option 1 would require individualized outreach and ongoing
monitoring by DHS, imposing a significant administrative burden on the
agency. Staggered parole expirations could result in extended
unauthorized stays and generate confusion among parolees due to
differing timelines. Option 2 fails to meaningfully implement the
policy shift outlined in this Federal Register notice, as it would
allow continued reliance on parole as a pathway to adjustment of
status--effectively maintaining the existing parole framework for
current beneficiaries. Moreover, permitting current parolees under the
FRP programs to repeatedly seek re-parole would do little to reduce the
current administrative workload borne by DHS and USCIS in processing
these cases. Critically, both Option 1 and 2 dilute the intended impact
of the policy change and fail to communicate the urgency of this
administration's shift in direction. A protracted off-ramp could be
perceived as a reluctance to fully enforce key policy priorities aimed
at realigning parole authority with the original congressional intent.
Moreover, allowing parolees under the FRP programs to continue to
remain in the United States despite the lackluster or insufficient
vetting they received prior to entry creates vulnerabilities for the
U.S., undermining efforts to safeguard national security and public
safety.
When determining whether to adopt the alternative of a longer than
30-day
[[Page 58045]]
wind-down period, DHS determined such an alternative was not the best
path forward. First, regardless of the wind-down period, parolees,
their employers, their landlords, their friends, and their communities
may incur costs. Given this reality, DHS decided to employ the path
that will most expeditiously allow the Department to reallocate
resources currently assigned to handle the FRP programs to issues
deemed essential to securing our borders and protecting the American
people against invasion. Accordingly, the Department has determined
that a 30-day wind down period provides the affected parties sufficient
notice while also preserving the Department's interest in promptly
terminating attendant grants of parole for which the Department deems
no longer provide significant public benefit to the United States.
Accordingly, the Department is opting not to increase the wind-down
period to more than 30 days.
VI. Federal Register Notice as Constructive Notice
This Federal Register notice serves as notice of the termination of
the FRP programs and satisfies the requirement that DHS provide written
notice upon the termination of parole.\100\ For the reasons set forth
above, the Secretary has concluded that neither urgent humanitarian
reasons nor significant public benefit warrants the continued presence
of aliens paroled under the FRP programs and the purposes of such
parole therefore have been served. This constructive notice accordingly
serves as written notice to FRP parolees. DHS has determined that
publication of this notice in the Federal Register is legally
sufficient notice to all interested or affected persons regardless of
actual knowledge or hardship resulting from ignorance.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\ See 8 CFR 212.5(e)(2)(i) (``. . . Upon accomplishment of
the purpose for which parole was authorized or when in the opinion
of one of the officials listed in paragraph (a) of this section,
neither humanitarian reasons nor public benefit warrants the
continued presence of the alien in the United States, parole shall
be terminated upon written notice to the alien. . . .'' (emphasis
added)).
\101\ See 44 U.S.C. 1507; Friends of Sierra R.R., Inc. v.
I.C.C., 881 F.2d 663, 667-68 (9th Cir. 1989); see also Fed. Crop
Ins. Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380, 385 (1947) (``Congress has
provided that the appearance of rules and regulations in the Federal
Register gives legal notice of their contents.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DHS finds Federal Register publication of the decision to terminate
existing grants of parole to be the most practicable approach in light
of the potential noncompliance with change-of-address reporting
requirements and the potential for outdated email addresses. See 8
U.S.C. 1305; 8 CFR 265.1. Nevertheless, all FRP parolees under the
modernized programs should have a USCIS online account and all
processing under these parole programs took place electronically, DHS
will also provide individual notice to each parolee through their USCIS
online account.\102\ For legacy FRP parolees, USCIS will provide
personal, individual notice by mail if the parolee does not have a
myUSCIS account. This notice, and the individual notice through the
USCIS online account or sent by mail, each independently constitute
``written notice to the alien'' under 8 CFR 212.5(e)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\ Cf., e.g., 8 CFR 103.2(b)(19)(ii)(B) (``For applications
or petitions filed electronically, USCIS will notify both the
applicant or petitioner and the authorized attorney or accredited
representative electronically of any notices or decisions. . . .'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. Administrative Procedure Act
This notice is exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking
requirements because DHS is merely adopting a general statement of
policy, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), 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.'' \103\ By terminating the
FRP programs--which themselves constituted general statements of
policy, see, e.g., 88 FR at 43599--DHS is explaining how it will
implement the Secretary's broad discretion for exercising her narrow
parole authority. Accordingly, this notice of termination constitutes a
general statement of policy and is exempt from the notice-and-comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act
(``APA'').\104\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\103\ See Lincoln v. Vigil, 508 U.S. 182, 197 (1993) (quoting
Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 302 n.31 (1979)).
\104\ Cf. Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n, 575 U.S. 92, 101
(``Because an agency is not required to use notice-and-comment
procedures to issue an initial interpretive rule, it is also not
required to use those procedures when it amends or repeals that
interpretive rule.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When an agency merely explains how it will enforce a statute or
regulation by describing how it will exercise its broad enforcement
discretion, as was the case with the FRP programs, it is a general
statement of policy. See Lincoln, 508 U.S. at 197. Section 212(d)(5)(A)
of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5)(A) provides the Secretary broad
discretion in exercising the parole authority, with parole decisions
made by the Secretary ``in [her] discretion.'' The FRP programs
therefore were general statements of policy.
Because the FRP programs constitute general statements of policy
and were exempt from notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under
the APA, their termination likewise is a mere general statement of
policy exempt from the notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements.
Through the termination of the FRP programs and for the reasons given,
DHS is merely making a change to a previous policy statement on the
exercise of its discretionary parole authority.\105\ Accordingly, there
is no requirement to publish notice prior to the termination's
effective date, and it is therefore amenable to immediate issuance and
implementation. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\105\ See Encino Motorcars, 579 U.S. at 221 (``Agencies are free
to change their existing policies as long as they provide a reasoned
explanation for the change.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even if the changes were considered to be a legislative rule that
would normally be subject to notice and comment rulemaking and a
delayed effective date, these changes--like the implementation of the
parole programs themselves \106\--pertain to a foreign affairs function
of the United States, and are exempt from such procedural requirements
on that basis.\107\ Consistent with the Secretary of State's February
21, 2025, determination that ``all efforts, conducted by any agency of
the federal government, to control the status, entry, and exit of
people, and the transfer of goods, services, data, technology, and
other items across the borders of the United States, constitute a
foreign affairs function of the United States[,]'' DHS finds that these
changes are connected to the entry and exit of people and thereby
constitute a foreign affairs function.\108\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\106\ See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1); see, e.g., 88 FR at 43599.
\107\ See Am. Ass'n of Exporters & Importers--Textile & Apparel
Grp. v. United States, 751 F.2d 1239, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (noting
that foreign affairs exception covers agency actions ``linked
intimately with the Government's overall political agenda concerning
relations with another country''); Yassini v. Crosland, 618 F.2d
1356, 1361 (9th Cir. 1980) (because an immigration directive ``was
implementing the President's foreign policy,'' the action ``fell
within the foreign affairs function and good cause exceptions to the
notice and comment requirements of the APA'').
\108\ U.S. Department of State, Determination, Foreign Affairs
Function of the United States, 90 FR 12200 (Feb. 21, 2025)
(published Mar. 14, 2025). The Secretary of State's determination
references and implements numerous Presidential actions reflecting
the President's top foreign policy priorities, including Executive
Order 14165. As noted above, Executive Order 14165 specifically
directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to, consistent with
applicable law, take all appropriate action to terminate categorical
parole programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, although the APA does not require the agency to show that
such procedures may result in ``definitely undesirable international
consequences'' to invoke the foreign affairs exemption to notice-and-
[[Page 58046]]
comment rulemaking, some courts have required such a showing,\109\ and
DHS can make one here. Delaying termination of the FRP programs to
undertake rulemaking would undermine the U.S. government's ability to
conduct foreign policy, including the ability to shift governmental
policies and engage in delicate and time-sensitive negotiations
following a change in Administration. It is the view of the United
States that the termination of these parole programs will fulfill
important foreign policy goals that the President has repeatedly
articulated and urged DHS to implement swiftly; any delay in achieving
such goals is definitely undesirable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\109\ See, e.g., Rajah v. Mukasey, 544 F.3d 427, 437 (2d Cir.
2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained in the notices implementing the modernized FRP
programs, they were implemented as an integral part of negotiations
with regional neighbors, including Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, and
Guatemala, to address unlawful migratory flows challenging immigration
systems throughout the region.\110\ For instance, in announcing the FRP
program for Colombians, DHS explained that even if the program 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 program would be exempt from such requirements because it
involves a foreign affairs function of the United States.\111\ DHS
explained that ``the expansion of lawful pathways for aliens to enter
the United States is necessary to ensure partners' continued
collaboration on migration issues, including the ability of the United
States to meet other immigration-management priorities such as the
timely establishment of [Safe Mobility Offices or SMOs].'' \112\ DHS
continued that ``[t]he success of SMOs and other new measures to reduce
unlawful migration to the [southwest border] is therefore connected to
the United States expanding access to lawful pathways, including family
reunification parole processes that will benefit nationals in countries
identified to host SMOs.'' \113\ DHS noted that the U.S. government
continued ``to engage with and ask additional governments to consider
connecting their lawful pathways to SMO efforts and [was] building
goodwill and momentum to seek SMOs in still more countries in the
region.'' \114\ When implementing changes to the FRP programs for
Cubans and Haitians, DHS invoked the foreign affairs exemption on
similar grounds.\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\110\ See, e.g., 88 FR at 43594.
\111\ See, e.g., 88 FR at 43599.
\112\ Id.
\113\ Id. at 43600.
\114\ Id.
\115\ See 88 FR at 54643 (Cuba); 88 FR at 54639 (Haiti).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, as discussed in this notice, U.S. foreign policy has
changed in critical respects, and DHS must expeditiously align its
policies to that change. Whereas implementation of the FRP programs was
one part of a broader strategy to collaboratively manage unlawful
migration with neighboring countries, the U.S. government is pursuing a
range of other policy initiatives that would allow DHS to return or
remove FRP program nationals, including re-implementation of the
Migrant Protection Protocols and improved cooperation and coordination
with other countries regarding return or removal of their or third
country nationals.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\ DHS, DHS Reinstates Migrant Protection Protocols, Allowing
Officials to Return Applicants to Neighboring Countries, https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/01/21/dhs-reinstates-migrant-protection-protocols (updated Mar. 21, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the context of these complex and time-sensitive diplomatic
negotiations, it would be counterproductive to retain vestiges of a
foreign policy approach that the United States is no longer pursuing,
even temporarily, to allow for a period of public comment about matters
that implicate our foreign affairs and are ultimately within the
Executive's discretion. Continuing to administer the FRP programs
pending notice-and-comment would adversely affect the United States'
ability to pivot rapidly to a more effective approach in these
negotiations and may result in an even greater number of FRP program
nationals requiring removal or return. Further delay in pursuing these
more effective approaches would be particularly pernicious in the
context of ongoing negotiations, as discussed in section III.2 of this
notice, with countries to accept the return of their nationals,
including FRP program nationals.
Finally, and for the same reasons that a delay in implementing this
action would result in undesirable international consequences, even if
notice-and-comment and a delayed effective date were required, DHS has
determined that the good cause exemptions to notice-and-comment
rulemaking and the 30-day effective date apply and that the delay
associated with implementing these changes through notice-and-comment
rulemaking or delaying the effective date would be impracticable and
contrary to the public interest. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), (d)(3). Any delay
for such procedures would harm the U.S. government's ability to timely
implement the current Administration's foreign policy approach and
exacerbate the challenges associated with the FRP programs, as
explained throughout this notice, contrary to the President's direction
to protect the American people against invasion and to secure the
border.\117\ Such an outcome would also be inconsistent with the
fundamentally discretionary nature of DHS's parole authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\117\ 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B); 553(d)(3); see Util. Solid Waste
Activities Grp. v. EPA, 236 F.3d 749, 754-55 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (``a
situation is `impracticable' when an agency finds that due and
timely execution of its functions would be impeded by the notice
otherwise required''); see also Executive Order 14159, 90 FR 8443
(Jan. 29, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIII. Severability
DHS intends for the decisions announced in this notice to be
severable from each other and to be given effect to the maximum extent
possible, such that if a court holds that any provision is invalid or
unenforceable--whether in their entirety or as to a particular person
or circumstance--the other provisions will remain in effect as to any
other person or circumstance.\118\ The various decisions in this notice
are designed to function sensibly without the others, and DHS intends
for them to be severable so that each can operate independently.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\118\ Courts have uniformly held that the APA, 5 U.S.C. 706(2),
authorizes courts to sever and set aside ``only the offending parts
of the rule.'' Carlson v. Postal Regulatory Comm'n, 938 F.3d 337,
351 (D.C. Cir. 2019); see, e.g., K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486
U.S. 281, 294 (1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, DHS would intend that the termination of the FRP
programs be implemented immediately, even if the termination of ATAs or
existing grants of parole were to be enjoined in whole or in part. This
approach ensures that DHS is able to implement its policy choices, and
the President's direction in Executive Order 14165, to the maximum
extent possible.
IX. 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 or modified reporting
requirements they impose. The termination of the programs announced by
this notice requires changes to the collections of information on Form
I-131, Application for Travel Documents, Parole Documents, and Arrival/
Departure Records (OMB control number 1615-0013). Form I-131 will be
revised in
[[Page 58047]]
connection with this notice by removing specific mention of the FRP
programs. As of the date of this notice Form I-131 may not be used to
request an initial or new period of parole under one of the FRP
programs, but it may be used by a previous FRP beneficiary to request a
new period of parole, or re-parole, under DHS's existing parole
authority, on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or
significant public benefit.
Kristi Noem,
Secretary of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2025-22744 Filed 12-12-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-97-P