This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

69546

Vol. 69, No. 229

Tuesday, November 30, 2004

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

8 CFR Part 103 

[CIS No. 2245–02; Docket No. DHS–2004–

0021] 

RIN 1615–AA88 

Adjustment of the Appeal and Motion 

Fees to Recover Full Costs

AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services, Department of 

Homeland Security.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: On March 1, 2003, the 

Immigration and Naturalization Service 

(Service) transferred from the 

Department of Justice (DOJ) to the 

Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) pursuant to the Homeland 

Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107–296). 

The adjudications functions transferred 

to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services (USCIS). This document 

proposes to raise the fee for filing 

appeals of, and motions to reopen or 

reconsider, any decision under the 

immigration laws in any type of 

proceeding other than those described at 

8 CFR 1003.1(b), over which the Board 

of Immigration Appeals (BIA) has 

appellate jurisdiction. 

This proposed rule applies to fees for 

appeals and motions relating to the 

types of cases under the jurisdiction of 

the Administrative Appeals Office 

(AAO). The AAO is an appellate office 

of USCIS. The BIA remains a 

component of DOJ, and has appellate 

jurisdiction over the orders of 

immigration judges, denials of relative 

immigrant visa petitions (Form I–130), 

and decisions involving administrative 

fines and penalties. Appeals from 

denials of all other types of applications 

and petitions, and any subsequently 

filed motions, are under the jurisdiction 

of the AAO. 

In this proposed rule, the fees, which 

are deposited into the Immigration 

Examinations Fee Account (IEFA), are 

being raised from $110 to $385 to 

recover the full costs associated with the 

processing of an appeal or motion to 

reopen or motion to reconsider. Federal 

statutes and guidelines authorize USCIS 

to establish and collect fees to recover 

the full cost of processing immigration 

benefit applications, rather than 

supporting these services with tax 

revenue.

DATES: Written comments must be 

submitted on or before December 30, 

2004.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. DHS–2004–

0021, by one of the following methods: 

• EPA Federal Partner EDOCKET 

Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/

feddocket. Follow instructions for 

submitting comments on the Web site. 

The Department of Homeland Security 

has joined the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) online public docket and 

comment system on its Partner 

Electronic Docket System (Partner 

EDOCKET). The Department of 

Homeland Security and its agencies 

(excluding the United States Coast 

Guard and Transportation Security 

Administration) will use the EPA 

Federal Partner EDOCKET system. The 

USCG and TSA [legacy Department of 

Transportation (DOT) agencies] will 

continue to use the DOT Docket 

Management System until full migration 

to the electronic rulemaking federal 

docket management system in 2005. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: rfs.regs@dhs.gov. When 

submitting comments electronically, 

please include Docket No. DHS–2004–

0021 in the subject line of the message. 

• Mail: The Director, Regulatory 

Management Division, U.S. Citizenship 

and Immigration Services, Department 

of Homeland Security, 111 

Massachusetts Avenue, NW., 3rd Floor, 

Washington, DC 20529. To ensure 

proper handling, please reference 

Docket No. DHS–2004–0021 on your 

correspondence. This mailing address 

may also be used for paper, disk, or CD–

ROM submissions. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: U.S. 

Citizenship and Immigration Services, 

Department of Homeland Security, 111 

Massachusetts Avenue, NW., 3rd Floor, 

Washington, DC 20529. Contact 

Telephone Number (202) 514–3048. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

Docket No. DHS–2004–0021 for this 

rulemaking. All comments received will 

be posted without change to http://

www.epa.gov/feddocket, including any 

personal information provided.

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http://

www.epa.gov/feddocket. You may also 

access the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

at http://www.regulations.gov.

Submitted comments may also be 

inspected at the Director, Regulatory 

Management Division, U.S. Citizenship 

and Immigration Services, Department 

of Homeland Security, 111 

Massachusetts Avenue, NW., 3rd Floor, 

Washington, DC 20529. To ensure 

proper handling, please reference CIS 

No. 2245–02 on your correspondence.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul 

Schlesinger, Director, Office of Budget, 

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 

Services, 20 Massachusetts Avenue, 

NW., 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20529, 

telephone (202) 272–1930.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

What Legal Authority Does DHS Have 

To Charge Fees? 

A. Departments of Commerce, Justice, 

and State, the Judiciary, and Related 

Agencies Appropriation Acts of 1989 

Section 209 of the Departments of 

Commerce, Justice, and State, the 

Judiciary, and Related Agencies 

Appropriation Act, 1989, Public Law 

100–459, section 209(a), 102 Stat. 2186, 

2203 (October 1, 1988), 8 U.S.C. 

1356(m), authorizes DHS to prescribe 

and collect fees to recover the cost of 

providing certain immigration and 

naturalization benefits. That law also 

authorized the establishment of the 

IEFA in the Treasury of the United 

States. All revenue from fees collected 

for immigration and naturalization 

benefits are deposited in the IEFA and 

remain available to provide immigration 

and naturalization benefits and to 

provide for the collection, safeguarding, 

and accounting for fees. 8 U.S.C. 

1356(n). 

B. The Independent Offices 

Appropriation Act, 1952 

DHS also employs the authority 

granted by the Independent Offices 

Appropriation Act, 1952 (IOAA), 31 

U.S.C. 9701, commonly referred to as 

the ‘‘User Fee Statute,’’ to develop its 

fees. The IOAA directs federal agencies 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2004 / Proposed Rules 69547

to identify services provided to unique 

segments of the population and to 

charge fees for those services, rather 

than supporting such services through 

general tax revenues. The IOAA states 

that ‘‘[i]t is the sense of Congress that 

each service or thing of value provided 

by an agency * * * to a person * * * 

is to be self-sustaining to the extent 

possible.’’ 31 U.S.C. 9701(a). 

The IOAA further provides that 

charges for such services or things of 

value should be fair and based on ‘‘(A) 

the costs to the Government; (B) the 

value of the service or thing to the 

recipient; (C) public policy or interest 

served; and (D) other relevant facts.’’ 31 

U.S.C. 9701(b). 

C. The Chief Financial Officers Act of 

1990 

DHS must also conform to the 

requirements of the Chief Financial 

Officers Act of 1990 (CFO Act), Public 

Law 101–576, 104 Stat. 2838 (1990). 

Section 205(a) of the CFO Act, 

amending 31 U.S.C. 902, requires each 

agency’s Chief Financial Officer to 

‘‘review, on a biennial basis, the fees, 

royalties, rents, and other charges 

imposed by the agency for services and 

things of value it provides, and make 

recommendations on revising those 

charges to reflect costs incurred by it in 

providing those services and things of 

value.’’ Public Law 101–576, 104 Stat. 

2838 (1990) at 2844, 31 U.S.C. 902(a)(8). 

What Federal Cost Accounting and Fee 

Setting Standards and Guidelines Were 

Used in Developing the Proposed Fee 

Changes? 

A. Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) Circular No. A–25, User Charges

When developing fees for special 

benefits, DHS adheres to the principles 

contained in OMB Circular No. A–25, 

Revised, User Charges (1993). OMB 

Circular No. A–25 states at Section 6, 

that as a general policy a ‘‘user charge 

* * * will be assessed against each 

identifiable recipient for special benefits 

derived from Federal activities beyond 

those received by the general public.’’

The guidance contained in OMB 

Circular No. A–25 is applicable to the 

extent that it is not inconsistent with 

any federal statute. For example, 

specific legislative authority to charge 

fees for special benefits takes 

precedence over OMB Circular No. A–

25. Specifically, section 4(b) provides 

‘‘where a statute prohibits the 

assessment of a user charge on a service 

or addresses an aspect of the user charge 

(e.g., who pays the charge; how much is 

the charge; where collections are 

deposited), the statute shall take 

precedence over the Circular.’’ When a 

statute does not address issues of how 

to calculate fees or what costs to include 

in the fee calculation, federal agencies 

must follow the principles and guidance 

contained in OMB Circular No. A–25 to 

the fullest extent allowable. The 

guidance directs federal agencies to 

charge the ‘‘full cost’’ of providing 

benefits when calculating fees that 

provide a special benefit to recipients. 

Section 6(d) of OMB Circular No. A–25 

defines ‘‘full cost’’ as including ‘‘all 

direct and indirect costs to any part of 

the Federal Government of providing a 

good, resource, or service.’’ These costs 

include, but are not limited to, an 

appropriate share of: 

(a) Direct and indirect personnel 

costs, including salaries and fringe 

benefits such as medical insurance and 

retirement; 

(b) Physical overhead, consulting, and 

other indirect costs, including material 

and supply costs, utilities, insurance, 

travel, and rents or imputed rents on 

land, buildings, and equipment; 

(c) Management and supervisory 

costs; and 

(d) The costs of enforcement, 

collection, research, establishment of 

standards, and regulation. 

Finally, section 6(d)(1)(e) states that 

‘‘[f]ull cost shall be determined or 

estimated from the best available 

records of the agency, and new cost 

accounting systems need not be 

established solely for this purpose.’’

B. Federal Accounting Standards 

Advisory Board Statement of Federal 

Financial Accounting Standards No. 4: 

Managerial Cost Accounting Concepts 

and Standards for the Federal 

Government

When developing fees for services, 

DHS also adheres to the cost accounting 

concepts and standards recommended 

by the Federal Accounting Standards 

Advisory Board (FASAB). The FASAB 

was established in 1990, and its purpose 

is to recommend accounting standards 

for the Federal Government. The 

FASAB defines ‘‘full cost’’ to include 

‘‘direct and indirect costs that 

contribute to the output, regardless of 

funding sources.’’ Federal Accounting 

Standards Advisory Board, Statement of 

Financial Accounting Standards No. 4: 

Managerial Cost Accounting Concepts 

and Standards for the Federal 

Government 36 (July 31, 1995). To 

obtain full cost, FASAB identifies 

various classifications of costs to be 

included, and recommends various 

methods of cost assignment, as will be 

discussed later. Id. at 36–42. 

How Are the Adjudications of 

Immigration Benefit Applications 

Funded and Supported? 

Fees collected from immigration 

benefit applications are used to fund the 

full costs of processing immigration 

benefit applications. Fees deposited into 

the IEFA have been the primary source 

of funding for the processing of 

immigration benefit applications, and 

generally have replaced the annual 

appropriation that was received for such 

services. 

How Were the Unit Cost and Proposed 

Fees for Filing an Appeal or Motion 

Determined? 

A. Insufficiency of the Current Fees 

Since 1989, the fees for the vast 

majority of immigration benefit 

applications have increased more than 

threefold based on an improved cost 

accounting methodology as well as a 

general rise in resource requirements 

commensurate with the mission to 

provide immigration information and 

benefits for USCIS customers in a 

timely, accurate, consistent, courteous, 

and professional manner. 

However, the current appeal and 

motion fees of $110 have neither been 

reviewed nor adjusted since 1989. In 

addition, recent performance data 

indicates that the processing time for an 

appeal or motion did not meet the 

President’s 5-year goal of processing 

immigration benefit applications in 6 

months or less due, in large part, to 

staffing shortfalls. 

A review to adjust appeal and motion 

fees was not conducted in the past given 

the low workload volume. However, 

recent data indicates a significant and 

steady increase of 12% in appeal and 

motion filings from 1993 to 2002. Thus, 

USCIS deemed it was reasonable and 

necessary to perform a fee review of the 

appeal and motion process to ensure 

full compliance with applicable federal 

law and user fee guidance by recovering 

the full costs of appeal and motion 

filings.

B. The Appeal and Motion Process 

When a petition or application is 

denied or revoked by USCIS, in most 

cases the applicant or petitioner may 

appeal that decision to a higher 

authority. The AAO has appellate 

jurisdiction over 66 types of petitions 

and applications. If an applicant or 

petitioner receives an appealable denial 

notice, the denial notice will advise the 

applicant or petitioner of his or her right 

to appeal to the AAO or BIA, whichever 

is appropriate; provide the applicant or 

petitioner with the appropriate appeal 

form; and include instructions on any 

69548 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

applicable time limit for filing an 

appeal. 

There are strict deadlines that must be 

met to file an appeal properly. In 

addition, only the person that submitted 

the original application or petition may 

file the appeal. For example, if a U.S. 

employer petitions for an alien 

employee, only the U.S. employer may 

appeal the denial. If the AAO has 

jurisdiction over the decision, the notice 

of appeal must be filed on Form I–290B, 

Notice of Appeal to the Administrative 

Appeals Unit (AAU). The appeal, as 

well as the accompanying fee, must be 

filed with the office that made the 

original decision to deny the application 

or petition. The applicant or petitioner 

may file a brief written explanation in 

support of an appeal. After review, the 

AAO may agree with the applicant or 

petitioner and change the original 

decision, disagree with the applicant or 

petitioner and affirm the original 

decision, or send the matter back to the 

originating office for further action. 

Only one appeal may be filed for each 

denial or revocation; there is no further 

administrative appellate review of an 

AAO decision. 

In addition to the right to appeal (in 

which the applicant or petitioner asks a 

higher authority to review a denial), the 

applicant or petitioner may file a motion 

to reopen the case or a motion to 

reconsider the denial with the office 

that made the unfavorable decision, 

such as the field office or AAO. By filing 

these motions, the applicant or 

petitioner may ask the office to 

reexamine or reconsider its decision. A 

motion to reopen must state the new 

facts that are to be provided in the 

reopened proceeding and must be 

accompanied by affidavits or other 

documentary evidence per 8 CFR 

103.5(a)(2). Under 8 CFR 103.5(a), a 

motion to reconsider must establish that 

the decision was based on an incorrect 

application of law or USCIS policy, and 

further establish that the decision was 

incorrect based on the evidence of 

record at the time the initial decision 

was issued. Any motion to reopen or 

reconsider must be filed with the correct 

fee within 30 days of the decision. 

Form I–290B is used to appeal 

decisions issued by adjudication officers 

located at DHS service centers and 

district offices. Appeals and motions 

require approximately the same amount 

of effort, on average, according to 

discussions with AAO management. 

The core work of writing and editing 

performed at the AAO is very labor 

intensive, given the three full days it 

requires to process an average appeal/

motion case. 

C. Methodology 

In Fiscal Year 2003, KPMG Consulting 

was hired to provide an independent fee 

review as well as to ensure adherence to 

applicable federal law and fee guidance. 

The fee review identified the full costs 

of processing appeals and motions and 

the estimated completion volumes over 

the Fiscal Year 2003/2004 biennial time 

period. The full cost determination 

included the labor-intensive activities 

involved in application logistics, legal 

research, decision writing, and decision 

review. The full cost determination also 

included the staffing necessary to meet 

the President’s 5-year goal of processing 

immigration benefit applications in 6 

months or less.

D. Basis for the Proposed Fees 

The unit cost of $382.98 was 

determined by dividing the full costs of 

processing appeal/motion cases 

associated with the FY 2003/2004 

biennial time period ($13,021,582) by 

the FY 2003/2004 completion volumes 

(34,000). The time required to process 

an average appeal versus an average 

motion case is essentially the same. 

Therefore, their respective unit costs are 

equal. 

The table below identifies the unit 

cost of $382.98 and the proposed fee of 

$385.

UNIT COST AND PROPOSED FEE

CALCULATIONS

FY 2003/2004 

Appeal/Motion Processing 

Costs ................................. $13,021,582 

Appeal/Motion Completion 

Volume .............................. 34,000 

Appeal/Motion Unit Cost ....... 382.98 

Rounding Adjustment ........... 2.02 

Proposed Appeal/Motion Fee 385.00 

This rule also clarifies that the fee 

amount of $385 also applies when an 

appeal is filed by, or on behalf of, two 

or more aliens and the two aliens are 

covered by one decision. In so doing, it 

corrects a transcription error in the Code 

of Federal Regulations in 1989 that 

failed to amend the fee amount from $50 

to $110 for two or more aliens when the 

aliens are covered by one decision when 

the base fee (for one alien) was raised 

from $50 to $110, as provided in the 

final rule dated April 4, 1989 (54 FR 

13513). The failure resulted in an 

unintended discrepancy between the 

base fee, and the fee for two or more 

aliens when the aliens are covered by 

one decision. Notwithstanding this 

transcription error, affected aliens have 

been properly charged, and the Service 

as well as USCIS have collected the 

correct fee since the 1989 amendment. 

The form instructions also reflected the 

proper fee amount. This rule corrects 

the discrepancy in 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1) 

and brings this fee as properly amended 

($50 to $110) from $110 to $385 so that 

both fees are now equal as intended. 

Finally, this proposed rule also makes 

a conforming change to 8 CFR 

103.5(a)(1)(iii) to replace an obsolete 

reference to a withdrawn form, Form I–

290A, with a reference to Form I–290B. 

Does USCIS Have the Authority To 

Waive Fees on a Case-By-Case Basis? 

Yes, USCIS has the authority to waive 

fees on a case-by-case basis pursuant to 

8 CFR 103.7(c). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act

DHS has reviewed this regulation in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 605(b), and by 

approving it, DHS has determined that 

this rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities since a 

majority of motions and appeals are 

submitted by individuals and not small 

entities as that term is defined in 5 

U.S.C. 601(6). 

DHS acknowledges, however, that 

some small entities, particularly those 

filing appeals of and/or motions to 

review denials of business-related 

applications and petitions, such as the 

Form I–140, Immigration Petition for 

Alien Worker, Form I–526, Immigrant 

Petition for Alien Entrepreneur, and 

Form I–829, Petition for Entrepreneur to 

Remove Conditions, may be affected by 

this rule. USCIS does not collect data on 

the size of the businesses filing appeals 

and/or motions related to employment 

based petitions, and therefore does not 

know the precise number of small 

businesses that may be affected by this 

rule (as the majority of petitions are 

filed by individuals). USCIS projects the 

following number of denials for 

business-related petitions for the Fiscal 

Year 2003/2004 biennial period: 

Form I–140, Immigrant Petition for 

Alien Worker (35,866 denials); 

Form I–526, Immigrant Petition by 

Alien Entrepreneur (217 denials); 

Form I–829, Petition by Entrepreneur 

to Remove Conditions (174 denials). 

Although this volume represents the 

total number of denials, it does not 

represent the total number of motions/

appeals filed on these petitions which 

would be far less given that the number 

of motions/appeals filed by individuals 

and businesses totaled only 34,000 in 

the Fiscal Year 2003/2004 biennial 

period. However, even if all of the 

motions/appeals were filed by small 

businesses, the resulting degree of 

economic impact would not require a 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2004 / Proposed Rules 69549

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis to be 

performed. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995

This rule will not result in the 

expenditure by state, local and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year, and it will not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. Therefore, no actions were 

deemed necessary under the provisions 

of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996

This rule is not a major rule as 

defined by section 804 of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 

1996. This rule will not result in an 

annual effect on the economy of $100 

million or more; a major increase in 

costs or prices; or significant adverse 

effects on competition, employment, 

investment, productivity, innovation, or 

on the ability of United States-based 

companies to compete with foreignbased companies in domestic and 

export markets. 

Executive Order 12866 

This rule is considered by DHS to be 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), 

Regulatory Planning and Review. 

Accordingly, this rule has been 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. DHS has 

assessed both the costs and benefits of 

this rule as required by section 1(b)(6) 

of Executive Order 12866 and has made 

a determination that, although 

increasing the fee to $385 will increase 

the cost to the individual applicant and/

or petitioner, USCIS must establish and 

collect fees to recover the full cost of 

processing immigration benefit 

applications, rather than supporting 

these services with tax revenue. There 

are no identifiable alternatives 

associated with this fee increase. The 

implementation of this rule also will 

provide USCIS with an additional $6.7 

million in FY 2005 over the fee revenue 

that would be collected under the 

current fee structure. If USCIS does not 

adjust the current fees to recover the full 

costs of processing immigration benefit 

applications, the backlog will likely 

increase. The revenue increase is based 

on USCIS costs and projected volumes 

that were available at the time of this 

rule. 

Executive Order 13132 

This rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the National 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Therefore, in 

accordance with section 6 of Executive 

Order 13132, DHS has determined that 

this rule does not have sufficient 

federalism implications to warrant the 

preparation of a federalism summary 

impact statement. 

Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice 

Reform 

This rule meets the applicable 

standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 

3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995, Public Law 104–13, 109 Stat. 

163 (1995), all Departments are required 

to submit to OMB, for review and 

approval, any reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements inherent in 

a rule. This rule does not impose any 

new reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. This rule proposes that 

the fees for motions and appeals be 

increased. Since an increase of these 

fees will increase the cost burden on the 

public, DHS will submit the required 

Paperwork Reduction Change 

Worksheet (OMB–83C) to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

reflecting the new fees and cost burdens 

on the public. It should also be noted 

that changes to the fees require changes 

to the application form (Form I–290B) to 

reflect the new fees. USCIS will submit 

a notification to OMB with respect to 

any such changes.

List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 103 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Authority delegations 

(government agencies), Freedom of 

information, Privacy, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Surety 

bonds.

Accordingly, part 103 of chapter I of 

title 8 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations is proposed to be amended 

as follows:

PART 103—POWERS AND DUTIES; 

AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS 

1. The authority citation for part 103 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a; 8 U.S.C. 

1101, 1103, 1304, 1356; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 

Public Law 107–296, 116 Stat. 2135 (6 U.S.C. 

1 et seq.); E.O. 12356, 47 FR 14874, 15557, 

3 CFR, 1982 Comp., p. 166; 8 CFR part 2.

2. In § 103.5(a)(1)(iii), the introductory 

text is revised to read as follows:

§ 103.5 Reopening or reconsideration. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iii) Filing Requirements—A motion 

shall be submitted on Form I–290B and 

may be accompanied by a brief. It must 

be:

* * * * *

§ 103.7 [Amended] 

3. In § 103.7(b)(1): 

a. The entry for ‘‘Form I–290B’’ is 

amended by revising the fee ‘‘$50’’ to 

read: ‘‘$385.00’’, and by revising the fee 

‘‘$110.00’’ to read: ‘‘$385.00’’; and 

b. The entry for ‘‘Motion’’ is amended 

by revising the fee ‘‘$110’’ to read: 

‘‘$385’’, wherever that fee appears in the 

entry.

Dated: November 18, 2004. 

Tom Ridge, 

Secretary of Homeland Security.

[FR Doc. 04–26370 Filed 11–29–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–10–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

8 CFR Parts 103, 204, 214, 245, and 

245a 

[CIS No. 2287–03; Docket No. DHS 2004–

0020] 

RIN 1615–AB13 

Removal of the Standardized Request 

for Evidence Processing Timeframe

AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services, Department of 

Homeland Security.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This rule proposes to amend 

Department of Homeland Security 

(Department) regulations by removing 

the absolute requirement for, and the 

fixed regulatory time limitations on 

responses to, a U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services (USCIS) issued 

Request for Evidence (RFE) or Notice of 

Intent to Deny (NOID). These changes 

will enable USCIS to set an appropriate 

deadline for responding to an RFE or 

NOID, specific to the type of case, 

benefit category, or classification, and 

thus improve the process of 

adjudication of applications and 

petitions by reducing the time a case is 

held awaiting evidence, and by reducing 

average case processing time. This rule 

will result in improved efficiency in the 

USCIS adjudication process. 

In addition, this rule also replaces 

references to the Immigration and 

Naturalization Service (Service) with 

references to USCIS in light of 

implementation of the Homeland