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

78240 

Vol. 85, No. 234 

Friday, December 4, 2020 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Executive Office for Immigration 

Review 

8 CFR Parts 1001, 1003, 1208, 1214, 

1240, 1245, 1246, 1292 

[EOIR Docket No. 18–0203; Dir. Order No. 

04–2021] 

RIN 1125–AA81 

Executive Office for Immigration 

Review Electronic Case Access and 

Filing 

AGENCY: Executive Office for 

Immigration Review, Department of 

Justice. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Executive Office for 

Immigration Review (‘‘EOIR’’) is 

proposing to implement electronic filing 

and records applications for all cases 

before the immigration courts and the 

Board of Immigration Appeals (‘‘BIA’’). 

The proposed rule would update the 

relevant regulations necessary to 

implement these electronic filing and 

records applications, including 

requiring certain users to file documents 

electronically and changes to service of 

process. EOIR further proposes 

clarifications to the regulations 

regarding law student filing and 

accompaniment procedures. 

DATES: Electronic comments must be 

submitted and written comments must 

be postmarked or otherwise indicate a 

shipping date on or before January 4, 

2021. The electronic Federal Docket 

Management System at https://

www.regulations.gov will accept 

electronic comments until 11:59 p.m. 

Eastern Time on that date. 

ADDRESSES: If you wish to provide 

comment regarding this rulemaking, you 

must submit comments, identified by 

the agency name and reference RIN 

1125–AA81 or EOIR Docket No. 18– 

0203, by one of the two methods below. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

website instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail: Paper comments that 

duplicate an electronic submission are 

unnecessary. If you wish to submit a 

paper comment in lieu of electronic 

submission, please direct the mail/ 

shipment to: Lauren Alder Reid, 

Assistant Director, Office of Policy, 

Executive Office for Immigration 

Review, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 1800, 

Falls Church, VA 22041. To ensure 

proper handling, please reference the 

agency name and RIN 1125–AA81 or 

EOIR Docket No. 18–0203 on your 

correspondence. Mailed items must be 

postmarked or otherwise indicate a 

shipping date on or before the 

submission deadline. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Lauren Alder Reid, Assistant Director, 

Office of Policy, Executive Office for 

Immigration Review, 5107 Leesburg 

Pike, Suite 1800, Falls Church, VA 

22041, telephone (703) 305–0289 (not a 

toll-free call). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Public Participation 

Interested persons are invited to 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting written data, views, or 

arguments on all aspects of this 

proposed rule via the one of the 

methods and by the deadline stated 

above. All comments must be submitted 

in English, or accompanied by an 

English translation. The Department of 

Justice (the ‘‘Department’’) also invites 

comments that relate to the economic, 

environmental, or federalism effects that 

might result from this proposed rule. 

Comments that will provide the most 

assistance to the Department in 

developing these procedures will 

reference a specific portion of the 

proposed rule; explain the reason for 

any recommended change; and include 

data, information, or authority that 

support such recommended change. 

Please note that all comments 

received are considered part of the 

public record and made available for 

public inspection at https://

www.regulations.gov. Such information 

includes personally identifying 

information (such as your name, 

address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by 

the commenter. 

If you want to submit personally 

identifying information (such as your 

name, address, etc.) as part of your 

comment, but do not want it to be 

posted online, you must include the 

phrase ‘‘PERSONALLY IDENTIFYING 

INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph 

of your comment and identify what 

information you want redacted. 

If you want to submit confidential 

business information as part of your 

comment, but do not want it to be 

posted online, you must include the 

phrase ‘‘CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS 

INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph 

of your comment. You also must 

prominently identify confidential 

business information to be redacted 

within the comment. If a comment has 

so much confidential business 

information that it cannot be effectively 

redacted, all or part of that comment 

may not be posted on https://

www.regulations.gov. 

Personally identifying information 

located as set forth above will be placed 

in the agency’s public docket file, but 

not posted online. Confidential business 

information identified and located as set 

forth above will not be placed in the 

public docket file. The Department may 

withhold from public viewing 

information provided in comments that 

they determine may impact the privacy 

of an individual or is offensive. For 

additional information, please read the 

Privacy Act notice that is available via 

the link in the footer of https://

www.regulations.gov. To inspect the 

agency’s public docket file in person, 

you must make an appointment with the 

agency. Please see the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph above 

for agency contact information. 

The Department may withhold from 

public viewing information provided in 

comments that they determine may 

impact the privacy of an individual or 

is offensive. For additional information, 

please read the Privacy Act notice that 

is available via the link in the footer of 

https://www.regulations.gov. 

II. Background 

A. Introduction 

Since July 2018, EOIR has been 

piloting a voluntary program to test 

electronic filing and records 

applications for certain cases filed with 

the immigration courts and the BIA. See 

EOIR Electronic Filing Pilot Program, 83 

FR 29575 (June 25, 2018). Following 

this successful pilot at five immigration 

courts, EOIR is now proposing to 

permanently implement these electronic 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 234 / Friday, December 4, 2020 / Proposed Rules 78241 

1The EOIR regulations differentiate between 

‘‘partially accredited representatives’’ who are only 

authorized to represent persons in matters pending 

before the Department of Homeland Security 

(‘‘DHS’’), and ‘‘fully accredited representatives’’ 

who are authorized to represent persons in matters 

pending before EOIR as well as matters pending 

before DHS. See 8 CFR 1292.1(a)(4). Inasmuch as 

this rule pertains only to practice before EOIR, the 

only accredited representatives who would be 

affected by this rule are fully accredited 

representatives. Accordingly, the references in this 

rule to ‘‘accredited representatives’’ refer only to 

fully accredited representatives in the context of 

their practice before EOIR. 

2EOIR’s Office of Policy reviews recognized 

organizations’ applications for non-attorneys to 

become fully accredited representatives who, upon 

approval, can represent aliens in immigration court 

proceedings and before DHS. For more information, 

please see EOIR, Recognition & Accreditation (R&A) 

Program (June 8, 2020), https://www.justice.gov/ 

eoir/recognition-and-accreditation-program. 

3Charlotte was originally scheduled as a pilot 

location in September 2018, but the pilot there was 

cancelled due to Hurricane Florence. Similarly, 

York was moved from July 2018 to December 2018 

to accommodate additional internal development to 

ensure ECAS functionality for detained courts. 

4For appeals of DHS officer decisions that are 

subject to review by the BIA, the process for DHS 

would not change under this rule as DHS currently 

submits all of those materials to the BIA for 

adjudication, and it will continue to do so. See 8 

CFR 1003.5(b). 

filing and records applications at the 

immigration courts and the BIA. This 

proposed rule would amend the 

regulatory sections necessary to 

implement the electronic filing and 

records applications. 

B. History 

In 1998, Congress passed the 

Government Paperwork Elimination Act 

(‘‘GPEA’’), which requires federal 

agencies to provide the public with the 

ability to conduct business 

electronically, when practicable, with 

the federal government. See Public Law 

105–277, § 1701–10, Oct. 21, 1998, 112 

Stat. 2681, 2681–749 to –751. Similarly, 

in 2002, Congress passed the EGovernment Act of 2002, which 

promotes electronic government 

services and requires agencies to use 

internet-based technology to increase 

the public’s access to government 

information and services. See Public 

Law 107–347, Dec. 17, 2002, 116 Stat. 

2899. 

As a result, EOIR began pursuing a 

long-term agency plan to create 

electronic case access and filing 

applications for the immigration courts 

and BIA. See Executive Office for 

Immigration Review Attorney/ 

Representative Registry, 68 FR 75160, 

75161 (Dec. 30, 2003) (‘‘The Department 

is . . . designing an electronic case 

access and filing system, to comply with 

the [GPEA], to achieve the Department’s 

vision for improved immigration 

adjudication processing, and to meet the 

public expectations for electronic 

government.’’). Under the GPEA, where 

practicable, executive branch agencies 

are to provide for electronic 

submissions in lieu of paper 

submissions and for the use of 

electronic signatures. 44 U.S.C. 

3504(a)(1)(B)(vi). 

On April 1, 2013, EOIR completed the 

first portion of its public-facing 

electronic applications by establishing 

eRegistry, a mandatory electronic 

registry for all attorneys and fully 

accredited representatives who practice 

before the immigration courts and the 

BIA.1 See Registry for Attorneys and 

Representatives, 78 FR 19400 (Apr. 1, 

2013). At the same time, EOIR began 

allowing attorneys and accredited 

representatives 2 to electronically file 

the Notice of Entry of Appearance as 

Attorney or Representative (Form EOIR– 

27 and Form EOIR–28, for the BIA and 

immigration courts, respectively). 

On May 4, 2015, EOIR launched 

‘‘eInfo,’’ a web-based application that 

allows registered attorneys and 

accredited representatives to view their 

clients’ case information. See EOIR, The 

Executive Office for Immigration Review 

Announces I 3 (May 4, 2015), https://

www.justice.gov/eoir/pr/executiveoffice-immigration-review-announces-i. 

Attorneys and accredited 

representatives can log into the eInfo 

application to view a list of cases for 

which they have an active Notice of 

Entry of Appearance (Form EOIR–27 or 

Form EOIR–28) and view case-related 

information. 

Since June 2017, EOIR has been 

undertaking additional and more 

expansive initiatives to reduce its 

longstanding backlog of cases and 

working to ensure the more efficient 

handling of matters before the 

immigration court system. As part of 

that plan, in July 2018, EOIR launched 

a pilot program to allow attorneys and 

accredited representatives to 

electronically file case-related 

documents with the immigration courts 

and the BIA, and for EOIR to process 

cases using an electronic record of 

proceeding (‘‘eROP’’). See 83 FR at 

29575. The pilot launched in five 

immigration courts between July and 

December 2018: San Diego, California in 

July; Atlanta, Georgia and Denver, 

Colorado in August; Baltimore, 

Maryland in September; and York, 

Pennsylvania in December.3 The BIA 

has participated in the pilot for 

operational planning purposes but is not 

yet accepting electronic filings. As of 

September 2020, more than 15,000 

private attorneys had volunteered to 

participate, representatives and 

immigration court staff had 

electronically uploaded more than 

500,000 documents, and court staff had 

created more than 80,000 eROPs. 

EOIR is continuing to expand the 

rollout of this system, which will 

eventually expand to all immigration 

courts and the BIA. The EOIR Courts 

and Appeals System (‘‘ECAS’’) is now 

available in several immigration courts 

and adjudication centers. Information 

regarding the full implementation 

schedule will be posted on EOIR’s 

website. EOIR, EOIR Courts & Appeals 

System (ECAS)—Online Filing, (Oct. 5, 

2020) https://www.justice.gov/eoir/ 

ECAS. 

III. Proposed Rule 

This proposed rule would provide for 

EOIR’s implementation of the electronic 

filing and records applications that are 

currently in use in several immigration 

courts and the BIA. 

Following the launch of the electronic 

filing and records applications in each 

immigration court, all cases in which 

the Department of Homeland Security 

(‘‘DHS’’) files a charging document in 

that court after the launch date are 

processed electronically, meaning that 

EOIR will maintain an eROP as the 

official record of proceeding for that 

case. Regardless of whether all parties 

are participating in the electronic filing 

and records applications, EOIR will 

maintain an eROP for such cases. If a 

document is filed on paper, EOIR will 

scan the document into the eROP and 

maintain the eROP as the official record 

of proceeding. In addition, attorneys 

and accredited representatives may 

submit bond redetermination requests 

electronically with that court, which 

EOIR will then process electronically. 

For more information about the privacy 

risks associated with the eROP, and the 

measures EOIR has taken to protect this 

information, please see EOIR, Privacy 

Impact Assessment for the eWorld 

Adjudication System, 19–24 (Dec. 13, 

2018), https://www.justice.gov/opcl/ 

page/file/1120991/download. 

Appeals of immigration judge 

decisions filed with the BIA will 

similarly be processed electronically 

following the launch of the electronic 

filing and records applications system at 

the BIA. Appeals of immigration judge 

decisions, appeals from DHS officer 

decisions,4 and motions to reopen or 

reconsider filed with the BIA will 

follow existing legal process, but will be 

filed and processed electronically. All 

cases initiated at an immigration court 

or the BIA before the launch of the 

electronic filing and records 

78242 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 234 / Friday, December 4, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

5Non-documentary filings (e.g., proposed audio 

or video exhibits) are not contemplated under 

existing regulations. See, e.g., 8 CFR 1003.31, 

1003.32, 1003.33 (all referring to ‘‘documents’’). 

Nevertheless, consistent with an immigration 

judge’s authority to make determinations regarding 

removability and applications, 8 CFR 

1240.1(a)(1)(i)–(ii), and an immigration judge’s 

authority to take action consistent with the law to 

decide cases before them, 8 CFR 1003.10(b), such 

filings may be considered subject to an immigration 

judge’s discretion. The proposed rule does not alter 

that practice. Consequently, because security 

protocols may prevent the direct uploading of audio 

or video files into ECAS as filings, parties wishing 

to submit non-documentary filings in cases with an 

eROP should continue to file them in a physical 

format (e.g., a CD or DVD) directly with the relevant 

immigration court. Such non-documentary filings, 

subject to the immigration judge’s discretion, may 

then be incorporated into the eROP as appropriate. 

6 DHS includes all relevant DHS components. See 

8 CFR 1001.1(w). DHS will determine which of its 

employees are responsible for filing documents in 

ECAS in individual cases. 

7Although opting in for electronic filing through 

ECAS is voluntary for pro se respondents, 

applicants, or petitioners and for reputable 

individuals and accredited officials, such 

individuals who choose to opt in will do so for the 

life of the case and may not opt out without leave 

from an immigration judge or, for cases pending 

with the BIA, from the BIA. This qualification sets 

clear expectations for the individual and reduces 

the likelihood of confusion among the individual, 

the opposing party, and the immigration court staff 

regarding documents filed multiple times through 

different methods, of the possible loss of documents 

filed in a manner inconsistent with how the official 

record of proceeding is being kept, and of the 

improper effectuation of service on the opposing 

party. 

applications in that location will 

continue to be processed in paper by 

EOIR, and will continue to require the 

parties to paper file documents in those 

cases. Similarly, if a case begins in an 

immigration court with an eROP, and 

then changes venue to an immigration 

court that has not yet implemented the 

electronic filing and records 

applications, that case will be converted 

to a paper record and processed in 

paper at the new court. In the future, 

EOIR may explore converting existing 

paper records into eROPs following the 

launch of the electronic filing and 

records applications at the immigration 

court with administrative control over 

the paper record of proceeding (‘‘ROP’’); 

such conversion would also depend on 

the cost and technological feasibility. 

Once this proposed rule is adopted in 

final form, electronic filing will become 

mandatory for all attorneys and 

accredited representatives, with limited 

exceptions as discussed further below. 

This includes mandatory electronic 

filing of charging documents initiated 

by DHS, 8 CFR 1003.13 (defining 

charging documents), and mandatory 

electronic filing of other documents.5

However, until this proposed rule is 

adopted in final form, participation in 

the pilot program at any court where 

EOIR has launched the electronic filing 

capabilities or the BIA will remain 

voluntary under the terms of the 

existing pilot program. Similarly, 

immigration courts and the BIA will 

continue to follow existing procedures 

for sending and receiving case-related 

materials in those cases where the 

attorney or accredited representative has 

not agreed to participate in the pilot 

program. In order to complete this full 

nationwide implementation, EOIR is 

proposing to make the following 

changes to its regulations. 

A. Filing 

1. Who May File Electronically 

This rulemaking proposes that 

electronic filing will become mandatory 

for DHS 6 and attorneys and accredited 

representatives who represent 

respondents, applicants, or petitioners 

before EOIR. By mandating electronic 

filing for attorneys and accredited 

representatives, EOIR will be able to 

maintain a complete electronic process 

for many cases from beginning to end. 

EOIR anticipates that this will create 

significant efficiencies for the parties 

and EOIR. For example, registered 

parties will be able to file documents 

electronically at any time of day from 

any location with internet access, 

removing concerns related to the 

restrictions business hours create to 

meet filing deadlines (i.e., 

representatives can file after court hours 

rather than appearing in person at the 

court or a mail delivery service office 

during certain hours). Once the 

electronic filings are accepted, the 

parties will be able to view all of the 

documents filed in their case without 

having to appear at an immigration 

court to view the paper record. Parties 

will be required to make all original 

paper copies of any electronically filed 

documents available for review upon 

request of the immigration court, BIA, or 

the opposing party. Similarly, EOIR will 

be able to quickly process filings and 

maintain case records through an 

electronic system. 

To provide for possible unanticipated 

issues arising from mandating electronic 

filing, this rule proposes to allow for an 

extended filing deadline when the 

electronic filing system is unavailable 

due to an unplanned system outage and 

to provide immigration judges with the 

authority to accept paper filings in open 

court in limited circumstances, 

including for rebuttal or impeachment 

purposes; for good cause shown, 

provided that the filing is otherwise 

admissible and the immigration judge 

finds that any applicable filing deadline 

should be excused; or, when the 

opposing party does not object to the 

paper filing. 

EOIR also intends to make electronic 

filing through ECAS available on a 

voluntary basis to pro se respondents, 

applicants, or petitioners and to 

reputable individuals and accredited 

officials, as defined in 8 CFR 

1292.1(a)(3) and (a)(5), respectively, 

because all of the same efficiencies 

listed above may also flow to those 

individuals if they choose to use ECAS. 

Both reputable individuals and 

accredited officials may act as 

representatives in immigration 

proceedings before EOIR and are subject 

to the same requirements as other 

representatives, such as the need to file 

a Form EOIR–28 when making an 

appearance or receiving service of 

process in a particular case. See, e.g., 8 

CFR 1292.4(a), 1292.5(a). EOIR also 

recognizes that both types of 

representatives appear sparingly in 

proceedings before EOIR, and both 

reputable individuals and accredited 

officials, as defined in the regulations, 

may not have the same sort of 

familiarity with EOIR’s procedures and 

requirements as other types of 

representatives. Cf. 8 CFR 

1292.1(a)(3)(iv) (providing that, in order 

to qualify as a reputable individual, a 

person may not be one who ‘‘regularly 

engages in immigration and 

naturalization practice or preparation’’). 

Although pro se respondents, 

applicants, or petitioners and reputable 

individuals and accredited officials are 

not currently able to participate in the 

electronic filing program, this capability 

will eventually be available for those 

who opt to use it, and EOIR will adapt 

its current registration system as 

appropriate to allow pro se respondents, 

applicants, or petitioners and reputable 

individuals and accredited officials to 

register in order to be able to utilize 

ECAS. The rulemaking proposes 

changes to allow for this future ECAS 

utilization capability by pro se 

respondents, applicants, or petitioners 

and reputable individuals and 

accredited officials.7

EOIR seeks comment on these 

considerations, including how to best 

register such users for electronic filing, 

whether the same two-factor 

authentication process used for 

attorneys and accredited representatives 

would similarly work for these users, 

whether there are other more effective 

methods for identity-proofing online 

filers who do not have the same 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 234 / Friday, December 4, 2020 / Proposed Rules 78243 

8Nothing in the proposed rule precludes a law 

student or law graduate from appearing 

telephonically provided the immigration judge has 

approved such appearance. In such cases, the 

supervising attorney or accredited representative 

would be expected to be present with the law 

student or law graduate by telephone. 

financial or U.S. ‘‘footprint’’ that can be 

used for remote verification of the 

person’s identity, and how to combat 

any potential fraud concerns related to 

expanding electronic filing capabilities 

to parties other than attorneys and 

accredited representatives. For more 

information on the current registration 

process for eRegistry, please see EOIR, 

Frequently Asked Questions: Attorneys 

and Accredited Representatives (Oct. 1, 

2020), https://www.justice.gov/eoir/ 

ecas/attorney-and-ar-FAQs. 

EOIR also proposes to change how 

law students and law graduates, as 

defined in 8 CFR 1292.1(a)(2), file 

documents and appear before EOIR. The 

Immigration and Nationality Act 

(‘‘INA’’) provides that aliens appearing 

before an immigration judge ‘‘shall have 

the privilege of being represented, at no 

expense to the Government, by counsel 

of the alien’s choosing who is 

authorized to practice in such 

proceedings.’’ INA 240(b)(4)(A), 8 U.S.C. 

1229a(b)(4)(A); see also INA 292, 8 

U.S.C. 1362. The Attorney General 

possesses a general authority to 

‘‘establish such regulations . . . as the 

Attorney General determines to be 

necessary for carrying out’’ his 

authorities under the INA. INA 

103(g)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1103(g)(2). Pursuant 

to this authority, this rule proposes to 

clarify the circumstances under which 

law students and law graduates are 

authorized to practice in immigration 

proceedings. 

There is no statutory entitlement for 

law students and law graduates to 

participate as representatives in 

immigration proceedings. Rather, the 

Department has authorized law student 

representation subject to attorney 

supervision as a matter of regulatory 

grace since at least 1975. Representation 

and Appearance Before Immigration and 

Naturalization Service and Board of 

Immigration Appeals, 40 FR 23271 (May 

29, 1975). Over time, the Department 

had modified the regulations governing 

law student and law graduate practice 

on multiple occasions. See, e.g., 

Representation and Appearance, 55 FR 

49250 (Nov. 27, 1990) (expanding 

participation of law students in clinical 

programs at accredited law schools from 

only third-year law students to first and 

second-year students); Executive Office 

for Immigration Review; Representation 

and Appearances: Law Students and 

Law Graduates, 62 FR 23634 (May 1, 

1997) (clarifying that law students and 

law graduates could participate through 

programs outside of law school clinics 

and that the prohibition on direct or 

indirect remuneration for law students 

and law graduates applies only to 

remuneration from respondents). The 

most recent change occurred in 2008, 

when the Department clarified ‘‘that law 

students and law graduates must be 

students and graduates of accredited 

law schools in the United States’’ in 

order to practice before EOIR. 

Professional Conduct for Practitioners— 

Rules and Procedures, and 

Representation and Appearances, 73 FR 

76914, 76916 (Dec. 18, 2008). 

As the Department moves toward 

electronic filing capability for all cases 

in immigration proceedings, it finds that 

additional clarifications are warranted 

to ensure that appropriate attorney 

supervision over law students and law 

graduates is maintained and that 

respondents are not prejudiced by the 

intrinsically transient nature of such 

representation. Cf. 78 FR at 19400, 

19404 (declining to require law students 

to register with EOIR due to, among 

other things, ‘‘the transient nature of 

law students’ participation in clinical 

programs and the limited circumstances 

under which students can represent 

individuals before EOIR . . . the 

absence of any mechanism to inform 

EOIR when a student leaves a program 

. . . [and the lack of a] regulatory 

provision permitting a law student to 

appear before EOIR if not enrolled in a 

‘legal aid program or clinic,’ [making] it 

. . . problematic for those students to 

remain registered after leaving a clinical 

program’’). 

The proposed rule clarifies that all 

filings by law students must be made 

through an attorney or accredited 

representative who is registered with 

EOIR pursuant to 8 CFR 1292.1(f). As 

currently drafted, the regulations 

require ‘‘direct supervision’’ of law 

students, 8 CFR 1292.1(a)(2)(ii), but do 

not provide a clear definition of that 

term. Further, this rulemaking proposes 

that law graduates, currently required to 

have ‘‘supervision’’ under the 

regulations, 8 CFR 1292.1(a)(2)(iii), 

would also need to file through an 

attorney or accredited representative 

registered with EOIR. Law students and 

law graduates often provide 

representation through clinics or other 

short-term programs, which limits the 

length of their representation and can 

create confusion that affects the 

respondent when such short-term 

representation results in a change of 

counsel. With electronic filing, it is 

critical that the court can reach the 

supervising attorney and that the 

attorney is familiar with the 

proceedings, similar to the requirement 

that the clinic’s address be provided for 

court communications rather than a 

student’s personal address. 

By requiring filings be completed 

through a supervising attorney or 

accredited representative, EOIR will be 

able to ensure that there is a single 

representative responsible for receiving 

electronic service from EOIR for the 

duration of the proceeding. For 

example, EOIR wants to prevent a 

scenario where electronic service of an 

important, time-sensitive document is 

sent to a law student who, since the last 

hearing, has left a law school clinic and 

is not expecting any EOIR-related 

emails. In practice, this will also 

increase the use of electronic filing 

because, under this proposed rule, the 

supervising attorney or accredited 

representative will be required to file 

documents electronically with EOIR. To 

protect the integrity of the filings, and 

proceedings as a whole, only registered 

attorneys and fully accredited 

representatives will be able to file 

electronically. The supervising attorney 

or accredited representative must be the 

filer to ensure that an attorney or 

representative authorized to practice 

before EOIR performs their supervisory 

role and takes ultimate responsibility for 

official filings. This change is also 

consistent with existing requirements in 

many states regarding law student 

practice. See, e.g., Ga. Sup. Ct. R. 95(4) 

(‘‘An attorney who supervises a 

registered law student shall . . . review, 

approve and personally sign any 

document prepared by a student that is 

filed in any court or tribunal, and 

review and approve any document 

prepared by a student that would have 

binding legal effect on a person or entity 

receiving services in relation to 

activities of the student registered 

pursuant to this Rule’’); Wash. Ad. and 

Prac. R. 9(f)(4) (a supervising lawyer of 

a licensed legal intern ‘‘must review and 

sign all correspondence providing legal 

advice to clients and all pleadings, 

motions, briefs, and other documents 

prepared by the Licensed Legal Intern 

and ensure that they comply with the 

requirements of this proposed rule, and 

must sign the document if it is prepared 

for presentation to a court’’). 

In addition, this rulemaking proposes 

that a law student or law graduate is 

authorized to practice only if a 

supervising attorney or accredited 

representative physically accompanies 

the law student or law graduate during 

all immigration court appearances.8 The 

supervising attorney or accredited 

representative must enter an appearance 

in the case and be physically present 

78244 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 234 / Friday, December 4, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

9 If the law student or law graduate were 

appearing by telephone or video teleconferencing, 

the supervising attorney or representative would 

still need to be physically present with the law 

student or law graduate but would not need to be 

physically present in the immigration court. 

10For more information on the eRegistry process, 

please see EOIR, EOIR Courts & Appeals System 

(ECAS)—Online Filing (Oct. 5, 2020), https://

www.justice.gov/eoir/ECAS. 

11For information regarding the mechanics of the 

actual electronic filing process, please see EOIR, 

ECAS User Manual, https://www.justice.gov/eoir/ 

page/file/1300086/download. 

and prepared to proceed in case of the 

inability of the law student or law 

graduate to do so. The current 

regulation requires the supervisor to 

accompany the law student or graduate 

at the request of the immigration judge 

or BIA but does not require the 

supervisor to enter an appearance in the 

case. As with the proposed filing change 

for law students, this change is similarly 

intended to ensure that every case has 

a representative who is aware of the 

case and proceedings and is ultimately 

responsible for proper representation in 

that case. 

Moreover, this change is consistent 

with many state bar rules allowing the 

practice of law by a law student in 

limited situations, but with the presence 

of a supervising attorney for 

adjudicatory proceedings. See, e.g., N.Y. 

R. Ct. 805.5(e) (‘‘The supervising 

attorney shall assume personal 

professional responsibility for any work 

undertaken by a law intern and shall 

supervise the preparation of the intern’s 

work. Immediate supervision of a law 

intern shall mean that the supervising 

attorney shall be personally present 

throughout the proceedings.’’ (emphasis 

added)); Tenn. R. Sup. Ct. 7, sec. 

10.03(h)(2) (‘‘It is the responsibility of 

the supervising attorney to ensure that 

the student is properly supervised and 

instructed . . . and be present for 

administrative or adjudicatory 

proceedings’’ (emphasis added)). 

Additionally, by requiring the 

supervising attorney or representative to 

physically 9 accompany the law student 

or law graduate, this proposed rule 

intends to avoid unnecessary delays if 

the law student or graduate is unable to 

proceed with representation. The 

supervising attorney or representative 

would also need to enter an appearance 

in order to be able to electronically file 

documents as required by this proposed 

rule. 

This rulemaking also proposes to 

limit who may accompany the law 

student or law graduate to attorneys and 

accredited representatives and to 

remove the term ‘‘supervising faculty 

member.’’ This proposed change is not 

intended to prevent faculty members 

from supervising law students, and most 

law school clinical supervising faculty 

members are already attorneys. Rather, 

this change would simply require 

supervising faculty members to be 

attorneys or accredited representatives 

authorized to practice before EOIR, in 

order to support the goal that a licensed 

attorney or accredited representative be 

ultimately responsible for filings and 

appearances before EOIR and to avoid 

potentially problematic circumstances 

in which a law student or law graduate 

is being supervised by a non-attorney or 

non-accredited representative, possibly 

in contravention of relevant state bar 

rules. 

2. Registration Process 

In order to file electronically with 

EOIR, an attorney or accredited 

representative must be registered with 

EOIR. Under existing EOIR regulations, 

all attorneys or accredited 

representatives are already required to 

enroll in eRegistry as a condition of 

practice before the immigration judges 

or the BIA. See 8 CFR 1292.1(f). 

Accordingly, no further registration 

would be required under this proposed 

rule for attorneys or accredited 

representatives. 

However, in the event that EOIR 

decides to expand electronic filing in 

the future to persons other than 

attorneys or accredited representatives, 

EOIR anticipates that those persons who 

are not currently enrolled in eRegistry 

would be required to complete a onetime registration through EOIR’s 

eRegistry application, consistent with 

current practice. 

The eRegistry system requires the user 

to complete an online application and, 

once that application is complete, 

present identification in person at an 

immigration court or the BIA.10 Once 

the user is registered through eRegistry, 

the user will receive an EOIR ID that 

will allow the user to log in to the 

electronic filing applications and view 

cases and file documents.11

3. Cases Eligible for Electronic Filing 

Registered users are only able to 

electronically file documents in a case 

if that case is eligible for electronic 

filing. ‘‘Case eligible for electronic 

filing’’ means any case that DHS seeks 

to bring before an immigration court 

after EOIR has formally established an 

electronic filing system for that court or 

any case before an immigration court or 

the BIA that has an eROP. All cases that 

are initiated at an immigration court or 

the BIA after that court or the BIA 

begins using the electronic filing and 

records applications will be processed 

with an eROP. 

For example, if EOIR’s electronic 

filing and records applications are 

implemented at the Los Angeles 

Immigration Court on November 20, 

2020, all cases in which DHS files a 

charging document or the alien files a 

bond redetermination request at the Los 

Angeles Immigration Court on 

November 20, 2020 or later will be 

processed with an eROP and eligible for 

electronic filing. In contrast, all other 

pending proceedings at the Los Angeles 

Immigration Court initiated on 

November 19, 2020 or earlier will not be 

eligible for electronic filing, including 

motions to reopen filed in cases 

initiated before this date. 

This rulemaking proposes to update 8 

CFR 1001.1 to include this definition for 

‘‘case eligible for electronic filing.’’ 

Users will be able to see whether a case 

has an eROP by logging into the 

electronic filing application and 

searching for the specific case. If the 

case allows documents to be uploaded 

through the electronic filing application, 

then the case has an eROP. If there is no 

upload option, then the case does not 

have an eROP, and all documents must 

be paper filed with the proper 

immigration court or the BIA, as 

appropriate. 

4. Electronic Filing Application 

Availability 

The proposed regulation would 

provide guidance for how a party 

subject to electronic filing requirements 

should proceed if EOIR’s electronic 

filing system is unavailable. If EOIR’s 

electronic filing system is unavailable 

due to an unplanned system outage on 

the last day for filing in a specific case, 

EOIR would evaluate the overall impact 

and make appropriate filing deadline 

adjustments (e.g., extensions to the first 

day that the electronic filing system 

becomes accessible that is not a 

Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday for 

those cases impacted). EOIR would 

determine whether the electronic filing 

system is unavailable due to a system 

outage sufficient to trigger the extended 

filing deadline, and EOIR would 

communicate such outages to external 

users through email, EOIR’s website, or 

other methods of communication, as 

available. Of course, parties maintain 

the ability to request an extension from 

the immigration court or BIA or to 

submit a motion to accept an untimely 

filing. See Office of the Chief 

Immigration Judge, Immigration Court 

Practice Manual 37, 39–40 (Nov. 16, 

2020), https://www.justice.gov/eoir/ 

page/file/1258536/download (last 

visited Nov. 19, 2020) (‘‘Immigration 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 234 / Friday, December 4, 2020 / Proposed Rules 78245 

12Any system outage announced three or fewer 

business days prior to the start of the outage will 

be treated as an unplanned outage. 

13Consistent with analogous state laws, the 

proposed definition also recognizes a discretionary 

safety valve to allow an individual whose fee 

waiver request is denied to either pay the fee or 

resubmit a new fee waiver request within 10 days 

before the BIA or an immigration judge will reject 

the filing as improper. See, e.g., Cal. Govt. Code 

68634(g) (‘‘If an application [for a fee waiver] is 

denied in whole or in part, the applicant shall pay 

the court fees and costs that ordinarily would be 

charged, or make the partial payment as ordered by 

the court, within 10 days after the clerk gives notice 

of the denial, unless within that time the applicant 

submits a new application’’). 

14The DHS, Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (‘‘ICE’’), Office of the Principal Legal 

Advisor currently accepts electronic service 

through their eService portal. For more information, 

please visit https://eserviceregistration.ice.gov/. 

Court Practice Manual’’); Board of 

Immigration Appeals, Board of 

Immigration Appeals Practice Manual, 

34, 66 (Oct. 5, 2020), https://

www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1324276/ 

download (last visited Nov. 19, 2020) 

(‘‘BIA Practice Manual’’). Both the 

immigration court and the BIA have the 

discretion to accept untimely filings. 

See Immigration Court Practice Manual, 

at 39–40; BIA Practice Manual, at 66. 

Additionally, in the event that EOIR’s 

electronic filing system is unavailable, 

parties are permitted to file paper 

motions or requests for extensions. 

This unplanned unavailability policy 

tracks the federal courts’ policy for their 

electronic filing system. See Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 6(a)(3)(A); Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(3)(A). 

It also follows the electronic filing 

requirements for many state judicial 

systems as well. See, e.g., Tenn. R. Sup. 

Ct. 46, sec. 5.02 (‘‘In the event the efiling system is offline for technical 

reasons for a significant portion of a 

particular day, the clerk, in his or her 

discretion, is authorized to issue a 

written declaration that the e-filing 

system is unavailable for filing on that 

day, in which event all filings due on 

that day from Registered Users shall be 

deemed to be timely if filed the 

following day.’’). 

On the other hand, if EOIR’s 

electronic filing system is unavailable 

due to a planned, previously 

announced 12 system outage on the last 

day for filing in a specific case, this 

proposed rule would provide that the 

user must plan accordingly to 

electronically file the documents during 

system availability or be prepared to file 

the documents on paper with the proper 

immigration court or the BIA in order to 

meet any applicable filing deadlines. 

EOIR would communicate these 

planned outages to external users 

through email, EOIR’s website, or other 

methods of communication, as 

available. 

This proposed rule would not change 

the immigration judges’ or BIA’s 

authority to determine how to treat an 

untimely filing or prevent parties from 

making a motion to accept the untimely 

filing. See Immigration Court Practice 

Manual, at 39–40; BIA Practice Manual, 

at 33–40. 

5. Filing Classified Information 

EOIR’s electronic filing and records 

applications are not rated for classified 

information. Users should not file 

classified information through EOIR’s 

electronic filing application, and the 

application does not change the users’ 

or the agency’s responsibilities related 

to classified information. Users would 

need to file any classified information 

by paper and follow existing procedures 

for the filing of classified information. 

See EOIR, Operating Policies and 

Procedures Memorandum 09–01, 

Classified Information in Immigration 

Court Proceedings (Feb. 5, 2009), 

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/ 

files/eoir/legacy/2009/02/11/09-01.pdf. 

EOIR immigration court staff will 

maintain a paper record for any filing 

that contains classified information. 

6. Receipt and Rejection of Filings 

EOIR also proposes to move and 

update the ‘‘filing’’ definition currently 

located in 8 CFR 1003.13 to the general 

definition section in 8 CFR 1001.1 so 

that it will apply to both the 

immigration courts and the BIA. That 

proposed definition further explains 

when both electronic and paper filings 

are deemed filed and makes clear that 

improper filings that are rejected are not 

deemed ‘‘filed.’’ 13 See generally 

Immigration Court Practice Manual, at 

33–34, 38–40; BIA Practice Manual, at 

31–33, 34. The bases for rejecting filings 

track those already applied by the BIA 

and the immigration courts as outlined 

in each’s respective practice manual. 

See Immigration Court Practice Manual, 

at 33–34, 38–40; BIA Practice Manual, at 

31–334. 

B. Service 

This rulemaking also proposes to 

change how service of process is 

accomplished in cases before the 

immigration courts and the BIA. 

Currently, the parties must 

simultaneously serve on the opposing 

party a copy of all documents filed with 

the immigration courts and the BIA. 

See, e.g., 8 CFR 1003.3(a)(1), (c)(1), 

1003.23(b)(1)(ii), 1003.32(a). This 

service must be accomplished in person 

or by first-class mail. See 8 CFR 

1003.32(a), BIA Practice Manual, at 36. 

Similarly, under the current regulations, 

the immigration courts and the BIA 

must serve copies of court documents, 

such as orders, notices, and decisions, 

in person or by mail. See, e.g., 8 CFR 

1003.1(f), 1003.37(a). 

In this proposed rule, EOIR proposes 

to move the ‘‘service’’ definition 

currently located in 8 CFR 1003.13 to 

the general definition section in 8 CFR 

1001.1 so that it will apply to both the 

immigration courts and the BIA. EOIR 

also proposes updates to various crossreferences to service of process 

accordingly. 

In order to provide a simpler and 

more efficient filing process, EOIR 

proposes to complete service 

electronically on behalf of the parties for 

all cases in which both parties are using 

electronic filing. When a party 

successfully uploads a document to 

EOIR’s electronic filing application and 

the other party is also using electronic 

filing in that case, EOIR’s application 

will send the parties an electronic 

notification that the eROP has been 

updated. This will simplify the filing 

process for electronic filers by only 

requiring them to file their documents 

with EOIR in eligible cases rather than 

needing to execute multiple mailings to 

complete service requirements. 

On the other hand, if another party is 

not participating in electronic filing for 

that particular case, EOIR’s electronic 

filing application will alert the user that 

the opposing party is not participating 

in electronic filing for that particular 

case and remind the filer of the 

responsibility to complete service of 

process on the opposing party. 

Consistent with existing practice, the 

filer must include a certificate of service 

with each filing as proof of completed 

service on the opposing party. 

EOIR also proposes to update the 

‘‘service’’ definition to allow parties and 

EOIR the option to complete service 

electronically. In situations where the 

parties need to complete service outside 

of the electronic filing application, the 

parties may complete service 

electronically,14 or by personal or mail 

service, which are the current options 

for completing service. EOIR anticipates 

that this will provide significant 

efficiencies to the parties by eliminating 

the need to print and mail documents to 

each other. 

EOIR further proposes to serve EOIRgenerated documents, such as orders, 

decisions, and notices, by electronic 

notification to parties that are 

participating in electronic filing. This 

notification will constitute completed 

service and begin the appeal clock, if 

applicable. If a party is not participating 

78246 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 234 / Friday, December 4, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

15 Digital signatures are defined as signatures 

performed via a recognized system that provides 

Personal Key Infrastructure (PKI) from the signer at 

the time of signing. EOIR Policy Memorandum 20– 

11, Filings and Signatures (Apr. 3, 2020), https:// 

www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1266411/download 

(last visited Nov. 19, 2020). Electronic signatures 

are defined as signatures performed using a device 

that does not provide PKI at the time of signing 

(e.g., stylus and touchpad). Id. at 1 n.2. Any type 

of signature—wet, digital, or electronic—may be 

subject to a challenge in immigration proceedings 

to its authenticity, though EOIR expects that any 

such challenge will be brought only in good faith. 

Id. at 2. Additionally, any type of signature may be 

authenticated, as necessary, using any means 

identified in Federal Rule of Evidence 901. Id. 

in electronic filing, EOIR will continue 

to serve EOIR-generated documents in 

person or by mail on that party. 

In order for EOIR to effectuate 

electronic service, the parties must 

maintain a valid email address within 

the eRegistry application. If a user’s 

email address changes, the user must 

immediately update the relevant 

eRegistry account and file a new Form 

EOIR–27 or EOIR–28, as applicable, in 

each case with the updated email 

address. EOIR will consider service 

completed when the electronic 

notification is delivered to the last email 

address on file provided by the user, 

similar to the existing paper mail 

service provision for Notices to Appear 

and hearing notices. Cf. INA 239(c), 8 

U.S.C. 1229(c) (‘‘Service by mail under 

this section shall be sufficient if there is 

proof of attempted delivery to the last 

address provided by the alien . . . .’’). 

C. Signatures 

This rulemaking proposes to provide 

standards for signatures. With this 

proposed rule, EOIR proposes to allow 

four types of signatures, depending on 

the document being filed and the 

method by which the document is being 

filed: (1) Original, handwritten ink 

signatures; (2) encrypted, digital 

signatures; (3) electronic signatures; and 

(4) conformed signatures.15 Thus, this 

proposed rule would incorporate 

existing EOIR policy regarding 

signatures, Policy Memorandum 20–11, 

Filings and Signatures (Apr. 3, 2020), 

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/ 

1266411/download (last visited Nov. 19, 

2020), while also allowing conformed 

signatures in certain circumstances. 

First, EOIR proposes to accept 

documents with original, handwritten 

ink signatures, encrypted digital 

signatures, or electronic signatures, 

whether filing electronically or on 

paper. If filed electronically, the 

document may be signed with an 

encrypted, digital signature; an 

electronic signature; or an original, 

handwritten ink signature and then 

scanned for upload to the electronic 

filing application. If a user signs a 

document using an encrypted digital 

signature but EOIR’s electronic filing 

application is unavailable, the user may 

print the document with the digital 

signature and paper file the document 

with the immigration court. 

Second, EOIR proposes to allow users 

to sign their own name with a 

conformed signature on documents filed 

through EOIR’s electronic filing 

application. Conformed signatures will 

not be accepted for anyone other than 

the user who is submitting the 

document. Conformed signatures 

typically consist of the user typing 

‘‘/s/’’ and the user’s name into the 

signature block. For example: ‘‘/s/John 

Smith.’’ By signing into the electronic 

filing application, the user has 

demonstrated that they have completed 

identity verification through the 

eRegistry process described in Section 

III.A.2., thereby allowing the use of a 

conformed signature. EOIR seeks public 

comment as to whether this safeguard, 

which employs all Departmentmandated information security 

protocols, is sufficient, whether there 

are other more effective methods for 

identity-proofing online filers who do 

not have the same financial or U.S. 

‘‘footprint’’ that can be used for remote 

verification of the person’s identity, or 

whether the user should need to reinput credentials at the time of each 

electronic filing. 

These proposed signature rules would 

be subject to any specific form, 

application, or document signature 

requirements. For example, if an 

application’s instructions require an 

original, handwritten ink signature, then 

the user must follow the application 

instructions instead of the proposed 

signature allowances in this proposed 

rule. In practice, if the user was 

electronically filing, the user would sign 

the application in ink and then scan and 

electronically file the application with 

EOIR. The user would also be required 

to make the original available upon 

request. 

D. Electronic Payments 

EOIR imposes a fee for filing many 

types of documents. See generally 8 CFR 

1103.7. Currently, the immigration 

courts do not directly accept fee 

payments for any documents that 

require a fee. Instead, filers must make 

these fee payments to DHS and then 

provide proof of the payment to the 

immigration courts. This proposed rule 

does not change this payment structure 

at the immigration courts. Under this 

proposed rule, electronic filers would be 

able to submit a scanned copy of the 

filing fee receipt as part of their 

electronic submission. 

In contrast, the BIA directly accepts 

payments for certain documents that 

require a fee. See generally 8 CFR 

1003.8. In October 2020, EOIR launched 

the EOIR Payment Portal, which allows 

users to make electronic payments for 

filings at the BIA, as provided in 8 CFR 

1003.8. See EOIR, EOIR Payment Portal 

(Nov. 19, 2020), https://

epay.eoir.justice.gov/. As a result, this 

rulemaking proposes to broaden the 

references to payments at the BIA in 8 

CFR 1003.2 and 1003.3 in order to 

account for these changes. 

E. Duplicate Copies 

This rulemaking proposes to update 8 

CFR 1003.23 to remove the requirement 

for parties to file multiple ‘‘in 

duplicate’’ copies of a motion to reopen 

or a motion to reconsider if they are 

filing electronically. However, in 

duplicate copies would still be required 

for paper filings. 

F. Technical Amendments 

When updating existing regulatory 

sections, this rulemaking also proposes 

a number of technical amendments. 

These include updating outdated 

references from ‘‘the Service,’’ ‘‘Service 

counsel,’’ and ‘‘Office of the District 

Counsel’’ to ‘‘DHS,’’ ‘‘DHS counsel,’’ 

and ‘‘ICE Office of the Principal Legal 

Advisor’’ in 8 CFR 1001.1, 1003.1, 

1003.2, 1003.3, 1003.23, 1003.31, 

1214.2, 1240.2, 1240.10, 1240.11, 

1240.13, 1240.26, 1240.32, 1240.33, 

1240.48, 1240.49, 1240.51, 1245.21, and 

1246.5, and lowercasing terms 

‘‘Immigration Judge’’ and ‘‘Immigration 

Court’’ in 8 CFR 1003.2, 1003.17, 

1003.23, 1003.31, 1003.32, 1003.37, 

1003.38, and 1208.4 consistent with 

regulatory style guidelines. The 

rulemaking also proposes to update a 

reference at 8 CFR 1003.1(f) regarding 

service on a representative from part 

292, which is a DHS regulation, to part 

1292, which is an EOIR regulation. 

IV. Regulatory Requirements 

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Department has reviewed this 

proposed rule in accordance with the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act and has 

determined that this proposed rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). As 

proposed, this rulemaking regulates 

attorneys and accredited 

representatives, most of whom qualify 

as ‘‘small entities’’ under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. See 5 U.S.C. 601(3)–(4), 

(6). However, all attorneys and 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 234 / Friday, December 4, 2020 / Proposed Rules 78247 

16All dollar amounts cited in this discussion are 

calculated to correspond with what would have 

been the value in December 2016 using the U.S. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Consumer Price 

Index inflation calculator found at https://

www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm (last 

visited Nov. 19, 2020). 

17Savings listed are an overestimation as they 

include all filings, rather than only those filings that 

can be done electronically at this time (i.e., the 

savings include filings by pro se respondents who 

cannot yet use ECAS). 

accredited representatives already are 

required to enroll in eRegistry in order 

to practice before EOIR. Thus, they are 

already eligible to participate in the 

electronic filing process, which is 

currently being made available in many 

locations through a voluntary pilot 

program. This proposed rule, when 

finalized, would make the use of 

electronic filing mandatory in eligible 

cases. 

The Department anticipates that the 

adoption of electronic filing will lead to 

substantial net cost savings for these 

attorneys and accredited representatives 

because they would no longer be 

required to bear the burdens and 

expenses of mailing or serving paper 

copies in each of their cases for filings 

submitted to the immigration court or to 

the BIA or for service of process on 

opposing counsel. Therefore, this 

proposed rule will not have an adverse 

economic effect on attorneys or 

accredited representatives, but instead 

is expected to result in significant cost 

savings. A more detailed analysis of the 

costs and benefits of this proposed rule 

are detailed in Section IV.D. 

B. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

This proposed rule will not result in 

the expenditure by State, local, and 

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

by the private sector, of $100 million or 

more in any one year, and it will not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. Therefore, no actions were 

deemed necessary under the provisions 

of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995. 

C. Congressional Review Act 

This proposed rule is not a major rule 

as defined by section 804 of the 

Congressional Review Act. 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). This proposed rule will not 

result in an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more; a 

major increase in costs or prices; or 

significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or on the 

ability of United States-based 

companies to compete with foreignbased companies in domestic and 

export markets. 

D. Executive Order 12866 and Executive 

Order 13563 (Regulatory Planning and 

Review) 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct agencies to assess all costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health, and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). The Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs of the Office of 

Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) has 

determined that this proposed rule is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

under section 3(f) of Executive Order 

12866. It will neither result in an annual 

effect on the economy greater than $100 

million nor adversely affect the 

economy or sectors of the economy. It 

does not pertain to entitlements, grants, 

user fees, or loan programs, nor does it 

raise novel legal or policy issues. It does 

not create inconsistencies or interfere 

with actions taken by other agencies. 

Accordingly, this proposed rule is not a 

significant regulatory action subject to 

review by OMB pursuant to Executive 

Order 12866. 

Executive Order 13563 direct agencies 

to assess all costs and benefits of 

available regulatory alternatives and, if 

regulation is necessary, to select 

regulatory approaches that maximize 

net benefits (including potential 

economic, environmental, public health 

and safety, and other advantages; 

distributive impacts; and equity). 

Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the 

importance of using the best available 

methods to quantify costs and benefits, 

reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and 

promoting flexibility. The Department 

certifies that this regulation has been 

drafted in accordance with the 

principles of Executive Order 13563. 

1. ECAS-Related Costs and Savings 

The Department estimates that 

implementation of ECAS will result in 

a total savings of $68,105,250 over the 

first 10 years of its implementation.16

Specifically, the Department estimates 

that electronic filing will cost EOIR 

$32,896,179 over 10 years, primarily 

due to increased technology costs to 

implement and maintain the new 

technology infrastructure. These costs 

are outweighed, however, by the 

predicted savings to the public— 

$101,001,429, which primarily relate to 

cost savings from no longer having to 

file documents via mail or in person. 

These costs and savings for EOIR and 

the public are discussed in further detail 

individually below. 

TABLE 1—OVERVIEW OF TOTAL COST

AND SAVINGS: EOIR AND THE PUBLIC 17

Entity Savings/costs 

EOIR ..................................... ($32,896,179) 

OCIJ .............................. 12,910,888 

BIA ................................. 2,710,950 

OIT ................................. (51,275,937) 

OGC .............................. 2,757,920 

Public .................................... 101,001,429 

Total ............................... 68,105,250 

Despite the financial cost to EOIR to 

develop and maintain the technology for 

ECAS, the Department believes that 

electronic filings will be a net benefit for 

the agency. During the electronic filing 

pilot program, EOIR has already begun 

to realize efficiencies in case processing. 

For example, in Fiscal Year (‘‘FY’’) 2019 

DHS initiated 37,074 cases 

electronically (out of 465,790 cases 

initiated in the same time period), and 

161 bond proceedings were initiated 

electronically. According to internal 

pilot metrics, charging documents filed 

electronically at the pilot sites are being 

processed nearly 10 times faster than 

charging documents filed in paper. 

Similarly, the time it takes to receive 

and process a non-charging supporting 

document is approximately 25 percent 

faster than processing a paper-filed 

supporting document. This represents a 

significant savings in terms of court staff 

time and in terms of the overall 

processing time for the 2,574 

electronically filed motions that EOIR 

has received during the ECAS pilot 

program. This proposed rule will only 

increase these time savings when all 

attorneys and accredited representatives 

begin filing documents electronically. 

a. Office of the Chief Immigration Judge 

The Department estimates that 

implementation of the proposed rule 

will reduce the immigration courts’ 

costs by the equivalent of approximately 

$12.9 million over the first 10 years of 

implementation. This reduction 

includes the cost of labor that will be 

reallocated to other tasks due to the 

more efficient processing of electronic 

documents. Cost changes for the courts 

will be realized primarily in initial case 

processing; individual hearing 

processing; and processing and shipping 

costs for changes of venue, appeals, and 

records retirement. 

To reach its estimates, the Department 

determined the costs for adjudicating a 

78248 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 234 / Friday, December 4, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

typical case after the implementation of 

the proposed regulation. Using this 

methodology, the Department identified 

and analyzed three separate scenarios: 

(1) Legacy paper ROPs that were started 

but not completed before this proposed 

rule; (2) eROPs for pro se respondents 

that are submitted in paper and scanned 

by court staff; and (3) eROPs for 

represented respondents that are 

completely electronic. 

The Department then estimated the 

economic impact of the proposed 

regulation on the immigration courts for 

each of the next 10 years by calculating 

the average costs for each of the three 

scenarios above; multiplying each 

scenario’s average cost by the expected 

annual number of cases received for the 

immigration courts and expected annual 

hearings for the immigration courts in 

each scenario over the next decade; 

separately calculating the baseline cost 

(i.e., the cost without mandatory 

electronic filing), using existing time 

estimates and labor rates, for the next 10 

years; and subtracting the postregulation cost from the baseline cost for 

each of the next 10 years. 

This economic impact reflects labor 

hours that will be saved in terms of 

dollars. In actuality, labor can be 

reallocated to higher-impact tasks, and 

more efficient labor usage could offset 

future hiring and resource needs, which 

may lead to more quantifiable realized 

savings. As shown in Table 2, the 

expected cost savings increase every 

year. This is a result of legacy paper 

ROPs leaving the system as cases are 

adjudicated and a higher percentage of 

the future pending cases having 

mandatory eROPs as a result of this 

regulation. 

TABLE 2—OFFICE OF THE CHIEF

IMMIGRATION JUDGE COST SAVINGS

Year Expected cost 

savings 

1 ............................................ $140,304 

2 ............................................ 526,622 

3 ............................................ 816,841 

4 ............................................ 1,115,708 

5 ............................................ 1,320,399 

6 ............................................ 1,500,104 

7 ............................................ 1,666,355 

8 ............................................ 1,816,269 

9 ............................................ 1,947,925 

10 .......................................... 2,060,361 

Total ............................... 12,910,888 

Since all paper-filed documents, per 

this new regulation, will be scanned and 

maintained in an eROP, initial case 

processing is estimated to become 

marginally more expensive as court staff 

must scan the paper documents into the 

eROP. However, this increase in cost 

will be outweighed by the time savings, 

calculated in terms of the cost of labor, 

for individual hearing processing and 

change of venue processing, as filing 

becomes more expeditious for court staff 

in each individual case. Additionally, 

annual shipping costs will be reduced, 

since changes of venue, appeals, and 

records retirement transfers will occur 

electronically instead of manually 

shipping the paper ROP to another 

court, the BIA, or the Federal Records 

Center. 

Cost changes have been calculated 

with the assumption that all other 

processes remain the same. However, 

eROPs enable the possibility of further 

cost savings through more efficient case 

adjudication. For example, widely 

available eROPs may enable 

immigration judges to hear a case via 

video teleconference (‘‘VTC’’) almost 

instantly. Under the current paper ROP 

system, the ROP needs to be shipped to 

the immigration judge’s location before 

a VTC hearing can be held. In contrast, 

an eROP could enable a judge to open 

any eROP and hear a case immediately. 

This new paradigm has the potential to 

improve the efficiency of workload 

adjudication by judges and their staff. 

EOIR may also realize savings through 

the reduced growth of storage 

requirements at court locations. EOIR 

currently stores paper ROPs at 

immigration courts, utilizing valuable 

storage space in courtrooms, offices, and 

hallways. Conversion to an eROP 

system may ease the strain on the 

system as new pending cases will have 

an eROP that will not require physical 

storage space. With the information 

currently available, storage space 

utilization and savings cannot be 

specifically calculated. However, this 

regulation will likely reduce costs for 

the immigration courts by allowing 

current space to be used for functional 

purposes, rather than storage. 

b. Board of Immigration Appeals 

The Department also estimates that 

implementation of the proposed 

regulation will reduce the BIA’s costs by 

approximately $2.7 million over the first 

10 years of implementation. Cost 

changes for the BIA will be realized in 

three main process areas: Scanning pro 

se ROPs; receiving ROPs from the 

immigration courts; and returning ROPs 

to the immigration courts. 

TABLE 3—BIA COSTS SAVINGS

Year Expected cost 

savings 

1 ............................................ ($23,064) 

2 ............................................ 176,822 

3 ............................................ 201,808 

4 ............................................ 250,818 

5 ............................................ 285,414 

6 ............................................ 314,243 

7 ............................................ 342,112 

8 ............................................ 367,098 

9 ............................................ 388,240 

10 .......................................... 407,459 

Total ............................... 2,710,950 

The impacts to the BIA largely mirror 

the immigration courts in that scanning 

paper filings into the eROP is likely to 

increase costs by increasing staff 

workload. Further, the largest cost 

savings are likely to come from reduced 

shipping. The BIA’s process requires 

that all ROPs sent to the BIA from the 

immigration court must be shipped back 

to the court upon completion of the 

appeal. Shipping costs will be 

eliminated for future eROPs because 

they will be transferred electronically, 

reducing costs for the BIA. 

c. Office of Information Technology 

The Department estimates that the 

implementation of the proposed rule 

will increase EOIR’s Office of 

Information Technology’s (‘‘OIT’’) costs 

by a total of approximately $51.3 

million across the first 10 years of 

implementation. These costs are due to 

the additional effort required to 

develop, deploy, and maintain the 

electronic infrastructure that serves as 

the backbone for electronic filing. 

Because OIT developed the tools and 

processes necessary for the 

implementation of mandatory electronic 

filing throughout EOIR, it is the largest 

driver of quantifiable costs from 

mandatory electronic filing 

implementation. The deployment and 

training for mandatory electronic filing 

will be particularly resource-intensive 

for OIT, as it will be responsible for the 

deployment and maintenance of the 

hardware and software necessary to 

digitize and store documents along with 

delivering training to court staff. Costs 

related to electronic filing deployment 

are estimated to be approximately $21.7 

million, including $2.3 million in 

hardware purchases, $1.7 million in 

travel to deliver training and install 

systems, and $3.4 million in external 

services, software, and licensing for 

necessary cloud computing services. 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 234 / Friday, December 4, 2020 / Proposed Rules 78249 

18Labor/Hardware represents a total of the 

individual categories of support labor, product 

labor, and hardware. 

19 Years 5 through 9 are not included in this 

visual, but are factored into the totals calculation. 

OIT estimates that labor costs will increase by 3 

percent per year. Non-labor costs, such as hardware, 

software, and external services, remain constant 

through each year. 

TABLE 4—OIT ELECTRONIC FILING DEPLOYMENT COSTS

Category Year 1 Year 2 Total 

External Services (e.g., MS Azure Premier Access) .................................................................. $999,429 $999,429 $1,998,858 

Software ....................................................................................................................................... 625,988 726,171 1,352,159 

Travel ........................................................................................................................................... 830,295 830,295 1,660,590 

Labor/Hardware 18 ........................................................................................................................ 11,316,689 5,355,028 16,671,717 

Support Labor: 

Program Support .................................................................................................................. 1,717,020 900,298 2,617,318 

Training ................................................................................................................................. 754,782 431,820 1,186,602 

Service Desk/Operations ...................................................................................................... 482,417 482,417 964,834 

Product Labor: 

eROP .................................................................................................................................... 2,699,130 1,322,681 4,021,811 

Electronic Filing .................................................................................................................... 3,741,362 1,833,416 5,574,778 

Hardware ..................................................................................................................................... 1,921,978 384,396 2,306,374 

Total ...................................................................................................................................... 13,772,401 7,910,923 21,683,324 

Costs are estimated to be highest in 

the first year of the deployment, as 

hardware is purchased, software 

systems are finalized and implemented, 

and training is delivered to court staff. 

Costs are estimated to decrease by over 

40 percent in the second deployment 

year as OIT completes training court 

staff and transitions to a steady state of 

software and hardware maintenance. 

The cost reductions in the second year 

of deployment will be driven by a 47 

percent reduction in labor costs and an 

80 percent reduction in hardware costs. 

Once training and deployment are 

complete, OIT’s costs will stabilize. 

While OIT will no longer incur costs 

related to training court staff, OIT will 

be using more labor than before 

mandatory electronic filing. This is due 

to the additional staff necessary to 

provide help desk support to the courts 

and IT services related to the electronic 

filing system. OIT will also continually 

accrue expenses for cloud computing 

platform licensing and hardware 

repairs, upgrades, and replacements 

required to support electronic filing. 

OIT estimates that overall costs will 

increase by approximately 1 percent 

each year, primarily driven by increases 

in labor costs. These ongoing expenses 

will represent the new steady state for 

OIT. The eight years following 

completion of the deployment phase are 

estimated to cost an additional $29.6 

million due to mandatory electronic 

filing. 

TABLE 5—OIT ELECTRONIC FILING STEADY STATE COSTS

Category Year 3 Year 4 . . . 19 Year 10 Total 

External Services (e.g., MS Azure Premier Access) ........... $999,429 $999,429 $999,429 $7,995,430 

Software ............................................................................... 366,521 366,521 366,521 2,932,169 

Travel ................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 

Labor/Hardware ................................................................... 2,227,541 2,255,993 2,443,930 18,665,013 

Support Labor: 

Program Support .......................................................... 239,564 239,564 239,564 1,916,512 

Training ......................................................................... 172,728 172,728 172,728 1,381,825 

Service Desk/Operations .............................................. 482,417 482,417 482,417 3,859,334 

Products Labor: 

eROP ............................................................................ 466,808 480,812 573,312 4,150,211 

Electronic Filing ............................................................ 481,628 496,076 591,513 4,281,966 

Electronic Filing Hardware ................................................... 384,396 384,396 384,396 3,075,166 

Total .............................................................................. 3,593,491 3,621,943 3,809,880 29,592,613 

As mandatory filing is implemented 

and electronic filing progresses, the 

Department anticipates that this will 

lead to significant additional 

efficiencies in case processing. This may 

include more expeditious case 

scheduling and adjudication, improved 

data quality, increased performance 

monitoring and tracking, augmented 

data analytics capabilities, and better 

alignment with information storage best 

practices. There may also be further 

impacts to EOIR’s internal datainformed decision-making process, as 

the digitization of the data may allow 

for increased analysis of the relationship 

between various practices, procedures, 

and outcomes. 

d. Office of General Counsel 

The Department estimates that the 

implementation of the proposed rule 

will increase efficiencies for the EOIR 

Office of the General Counsel (‘‘OGC’’) 

programs. For example, digitization of 

files will allow for more expeditious 

compliance with Freedom of 

Information Act (‘‘FOIA’’) and other 

requests for information, reducing the 

time burden of such activities on EOIR 

staff. Specifically, the Department 

estimates that costs associated with 

FOIA compliance will decrease by 

approximately $2.8 million across the 

first 10 years of implementation. These 

savings will be realized through reduced 

shipping costs in the FOIA response 

process as more ROPs are accessible 

78250 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 234 / Friday, December 4, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

20FOIA volume is estimated at 50,000 per year, 

an approximation based on EOIR’s FY 2018 FOIA 

volume. 

21These numbers represent the paper and 

electronic filing of initial Forms I–862, Notice to 

Appear, and I–863, Notice of Referral to the 

Immigration Judge, by DHS at the immigration 

courts nationwide for the fiscal year. EOIR does not 

have data regarding the number of paper vs. 

electronic filings directly by aliens in proceedings 

or their representatives, such as the relative number 

of paper vs. electronically filed motions, 

applications for relief or protection, or evidence 

packets. Accordingly, this analysis uses the number 

of electronic and paper filings by DHS as a proxy 

for those by the aliens and their representatives 

since EOIR does not have similar data for that 

population but would expect the percentage of 

paper and electronic to be the same for both. 

22See EOIR, Statistics Yearbook: Fiscal Year 2018 

(Aug. 30, 2019), https://www.justice.gov/eoir/file/ 

1198896/download (last visited Nov. 19, 2020). As 

with the immigration courts, the Department uses 

the number of cases filed at the BIA as a proxy for 

the number of filings at the BIA because the 

Department does not have specific data regarding 

the number of individual filings by the parties. 

23 852 filings * $18.85 average FedEx cost + 1,703 

filings * $13.34 average USPS cost. 

24 103,920 filings * $18.85 average FedEx cost. 

25 207,841 filings * $13.34 average USPS cost. 

26 $14.72 in May 2018 is equivalent to $14.13 in 

December 2016. 

27U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational 

Employment Statistics: Occupational Employment 

and Wages, May 2018: 23–1011 Lawyers, https://

www.bls.gov/oes/2018/may/oes231011.htm (last 

visited Nov. 19, 2020) (stating the mean hourly 

wage in May 2018 was $69.34). $69.34 in May 2018 

is equivalent to $66.54 in December 2016. 

28This calculation further assumes that the filings 

would require one hour of time by the attorney or 

courier. 

29 426 filings * $18.85 average FedEx cost. 

30 852 filings * $13.34 average USPS cost. 

31 639 filings * $66.54 mean hourly attorney 

wage. 

32 639 filings * $14.13 mean hourly courier wage. 

electronically instead of requiring 

storage retrieval and shipping. 

As electronic filing becomes more 

widespread, the proportion of FOIA 

requests that can be satisfied through 

electronic records searches will 

proportionally increase. A higher 

percentage of the future pending 

caseload will have mandatory eROPs as 

a result of this regulation, which will 

cause the ratio of eROPs to paper ROPs, 

and thus expected cost savings, to 

increase over time, as detailed in Table 

6. 

TABLE 6—OGC COST SAVINGS

Year 20 Expected cost 

savings 

1 ............................................ $0 

2 ............................................ 0 

3 ............................................ 60,052 

4 ............................................ 203,084 

5 ............................................ 295,661 

6 ............................................ 360,279 

7 ............................................ 404,478 

8 ............................................ 443,370 

9 ............................................ 479,318 

10 .......................................... 511,678 

Total ............................... 2,757,920 

The public may also see the added 

qualitative benefit of more expeditious 

FOIA compliance, as OGC will not have 

to wait for records to be shipped 

between locations to satisfy FOIA 

requests and will instead be able to 

search and access the records 

electronically. 

e. The Public 

The benefits to the public are high as 

well. Parties will be able to file 

documents at any time of day from any 

location with internet, thereby reducing 

postage costs and the need to physically 

appear at an immigration court during 

business hours. For many parties, this 

will be a substantial benefit, as the 

nearest immigration court may be hours 

away. The parties will also be able to 

view the eROP electronically, providing 

instant access to necessary documents 

and eliminating the need to appear at 

the immigration court to view the paper 

record. Further, parties will save on 

paper and toner costs required to print 

copies of filings, and costs associated 

with required process service. 

The Department believes that the 

biggest savings to the parties before 

EOIR will be from reduced costs 

associated with mailing or handdelivering filings that would have been 

incurred without the implementation of 

electronic filing. In FY 2018, EOIR’s 

immigration courts received 311,761 

paper filings and 2,555 electronic 

filings,21 and the BIA received 49,522 

paper filings.22 While EOIR does not 

keep data regarding what methods (e.g., 

Federal Express (‘‘FedEx’’), United 

States Postal Service (‘‘USPS’’), hand 

delivery by an attorney’s office or a pro 

se party, or local courier) are used to file 

paper documents with EOIR and to 

serve those filings on the opposing 

party, anecdotal evidence points to 

filings with the immigration courts and 

the BIA and service on the opposing 

party typically being sent using FedEx 

or courier to ensure filings are timely. 

This is particularly true for filings with 

the BIA, because the filer must ensure 

actual receipt by the BIA in Falls 

Church, Virginia no later than the close 

of business of the clerk’s office on the 

established deadline. 

To analyze the cost savings related to 

these filings that electronic filing would 

have on the public, EOIR considered the 

average costs of sending filings through 

FedEx and USPS, the hourly rates for 

couriers and immigration attorneys, and 

the time savings from avoiding use of 

the immigration courts’ intra-office 

mailing systems. Based on these 

preliminary estimates and filings from 

the previous year, if filers used FedEx 

for one-third of filings and used USPS 

for two-thirds of filings, electronic filing 

would have saved filers $38,778.55 in 

FedEx and USPS costs in the five pilot 

courts in FY 2018.23 This is compared 

to a cost of $1,959,360.15 in FedEx 

costs 24 and $2,772,396.55 in USPS 

filing costs 25 (assuming one-third 

filings via FedEx and two-thirds filings 

via USPS) in the other 55 courts. These 

estimates are based on an $18.85 

average FedEx filing rate ($8.57 average 

Express Saver cost + $20.03 average 

second day cost + $27.97 overnight cost, 

divided by three) and a $13.34 average 

USPS filing rate ($7.75 average priority 

mail + $28.59 average priority mail 

express + $3.68 first-class parcel, 

divided by three). The Department notes 

that this savings is likely an 

underestimate due to the tendency for 

many filers to use next day service. 

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor 

Statistics, the mean hourly wage for 

couriers, such as those the individuals 

law firms may hire to delivery 

documents to the immigration court, is 

$14.13. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 

Occupational Employment Statistics: 

Occupational Employment and Wages, 

May 2018: 43–5021 Couriers and 

Messengers, https://www.bls.gov/oes/ 

2018/may/oes435021.htm (last updated 

Mar. 29, 2019).26 Further, if an attorney 

makes the trip to the immigration court 

or to the BIA to handle the filing, the 

average cost would be $66.54 for one 

hour of work.27 Assuming that 

approximately one-quarter of paper 

filings are handled via a courier, onequarter of paper filings are handled via 

an attorney,28 and one-half are filed 

using USPS or FedEx, with two-thirds of 

those via USPS and one-third via FedEx, 

the cost savings to the public of eFiling 

in the five pilot courts was 

approximately $70,917.24 ($8,028.85 for 

FedEx 29 + $11,360.42 for USPS 30 + 

$42,502.43 for the attorneys 31 + 

$9,025.54 for the couriers 32). 

Overall, the Department’s estimates 

predict an annual savings to the public 

from electronic filing before the 

immigration courts and the BIA of 

approximately $10,100,142.88 

($70,917.24/2,555 filings = $27.76; 

$27.76 * (311,761 + 2,555 + 49,522 = 

363,838 total filings)). Over the course 

of 10 years, these savings would equal 

$101,001,428.80 if the annual number of 

filings remains constant. The 

Department, however, expects that the 

true savings will be higher as EOIR hires 

additional immigration judges and 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 234 / Friday, December 4, 2020 / Proposed Rules 78251 

33 In order to estimate these costs for the public, 

the Department looked to FedEx and USPS rates as 

a general representation for the costs of paper filing 

via mail or delivery service as they are the two most 

commonly used delivery services for filings with 

the Department. 

34See FedEx, FedEx One Rate Pricing (effective 

Jan. 7, 2019), available at https://www.fedex.com/ 

content/dam/fedex/us-united-states/services/ 

OneRate-Pricing_2019.pdf (last visited Nov. 19, 

2020). As noted, supra, in Footnote 16, these FedEx 

prices have been discounted to reflect their values 

as of December 2016. 

35This chart does not include the USPS rates for 

zone 9 as there are no immigration court locations 

in the Republic of Palau, Federated States of 

Micronesia, and the Republic of the Marshall 

Islands. See USPS Office of Inspector General, 

Audit Report Management of Postal Zones, at 4 

(March 25, 2019), available at https://

www.uspsoig.gov/sites/default/files/documentlibrary-files/2020/19RG009MS000-20.pdf (last 

visited Nov. 19, 2020). 

36These rates correspond with the USPS priority 

mail rates for letters, large envelopes, and parcels 

that do not exceed one pound. 

37These rates correspond with the USPS priority 

mail express rates for letters, large envelopes, and 

parcels that do not exceed 0.5 pound. 

38These rates correspond with the USPS first 

class package service rates for retail parcels that do 

not exceed one ounce. 

opens additional immigration courts, 

expanding the annual case processing 

capacity. See, e.g., EOIR, Executive 

Office for Immigration Review 

Adjudication Statistics: New Cases and 

Total Completions (Oct. 13, 2020), 

https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/ 

1060841/download (last visited Nov. 19, 

2020) (showing that initial case 

completions increased from 195,106 in 

FY 2018 to 276,918 in FY 2019). 

Further, additional savings are expected 

based on gas and tolls, paper, toner, and 

other office supplies. 

TABLE 7—COST AND SAVINGS FOR PUBLIC (FY18) 33

FedEx envelope rates 34 FedEx express 

saver FedEx 2 day 

FedEx 

standard 

overnight 

FedEx Local (0–150 miles) .......................................................................................................... $7.64 $17.83 $23.53 

FedEx Regional (151–600 miles) ................................................................................................ 8.16 19.34 25.80 

FedEx National (601+ miles) ....................................................................................................... 9.90 22.92 34.57 

Average Cost ............................................................................................................................... 8.57 20.03 27.97 

Costs of 1⁄3 OCIJ Paper Filings (103,920) .................................................................................. 890,250.86 2,081,524.28 22,906,305.32 

Total Costs of 1⁄3 BIA Paper Filings (16,507) .............................................................................. 141,412.82 330,641.89 461,655.09 

Savings from eFilings (2,555) ...................................................................................................... 21,887.83 51,176.65 71,454.83 

USPS rates by zone 35 Priority mail 36 Priority 

express 37

First-class 

parcel 38

USPS Zone 1&2 (0–150 miles) ................................................................................................... $6.95 $24.43 $3.52 

USPS Zone 3 (151–300 miles) ................................................................................................... 7.28 24.66 3.57 

USPS Zone 4 (301–600 miles) ................................................................................................... 7.42 25.50 3.62 

USPS Zone 5 (601–1,000 miles) ................................................................................................ 7.65 28.47 3.66 

USPS Zone 6 (1,001–1,400 miles) ............................................................................................. 7.83 30.37 3.71 

USPS Zone 7 (1,401–1,800) ....................................................................................................... 8.21 32.27 3.76 

USPS Zone 8 (1,801+) ................................................................................................................ 8.90 34.45 3.89 

Average Cost ............................................................................................................................... 7.75 28.59 3.68 

Costs of 2⁄3 OCIJ Paper Filings (207,841) .................................................................................. 1,610,468.25 5,942,758.49 763,962.91 

Costs of 2⁄3 BIA Paper Filings (16,507) ....................................................................................... 255,816.50 943,983.65 121,352.48 

Savings from eFilings (2,555) ...................................................................................................... 19,767.6 73,054.75 9,391.45 

Documents will also be served by 

electronic notification where applicable, 

which will provide near-instantaneous 

service. This will particularly benefit 

the parties when EOIR electronically 

serves orders and decisions on parties 

participating in electronic filing, as the 

appeal clock begins to run when the 

order is sent. This will allow the parties 

to begin preparing for any potential 

appeals immediately without having to 

wait for the order or decision to arrive 

in the mail as is currently the practice. 

These potential benefits are reflected 

in the private bar’s long-standing 

requests for electronic filing with EOIR. 

See, e.g., EOIR, EOIR/AILA Liaison 

Meeting (Sept. 26, 2002), https://

www.justice.gov/eoir/eoir-aila-sep26- 

2002. (last visited Nov. 19, 2020). In 

addition, since the July 2018 launch of 

the electronic filing pilot program, more 

than 15,000 attorneys have signed up for 

ECAS, indicating a strong interest in 

electronic filing. Moreover, at the pilot 

sites, approximately half of all active 

attorneys and accredited representatives 

in those sites have signed up for the 

pilot despite having no obligation to 

participate. 

2. Costs and Savings Related to Rules 

Regarding Law Student and Law 

Graduate Filings 

This rulemaking also proposes 

changes to law student and law graduate 

filing and accompaniment rules. First, 

EOIR believes that there will be 

minimal, if any, costs associated with 

requiring the supervisor to 

electronically file documents with 

EOIR, rather than the law student or law 

graduate filing on paper. And, if there 

are any associated costs, they will be 

outweighed by the substantial benefits 

of electronic filing, including immediate 

access to the eROP and the ability to file 

at any time of day from any location 

with internet access without the cost or 

reliance on mail carriers. 

As to the proposed accompaniment 

change, EOIR does not maintain data on 

how many law students appear in 

immigration court or how many of those 

appear without a supervisor present, 

though it understands that in most 

cases, a supervisor does accompany the 

law student. Moreover, regardless of 

EOIR’s rules, in many cases a supervisor 

is required to accompany the law 

student or graduate in order to comply 

with applicable state bar rules. See, e.g., 

Cal. R. 9.42(d)(3) (allowing certified 

California law students to appear ‘‘on 

behalf of the client in any public trial, 

hearing, arbitration, or proceeding, or 

before any arbitrator, court, public 

agency, referee, magistrate, 

commissioner, or hearing officer, to the 

extent approved by such arbitrator, 

court, public agency, referee, magistrate, 

commissioner, or hearing officer,’’ 

provided that, among other 

requirements, the certified law student 

‘‘[p]erforms the activity under the direct 

78252 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 234 / Friday, December 4, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

39 Due to the current outbreak of COVID–19, 

many immigration judges have adopted standing 

orders allowing practitioners to appear by 

telephone without the need for filing a motion. See 

Immigration Court Practice Manual, at Appx. R. 

Although EOIR cannot predict how long such 

standing orders will remain in effect, it reiterates 

that nothing in this proposed rule precludes a law 

school clinic from filing a motion for a telephonic 

appearance in order to reduce the need for inperson appearances. 

40Although most law school clinics and similar 

programs only take cases at immigrations courts 

that are located in nearby geographic proximity, 

both to minimize operational and logistical 

difficulties and to avoid the complications of 

complying with practice rules for different state 

jurisdictions, EOIR also recognizes that there may 

be unique situations in which a law school clinic 

takes a case that requires atypical travel 

arrangements. In that situation, coupled with the 

similarly unique situation of an unsupervised law 

student appearing alone on behalf of a respondent, 

EOIR acknowledges there may be an increase in 

cost associated with this rule, but the benefit of the 

rule outweighs any cost associated with this highly 

unlikely situation. 

and immediate supervision and in the 

personal presence of the supervising 

attorney’’). 

EOIR recognizes that in rare cases in 

which a law school clinic or similar 

program does not currently send a 

supervising attorney to every hearing at 

which a law student or law graduate 

appears, there may be some increased 

cost. EOIR expects those increased costs 

to be minimal, however, due to the 

rarity of cases in which law students 

and law graduates appear unsupervised, 

as well as the availability of telephonic 

appearances.39 Further, EOIR believes 

that the benefits of ensuring that every 

case has a single licensed representative 

responsible for service of process and 

ultimate representation in the case 

outweighs the potential costs associated 

with the increased accompaniment 

requirements.40

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

This proposed 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, it is determined that this 

proposed rule does not have sufficient 

federalism implications to warrant the 

preparation of a federalism summary 

impact statement. 

F. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

This proposed rule meets the 

applicable standards set forth in 

sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive 

Order 12988. 

G. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rulemaking does not propose 

new or revisions to existing 

‘‘collection[s] of information’’ as that 

term is defined in the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104– 

13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, and its 

implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 

1320. 

List of Subjects 

8 CFR Part 1001 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Immigration. 

8 CFR Part 1003 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Immigration. 

8 CFR Part 1208 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Aliens, Immigration, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements 

8 CFR Part 1214 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Aliens. 

8 CFR Part 1240 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Immigration. 

8 CFR Part 1245 

Aliens, Immigration, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

8 CFR Part 1246 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Aliens, Immigration. 

8 CFR Part 1292 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Immigration. 

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth 

in the preamble, and by the authority 

vested in the Director, Executive Office 

for Immigration Review, by the Attorney 

General Order Number 410–2020, the 

Department proposes to amend parts 

1001, 1003, 1208, 1214, 1240, 1245, 

1246, and 1292 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations as follows: 

PART 1001—DEFINITIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1001 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 8 U.S.C. 1101, 

1103; Pub. L. 107–296, 116 Stat. 2135; Title 

VII of Pub. L. 110–229. 

■ 2. Amend § 1001.1 by revising 

paragraph (s) and adding paragraphs 

(cc), (dd), and (ee) to read as follows: 

§ 1001.1 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(s) The terms government counsel or 

DHS counsel, in the context of 

proceedings in which DHS has 

appeared, mean any officer assigned to 

represent the DHS in any proceeding 

before an immigration judge or the 

Board of Immigration Appeals. 

* * * * * 

(cc) The term case eligible for 

electronic filing means any case that 

DHS seeks to bring before an 

immigration court after EOIR has 

formally established an electronic filing 

system for that court, or any case before 

an immigration court or the Board of 

Immigration Appeals that has an 

electronic record of proceeding. Any 

reference to a record of proceeding in 

this chapter shall include an electronic 

record of proceeding. 

(dd) The term filing means the actual 

receipt of a document by the 

appropriate immigration court or the 

Board of Immigration Appeals. 

(1) An electronic filing that is 

accepted by the Board or an 

immigration court will be deemed filed 

on the date it was submitted. A paper 

filing that is accepted by the Board or 

an immigration court will be deemed 

filed on the date it was received by the 

Board or the immigration court. A filing 

that is rejected by the Board or the 

immigration court as an improper filing 

will not be deemed filed on the date it 

was submitted or received. 

(2) For purposes of paragraph (dd)(1) 

of this section, an improper filing 

includes, but is not limited to: 

(i) If a fee is required, failure to 

submit a fee receipt or fee waiver 

request; 

(ii) If a fee is required, the denial of 

a fee waiver request by the Board or an 

immigration judge, provided that the 

Board or immigration judge, in the 

adjudicator’s discretion and no more 

than once per case, may, before rejecting 

a filing as improper under this 

paragraph, grant an individual whose 

fee waiver request is denied up to a 

maximum of 10 days to either pay the 

required fee or to file a new request if 

the initial request was incomplete or 

insufficient and may toll any applicable 

deadline by up to a maximum of 10 

days accordingly; 

(iii) Failure to include a proof of 

service upon the opposing party; 

(iv) Failure to comply with the 

language, signature, and format 

requirements; 

(v) Insufficient postage or incorrect 

courier billing information; or 

(vi) Illegibility of the filing. 

(vii) If a document is improperly filed 

but not rejected, the Board or 

immigration judge retains the authority 

to take appropriate action. 

(ee) The term service means 

physically presenting, mailing, or 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 234 / Friday, December 4, 2020 / Proposed Rules 78253 

electronically providing a document to 

the appropriate party or parties; except 

that an Order to Show Cause or Notice 

of Deportation Hearing shall be served 

in person to the alien, or by certified 

mail to the alien or the alien’s attorney, 

and a Notice to Appear shall be served 

to the alien in person, or if personal 

service is not practicable, shall be 

served by regular mail to the alien or the 

alien’s attorney of record. 

PART 1003—EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR 

IMMIGRATION REVIEW 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 1003 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 6 U.S.C. 521; 8 

U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1154, 1155, 1158, 1182, 

1226, 1229, 1229a, 1229b, 1229c, 1231, 

1254a, 1255, 1324d, 1330, 1361, 1362; 28 

U.S.C. 509, 510, 1746; sec. 2 Reorg. Plan No. 

2 of 1950; 3 CFR, 1949–1953 Comp., p. 1002; 

section 203 of Pub. L. 105–100, 111 Stat. 

2196–200; sections 1506 and 1510 of Pub. L. 

106–386, 114 Stat. 1527–29, 1531–32; section 

1505 of Pub. L. 106–554, 114 Stat. 2763A– 

326 to –328. 

■ 4. Amend § 1003.1 by revising 

paragraph (f) to read as follows: 

§ 1003.1 Organization, jurisdiction, and 

powers of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals. 

* * * * * 

(f) Service of Board decisions. The 

decision of the Board shall be in 

writing. The Board shall transmit a copy 

to DHS and serve a copy upon the alien 

or the alien’s representative, as provided 

in part 1292 of this chapter. 

* * * * * 

■ 5. Amend § 1003.2 by: 

■ a. Revising the introductory text of 

paragraph (g); 

■ b. Revising paragraphs (g)(1) and 

(g)(2)(i) through (iii); and 

■ c. Adding paragraphs (g)(4) through 

(8). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 1003.2 Reopening or reconsideration 

before the Board of Immigration Appeals. 

* * * * * 

(g) Filing procedures. This paragraph 

applies to the filing of documents 

related to reopening and reconsideration 

before the Board. 

(1) English language and entry of 

appearance. A motion and any 

submission made in conjunction with a 

motion must be in English or 

accompanied by a certified English 

translation. If the moving party, other 

than DHS, is represented, Form EOIR– 

27, Notice of Entry of Appearance as 

Attorney or Representative Before the 

Board, must be filed with the motion. 

(2) * * * 

(i) A motion to reopen or motion to 

reconsider a decision of the Board 

pertaining to proceedings before an 

immigration judge shall be filed directly 

with the Board. Such motion must be 

accompanied by a payment in a manner 

authorized by EOIR or fee waiver 

request in satisfaction of the fee 

requirements of § 1003.8. The record of 

proceeding pertaining to such a motion 

shall be forwarded to the Board upon 

the request or order of the Board. 

(ii) A motion to reopen or a motion to 

reconsider a decision of the Board 

pertaining to a matter initially 

adjudicated by an officer of DHS shall 

be filed with the officer of DHS having 

administrative control over the record of 

proceeding. 

(iii) If the motion is made by DHS in 

proceedings in which DHS has 

administrative control over the record of 

proceedings, the record of proceedings 

in the case and the motion shall be filed 

directly with the Board. If such motion 

is filed directly with an office of DHS, 

the entire record of proceeding shall be 

forwarded to the Board by the DHS 

officer promptly upon receipt of the 

briefs of the parties, or upon expiration 

of the time allowed for the submission 

of such briefs. 

* * * * * 

(4) Filing parties. DHS and all alien 

attorneys and accredited representatives 

are required to electronically file all 

documents with the Board through 

EOIR’s electronic filing application in 

all cases eligible for electronic filing. 

Although not required, unrepresented 

respondents, applicants, or petitioners, 

reputable individuals, and accredited 

officials may electronically file 

documents with the Board through 

EOIR’s electronic filing application in 

cases eligible for electronic filing. An 

unrepresented individual, reputable 

individual, or accredited official who 

elects to use EOIR’s electronic filing 

application shall be required to register 

in conformity with § 1292.1(f) as a 

condition of using that application. If an 

unrepresented respondent, applicant, or 

petitioner or reputable individual or 

accredited official opts to use EOIR’s 

electronic filing application for a case, 

the individual must electronically file 

all documents with the Board for that 

case unless the Board, only upon a 

motion filed by the individual with 

good cause shown, grants leave to opt 

out of using the electronic filing 

application. An unrepresented 

individual, reputable individual, or 

accredited official who has been granted 

leave to opt out of using EOIR’s 

electronic filing application for a case 

may not subsequently opt in again to 

use that application for the same case. 

(5) Filing requirements. Parties must 

make the originals of all filed 

documents available upon request to the 

Board or the opposing party for review. 

If EOIR’s electronic filing application is 

unavailable due to an unplanned system 

outage on the last day for filing in a 

specific case, then the filing deadline 

will be extended to the first day that the 

electronic filing application becomes 

accessible that is not a Saturday, 

Sunday, or legal holiday. For planned 

system outages, parties must 

electronically file documents during 

system availability within the 

applicable filing deadline or paper file 

documents within the applicable filing 

deadline. EOIR will issue public 

communications for planned system 

outages ahead of the scheduled outage. 

Any planned system outage announced 

three or fewer business days prior to the 

start of the outage will be treated as an 

unplanned outage. The Board retains 

discretion to accept paper filings in all 

cases. 

(6) Classified information. 

Notwithstanding any other provision of 

this chapter, classified information is 

never allowed to be electronically filed. 

(7) Signatures. All documents filed 

with the Board that require a signature 

must have an original, handwritten ink 

signature, an encrypted digital 

signature, or an electronic signature. 

Electronic filings submitted through 

EOIR’s electronic filing application that 

require the user’s signature may have a 

conformed signature. This paragraph is 

subject to the requirements of the 

application or document being 

submitted. 

(8) Service. The service of filings with 

the Board depends on whether the 

documents are filed through EOIR’s 

electronic filing application or in paper. 

(i) Service of electronic filings. If all 

parties are using EOIR’s electronic filing 

application in a specific case, the parties 

do not need to serve a document that is 

filed through EOIR’s electronic filing 

application on the opposing party. 

EOIR’s electronic filing application will 

effectuate service by providing a 

notification of all electronically filed 

documents on all parties by email. Upon 

successful upload by one of the parties, 

EOIR will email a notification to the 

email addresses provided in paragraph 

(g)(7)(ii) of this section. If one or more 

parties are not filing through EOIR’s 

electronic filing application in a specific 

case, the parties must follow the service 

procedures in paragraph (g)(7)(iii) of 

this section. 

(ii) Valid Email Address. Use of 

EOIR’s electronic filing application 

78254 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 234 / Friday, December 4, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

requires a valid email address for 

electronic service. The Board will use 

the email address provided through 

eRegistry for electronic service on 

participating parties. Users must 

immediately update their eRegistry 

account if their email address changes. 

Representatives must additionally file a 

new Form EOIR–27 with the Board if 

their email address changes. EOIR will 

consider service completed when the 

electronic notification is delivered to 

the last email address on file provided 

by the user. 

(iii) Service of paper filings. If 

electronic filing is not being used in a 

particular case, the party filing with the 

Board must serve a copy of the filing on 

the opposing party and include a 

certificate of service showing service on 

the opposing party with their filing. If 

the moving party is not DHS, service of 

the motion shall be made upon the ICE 

Office of the Principal Legal Advisor for 

the field location in which the case was 

completed before the immigration judge. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Amend § 1003.3 revising 

paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3), and (c)(2) and 

adding paragraph (g) to read as follows: 

§ 1003.3 Notice of appeal. 

(a) * * * 

(2) Appeal from decision of a DHS 

officer. A party affected by a decision of 

a DHS officer that may be appealed to 

the Board under this chapter shall be 

given notice of the opportunity to file an 

appeal. An appeal from a decision of a 

DHS officer shall be taken by filing a 

Notice of Appeal to the Board of 

Immigration Appeals from a Decision of 

a DHS Officer (Form EOIR–29) directly 

with the DHS office having 

administrative control over the record of 

proceeding within 30 days of the service 

of the decision being appealed. An 

appeal is not properly filed until it is 

received at the appropriate DHS office, 

together with all required documents, 

and the fee provisions of § 1003.8 are 

satisfied. 

(3) General requirements for all 

appeals. The appeal must be 

accompanied by a payment in a manner 

authorized by EOIR or fee waiver 

request in satisfaction of the fee 

requirements of § 1003.8. If the 

respondent or applicant is represented, 

a Notice of Entry of Appearance as 

Attorney or Representative Before the 

Board (Form EOIR–27) must be filed 

with the Notice of Appeal. The appeal 

and all attachments must be in English 

or accompanied by a certified English 

translation. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) Appeal from decision of a DHS 

officer. Briefs in support of or in 

opposition to an appeal from a decision 

of a DHS officer shall be filed directly 

with the DHS office having 

administrative control over the file. The 

alien and DHS shall be provided 21 

days in which to file a brief, unless a 

shorter period is specified by the DHS 

officer from whose decision the appeal 

is taken, and reply briefs shall be 

permitted only by leave of the Board. 

Upon written request of the alien, the 

DHS officer from whose decision the 

appeal is taken or the Board may extend 

the period for filing a brief for good 

cause shown. The Board may authorize 

the filing of briefs directly with the 

Board. In its discretion, the Board may 

consider a brief that has been filed out 

of time. All briefs and other documents 

filed in conjunction with an appeal, 

unless filed by an alien directly with a 

DHS office, shall include proof of 

service on the opposing party. 

* * * * * 

(g) Filing. This paragraph applies to 

the filing of documents related to 

appeals before the Board. 

(1) Filing parties. DHS and all 

attorneys and accredited representatives 

are required to electronically file all 

documents with the Board through 

EOIR’s electronic filing application in 

all cases eligible for electronic filing. 

Although not required, unrepresented 

respondents, applicants, or petitioners, 

reputable individual, and accredited 

officials may electronically file 

documents with the Board through 

EOIR’s electronic filing application in 

cases eligible for electronic filing. An 

unrepresented individual, reputable 

individual, or accredited official who 

elects to use EOIR’s electronic filing 

application shall be required to register 

in conformity with § 1292.1(f) as a 

condition of using that application. If an 

unrepresented respondent, applicant, or 

petitioner, reputable individual, or 

accredited official opts to use EOIR’s 

electronic filing application for a case, 

the individual must electronically file 

all documents with the Board for that 

case unless the Board, only upon a 

motion filed by the individual with 

good cause shown, grants leave to opt 

out of using the electronic filing 

application. An unrepresented 

individual, reputable individual, or 

accredited official who has been granted 

leave to opt out of using EOIR’s 

electronic filing application for a case 

may not subsequently opt in to use that 

application for the same case. 

(2) Filing requirements. Parties must 

make the originals of all filed 

documents available upon request to the 

Board or to the opposing party for 

review. If EOIR’s electronic filing 

application is unavailable due to an 

unplanned system outage on the last 

day for filing in a specific case, then the 

filing deadline will be extended to the 

first day that the electronic filing 

application becomes accessible that is 

not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal 

holiday. For planned system outages, 

parties must electronically file 

documents during system availability 

within the applicable filing deadline or 

paper file documents within the 

applicable filing deadline. EOIR will 

issue public communications for 

planned system outages ahead of the 

scheduled outage. Any planned system 

outage announced three or fewer 

business days prior to the start of the 

outage will be treated as an unplanned 

outage. The Board retains discretion to 

accept paper filings in all cases. 

(3) Classified information. 

Notwithstanding any other provision of 

this chapter, classified information is 

never allowed to be electronically filed. 

(4) Signatures. All documents filed 

with the Board that require a signature 

must have an original, handwritten ink 

signature, an encrypted digital 

signature, or an electronic signature. 

Electronic filings submitted through 

EOIR’s electronic filing application that 

require the user’s signature may have a 

conformed signature. This paragraph is 

subject to the requirements of the 

application or document being 

submitted. 

(5) Service. The service of filings with 

the Board depends on whether the 

documents are filed through EOIR’s 

electronic filing application or in paper. 

(i) Service of electronic filings. If all 

parties are using EOIR’s electronic filing 

application in a specific case, the parties 

do not need to serve a document that is 

filed through EOIR’s electronic filing 

application on the opposing party. 

EOIR’s electronic filing application will 

effectuate service by providing a 

notification of all electronically filed 

documents on all parties by email. Upon 

successful upload by one of the parties, 

EOIR will email a notification to the 

email addresses provided in paragraph 

(g)(5)(ii) of this section. If one or more 

parties are not filing through EOIR’s 

electronic filing application in a specific 

case, the parties must follow the service 

procedures in paragraph (g)(5)(iii) of 

this section. 

(ii) Valid Email Address. Use of 

EOIR’s electronic filing application 

requires a valid email address for 

electronic service. The Board will use 

the email address provided through 

eRegistry for electronic service on 

participating parties. Users must 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 234 / Friday, December 4, 2020 / Proposed Rules 78255 

immediately update their eRegistry 

account if their email address changes. 

Representatives must additionally file a 

new Form EOIR–27 with the Board if 

their email address changes. EOIR will 

consider service completed when the 

electronic notification is delivered to 

the last email address on file provided 

by the user. 

(iii) Service of paper filings. If 

electronic filing is not being used in a 

particular case, the party filing with the 

Board must serve a copy of the filing on 

the opposing party and include a 

certificate of service showing service on 

the opposing party with their filing. 

■ 7. Amend § 1003.13 by removing the 

‘‘Filing’’ and ‘‘Service’’ definitions. 

■ 8. Amend § 1003.17 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 1003.17 Appearances. 

(a) In any proceeding before an 

immigration judge in which the alien is 

represented, the attorney or 

representative shall file a Notice of 

Entry of Appearance on Form EOIR–28 

with the immigration court, and shall 

serve a copy of the Notice of Entry of 

Appearance on DHS as required by 

§ 1003.32. The entry of appearance of an 

attorney or representative in a custody 

or bond proceeding shall be separate 

and apart from an entry of appearance 

in any other proceeding before the 

immigration court. An attorney or 

representative may file a Form EOIR–28 

indicating whether the entry of 

appearance is for custody or bond 

proceedings only, any other proceedings 

only, or for all proceedings. Such Notice 

of Entry of Appearance must be filed 

and served even if a separate Notice of 

Entry of Appearance(s) has previously 

been filed with DHS for appearance(s) 

before DHS. 

* * * * * 

■ 9. Amend § 1003.23 by revising 

paragraph (b)(1)(ii) to read as follows: 

§ 1003.23 Reopening or reconsideration 

before the immigration court. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(ii) Filing. Motions to reopen or 

reconsider a decision of an immigration 

judge must be filed with the 

immigration court having administrative 

control over the Record of Proceeding. 

If necessary under § 1003.32, a motion 

to reopen or a motion to reconsider shall 

include a certificate showing service on 

the opposing party of the motion and all 

attachments. If the moving party is not 

DHS, service of the motion shall be 

made upon the ICE Office of the 

Principal Legal Advisor for the field 

location in which the case was 

completed. If the moving party, other 

than DHS, is represented, a Form EOIR– 

28, Notice of Appearance as Attorney or 

Representative Before an Immigration 

Judge must be filed with the motion. If 

filed in paper, the motion must be filed 

in duplicate with the immigration court, 

accompanied by a fee receipt. 

* * * * * 

■ 10. Revise § 1003.31 to read as 

follows: 

§ 1003.31 Filing documents and 

applications. 

This section applies to the filing of all 

documents, including motions and 

applications, before the immigration 

courts. 

(a) Filing parties. DHS and all 

attorneys and accredited representatives 

are required to electronically file all 

documents, including charging 

documents, with the immigration courts 

through EOIR’s electronic filing 

application in all cases eligible for 

electronic filing. Although not required, 

unrepresented respondents or 

applicants, reputable individuals, and 

accredited officials may electronically 

file documents with the immigration 

courts through EOIR’s electronic filing 

application in cases eligible for 

electronic filing. An unrepresented 

individual, reputable individual, or 

accredited official who elects to use 

EOIR’s electronic filing application shall 

be required to register in conformity 

with § 1292.1(f) as a condition of using 

that application. If an unrepresented 

respondent or applicant, reputable 

individual, or accredited official opts to 

use EOIR’s electronic filing application 

for a case, the individual must 

electronically file all documents with 

the immigration court for that case 

unless an immigration judge, only upon 

a motion filed by the individual with 

good cause shown, grants leave to opt 

out of using the electronic filing 

application. An unrepresented 

individual, reputable individual, or 

accredited official who has been granted 

leave to opt out of using EOIR’s 

electronic filing application for a case 

may not subsequently opt in to use that 

application for the same case. 

(b) Filing requirements. If EOIR’s 

electronic filing application is 

unavailable due to an unplanned system 

outage on the last day for filing in a 

specific case, then the filing deadline 

will be extended to the first day that the 

electronic filing application becomes 

accessible that is not a Saturday, 

Sunday, or legal holiday. For planned 

system outages, parties must 

electronically file documents during 

system availability within the 

applicable filing deadline or paper file 

documents within the applicable filing 

deadline. EOIR will issue public 

communications for planned system 

outages ahead of the scheduled outage. 

Any planned system outage announced 

three or fewer business days prior to the 

start of the outage will be treated as an 

unplanned outage. In all other situations 

in cases eligible for electronic filing, an 

immigration judge may accept paper 

filings from a party otherwise required 

to file electronically, but only in open 

court and only: 

(i) For rebuttal or impeachment 

purposes, 

(ii) Upon good cause shown, provided 

that the filing is otherwise admissible 

and the immigration judge finds that 

any applicable filing deadline should be 

excused, or 

(iii) When the opposing party does 

not object to the paper filing. 

(c) Originals. Parties must make the 

originals of all filed documents 

available upon request to the 

immigration court or the opposing party 

for review. 

(d) Classified information. 

Notwithstanding any other provision of 

this chapter, classified information is 

never allowed to be electronically filed. 

(e) Where to file. All documents that 

are to be considered in a proceeding 

before an immigration judge must be 

filed with the immigration court having 

administrative control over the Record 

of Proceeding. 

(f) Fees. Except as provided in 

§ 1240.11(f), all documents or 

applications filed with the immigration 

courts requiring the payment of a fee 

must be accompanied by a fee receipt 

from DHS or a fee waiver application 

pursuant to § 1103.7(c). Except as 

provided in § 1003.8, any fee relating to 

immigration judge proceedings shall be 

paid to, and accepted by, any DHS office 

authorized to accept fees for other 

purposes pursuant to § 1103.7(a). 

(g) Filing deadlines. The immigration 

judge may set and extend time limits for 

the filing of applications and related 

documents and responses thereto, if 

any. If an application or document is 

not filed within the time set by the 

immigration judge, the opportunity to 

file that application or document shall 

be deemed waived. 

(h) Filing under seal. DHS may file 

documents under seal by including a 

cover sheet identifying the contents of 

the submission as containing 

information which is being filed under 

seal. Documents filed under seal shall 

only be examined by persons with 

authorized access to the administrative 

record. 

(i) Signatures. All documents filed 

with the immigration courts that require 

78256 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 234 / Friday, December 4, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

a signature must have an original, 

handwritten ink signature, an encrypted 

digital signature, or an electronic 

signature. Electronic filings submitted 

through EOIR’s electronic filing 

application that require the user’s 

signature may have a conformed 

signature. This paragraph is subject to 

the requirements of the application or 

document being submitted. 

■ 11. Revise § 1003.32 to read as 

follows: 

§ 1003.32 Service and size of documents. 

The service of filings with the 

immigration courts depends on whether 

the documents are filed through EOIR’s 

electronic filing application or in paper. 

(a) Service of electronic filings. If all 

parties are using EOIR’s electronic filing 

application in a specific case, the parties 

do not need to serve a document that is 

filed through EOIR’s electronic filing 

application on the opposing party. If all 

parties are using EOIR’s electronic filing 

application in a specific case, EOIR’s 

electronic filing application will 

effectuate service by providing a 

notification of all electronically filed 

documents on all parties. Upon 

successful upload by one of the parties, 

EOIR will email a notification to the 

email addresses provided in paragraph 

(b) of this section. If one or more parties 

are not filing through EOIR’s electronic 

filing application in a specific case, the 

parties must follow the service 

procedures in paragraph (c) of this 

section. 

(b) Valid email address. Use of EOIR’s 

electronic filing application requires a 

valid email address for electronic 

service. The immigration courts will use 

the email address provided through 

eRegistry for electronic service on 

participating parties. Users must 

immediately update their eRegistry 

account if their email address changes. 

Representatives must additionally file a 

new Form EOIR–28 with the 

immigration court if their email address 

changes. EOIR will consider service 

completed when the electronic 

notification is delivered to the last email 

address on file provided by the user. 

(c) Service of paper filings. If 

electronic filing is not being used in a 

particular case, the party filing with the 

immigration court must serve a copy of 

the filing on the opposing party and 

include a certificate of service showing 

service on the opposing party with their 

filing. The immigration judge will not 

consider any documents or applications 

that do not contain a certificate of 

service unless service is made on the 

record during a hearing. 

(d) Size and format of documents. 

Unless otherwise permitted by the 

immigration judge, all written material 

presented to immigration judges 

including offers of evidence, 

correspondence, briefs, memoranda, or 

other documents must be submitted on 

81⁄2′′ x 11′′ size pages, whether filed 

electronically or in paper. The 

immigration judge may require that 

exhibits and other written material 

presented be indexed, paginated, and 

that a table of contents be provided. 

■ 12. Amend § 1003.37 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 1003.37 Decisions. 

(a) A decision of the immigration 

judge may be rendered orally or in 

writing. If the decision is oral, it shall 

be stated by the immigration judge in 

the presence of the parties and a 

memorandum summarizing the oral 

decision shall be served on the parties. 

If the decision is in writing, it shall be 

served on the parties by personal 

service, mail, or electronic notification. 

* * * * * 

■ 13. Amend § 1003.38 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 1003.38 Appeals. 

* * * * * 

(b) The Notice of Appeal from a 

Decision of an Immigration Judge (Form 

EOIR–26) shall be filed directly with the 

Board of Immigration Appeals within 30 

calendar days after the stating of an 

immigration judge’s oral decision or the 

mailing or electronic notification of an 

immigration judge’s written decision. If 

the final date for filing falls on a 

Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, this 

appeal time shall be extended to the 

next business day. A Notice of Appeal 

(Form EOIR–26) may not be filed by any 

party who has waived appeal. 

* * * * * 

■ 14. Amend § 1003.63 by revising the 

last sentence in paragraphs (f)(1) and 

(2), to read as follows: 

§ 1003.63 Applications. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(1) * * * A comment or 

recommendation not sent to the Director 

electronically must include proof of 

service on the applicant. 

(2) * * * All responses must be filed 

with the Director and include proof of 

service of a copy of such response on 

the commenting party. 

■ 15. Amend § 1003.64 by revising the 

last sentence in paragraph (b) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1003.64 Approval and denial of 

applications. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * The written notice shall be 

served at the address provided on the 

application unless the applicant 

subsequently provides a change of 

address pursuant to § 1003.66, or shall 

be transmitted to the applicant 

electronically. 

* * * * * 

■ 16. Amend § 1003.65 by revising the 

first sentence in paragraph (d)(3) to read 

as follows: 

§ 1003.65 Removal of a provider from the 

List. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(3) Response. The provider may 

submit a written answer within 30 days 

from the date the notice is served or is 

sent to the provider electronically. 

* * * 

* * * * * 

■ 17. Amend § 1003.106 by revising the 

second sentence in paragraph (a)(2)(ii) 

and the seventh sentence in paragraph 

(b) to read as follows: 

§ 1003.106 Right to be heard and 

disposition. 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) * * * When designating the time 

and place of a hearing, the adjudicating 

official shall provide for the service of 

a notice of hearing on the practitioner or 

the authorized officer of the recognized 

organization and the counsel for the 

government. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * The adjudicating official 

shall provide for service of a written 

decision or memorandum summarizing 

an oral decision on the practitioner or, 

in cases involving a recognized 

organization, on the authorized officer 

of the organization and on the counsel 

for the government. * * * 

* * * * * 

PART 1208—PROCEDURES FOR 

ASYLUM AND WITHHOLDING OF 

REMOVAL 

■ 18. The authority citation for part 

1208 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1158, 1226, 

1252, 1282; Title VII of Pub. L. 110–229; Pub. 

L. 115–218. 

■ 19. Amend § 1208.4 by revising the 

fifth sentence of paragraph (a)(2)(ii) to 

read as follows: 

§ 1208.4 Filing the application. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) * * * For cases before the 

immigration court, the application is 

considered to have been filed on the 

date it is received by the immigration 

court. * * * 

* * * * * 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 234 / Friday, December 4, 2020 / Proposed Rules 78257 

PART 1214—REVIEW OF 

NONIMMIGRANT CLASSES 

■ 20. The authority citation for part 

1214 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1102, 1103, 

1182, 1184, 1186a, 1187, 1221, 1281, 1282, 

1301–1305 and 1372; sec. 643, Pub. L. 104– 

208, 110 Stat. 3009–708; section 141 of the 

Compacts of Free Association with the 

Federated States of Micronesia and the 

Republic of the Marshall Islands, and with 

the Government of Palau, 48 U.S.C. 1901, 

note, and 1931 note, respectively; 8 CFR part 

2. 

§ 1214.2 [Amended] 

■ 21. Amend § 1214.2 (a) by: 

■ a. Removing the words ‘‘the Service’’ 

and adding, in their place, the word 

‘‘DHS’’; 

■ b. Removing the words ‘‘Service 

counsel’’ and adding, in their place, the 

words ‘‘DHS counsel’’; and 

■ c. Removing the words ‘‘Service 

custody’’ and adding, in their place, the 

words ‘‘DHS custody’’. 

PART 1240—PROCEEDINGS TO 

DETERMINE REMOVABILITY OF 

ALIENS IN THE UNITED STATES 

■ 22. The authority citation for part 

1240 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1158, 1182, 

1186a, 1186b, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1229a, 

1229b, 1229c, 1252 note, 1361, 1362; secs. 

202 and 203, Pub. L. 105–100 (111 Stat. 2160, 

2193); sec. 902, Pub. L. 105–277 (112 Stat. 

2681). 

§ 1240.2 [Amended] 

■ 23. Amend § 1240.2 by: 

■ a. Removing the words ‘‘the Service’’ 

and adding, in their place, the word 

‘‘DHS’’; 

■ b. Removing the words ‘‘Service 

counsel’’ and adding, in their place, the 

words ‘‘DHS counsel’’; and 

■ c. Removing the words ‘‘Service 

attorney’’ and adding, in their place, the 

words ‘‘DHS counsel’’. 

§ 1240.10 [Amended] 

■ 24. Amend § 1240.10 by: 

■ a. Removing the words ‘‘the Service’’ 

and adding, in their place, the word 

‘‘DHS’’; and 

■ b. Removing the words ‘‘an Service 

counsel’’ and adding, in their place, the 

words ‘‘DHS counsel’’. 

§ 1240.11 [Amended] 

■ 25. Amend § 1240.11 by: 

■ a. Removing the words ‘‘the Service’’ 

and adding, in their place, the word 

‘‘DHS’’; and 

■ b. Removing the words ‘‘Service 

counsel’’ and adding, in their place, the 

words ‘‘DHS counsel’’. 

§ 1240.13 [Amended] 

■ 26. Amend § 1240.13 by removing the 

words ‘‘Service counsel’’ and adding, in 

their place, the words ‘‘DHS counsel’’. 

§ 1240.26 [Amended] 

■ 27. Amend § 1240.26 by: 

■ a. Removing the words ‘‘the Service’’ 

and adding, in their place, the word 

‘‘DHS’’; and 

■ b. Removing the words ‘‘Service 

counsel’’ and adding, in their place, the 

words ‘‘DHS counsel’’. 

§ 1240.32 [Amended] 

■ 28. Amend § 1240.32 by: 

■ a. Removing the words ‘‘the Service’’ 

and adding, in their place, the word 

‘‘DHS’’; and 

■ b. Removing the words ‘‘Service 

counsel’’ and adding, in their place, the 

words ‘‘DHS counsel’’. 

§ 1240.33 [Amended] 

■ 29. Amend § 1240.33 by removing the 

words ‘‘Service counsel’’ and adding, in 

their place, the words ‘‘DHS counsel’’. 

§ 1240.48 [Amended] 

■ 30. Amend § 1240.48 by: 

■ a. Removing the words ‘‘the Service’’ 

and adding, in their place, the word 

‘‘DHS’’; and 

■ b. Removing the words ‘‘Service 

counsel’’ and adding, in their place, the 

words ‘‘DHS counsel’’. 

§ 1240.49 [Amended] 

■ 31. Amend § 1240.49 by: 

■ a. Removing the words ‘‘the Service’’ 

and adding, in their place, the word 

‘‘DHS’’; and 

■ b. Removing the words ‘‘Service 

counsel’’ and adding, in their place, the 

words ‘‘DHS counsel’’. 

§ 1240.51 [Amended] 

■ 32. Amend § 1240.51 by removing the 

words ‘‘Service counsel’’ and adding, in 

their place, the words ‘‘DHS counsel’’. 

■ 33. Amend § 1240.53 by revising 

paragraph (a) to read as follows: 

§ 1240.53 Appeals. 

(a) Pursuant to 8 CFR part 1003, an 

appeal shall lie from a decision of an 

immigration judge to the Board, except 

that no appeal shall lie from an order of 

deportation entered in absentia. The 

procedures regarding the filing of a 

Form EOIR–26, Notice of Appeal, fees, 

and briefs are set forth in §§ 1003.3, 

1003.31, and 1003.38 of this chapter. An 

appeal shall be filed within 30 calendar 

days after the mailing or electronic 

notification of a written decision, the 

stating of an oral decision, or the service 

of a summary decision. The filing date 

is defined as the date of receipt of the 

Notice of Appeal by the Board. The 

reasons for the appeal shall be stated in 

the Form EOIR–26, Notice of Appeal, in 

accordance with the provisions of 

§ 1003.3(b) of this chapter. Failure to do 

so may constitute a ground for dismissal 

of the appeal by the Board pursuant to 

§ 1003.1(d)(2) of this chapter. 

* * * * * 

PART 1245—ADJUSTMENT OF 

STATUS TO THAT OF PERSON 

ADMITTED FOR PERMANENT 

RESIDENCE 

■ 34. The authority citation for part 

1245 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1182, 1255; 

section 202, Pub. L. 105–100, 111 Stat. 2160, 

2193; section 902, Pub. L. 105–277, 112 Stat. 

2681; Title VII of Pub. L. 110–229. 

■ 35. Amend § 1245.21 by: 

■ a. Removing the words ‘‘the Service’’ 

and adding, in their place, the word 

‘‘DHS’’; 

■ b. Removing the words ‘‘the 

Service’s’’ and adding, in their place, 

the word ‘‘DHS’s’’; and 

■ c. Removing the words ‘‘Service 

counsel’’ and adding, in their place, the 

words ‘‘DHS counsel’’. 

PART 1246—RECISSION OF 

ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS 

■ 36. The authority citation for part 

1246 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1254, 1255, 1256, 

1259; 8 CFR part 2. 

§ 1246.5 [Amended] 

■ 37. Amend § 1246.5 by removing the 

words ‘‘Service counsel’’ and adding, in 

their place, the words ‘‘DHS counsel’’. 

PART 1292—REPRESENTATION AND 

APPEARANCES 

■ 38. The authority citation for part 

1292 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1362. 

■ 39. Amend § 1292.1 by revising 

paragraphs (a)(2)(ii) through (iv), and 

adding paragraph (a)(2)(v) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1292.1 Representation of others. 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(ii) In the case of a law student, he or 

she has filed a statement that he or she 

is participating, under the direct 

supervision of an EOIR-registered 

licensed attorney or accredited 

representative, in a legal aid program or 

clinic conducted by a law school or 

non-profit organization, and that he or 

she is appearing without direct or 

indirect remuneration from the alien he 

or she represents; 

78258 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 234 / Friday, December 4, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

1Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, Public 

Law 95–128, 91 Stat. 1147 (1977), codified at 12 

U.S.C. 2901 et seq. 

(iii) In the case of a law graduate, he 

or she has filed a statement that he or 

she is appearing under the supervision 

of a licensed attorney or accredited 

representative and that he or she is 

appearing without direct or indirect 

remuneration from the alien he or she 

represents; 

(iv) An attorney or accredited 

representative physically accompanies 

the law student or law graduate who is 

appearing. The accompanying attorney 

or accredited representative must be 

authorized to practice before EOIR and 

be prepared to proceed with the case at 

all times; and 

(v) All filings by law students and law 

graduates are made through an EOIRregistered attorney or accredited 

representative. 

* * * * * 

James R. McHenry, 

Director, Executive Office for Immigration 

Review, Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. 2020–26115 Filed 12–3–20; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–30–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Office of the Comptroller of the 

Currency 

12 CFR Parts 24, 25, 35, and 192 

[Docket ID OCC–2020–0025] 

RIN 1557–AE96 

Community Reinvestment Act 

Regulations 

AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the 

Currency, Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Office of the Comptroller 

of the Currency (OCC) is issuing a notice 

of proposed rulemaking to request 

comment on the OCC’s proposed 

approach to determine the Community 

Reinvestment Act (CRA) evaluation 

measure benchmarks, retail lending 

distribution test thresholds, and 

community development minimums 

under the general performance 

standards. The proposal further explains 

how the OCC would assess significant 

declines in CRA activities levels in 

connection with performance context 

following the initial establishment of 

the benchmarks, thresholds, and 

minimums. Finally, the proposed rule 

would make clarifying and technical 

amendments to the CRA final rule. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 2, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Commenters are encouraged 

to submit comments through the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal, if possible. Please 

use the title ‘‘Community Reinvestment 

Act Regulations’’ to facilitate the 

organization and distribution of the 

comments. You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal— 

Regulations.gov Classic or 

Regulations.gov Beta 

Regulations.gov Classic: Go to https:// 

www.regulations.gov/. Enter ‘‘Docket ID 

OCC 2020–0025’’ in the Search Box and 

click ‘‘Search.’’ Click on ‘‘Comment 

Now’’ to submit public comments. For 

help with submitting effective 

comments please click on ‘‘View 

Commenter’s Checklist.’’ Click on the 

‘‘Help’’ tab on the Regulations.gov home 

page to get information on using 

Regulations.gov, including instructions 

for submitting public comments. 

Regulations.gov Beta: Go to https://

beta.regulations.gov/ or click ‘‘Visit 

New Regulations.gov Site’’ from the 

Regulations.gov classic homepage. Enter 

‘‘Docket ID OCC–2020–0025’’ in the 

Search Box and click ‘‘Search.’’ Public 

comments can be submitted via the 

‘‘Comment’’ box below the displayed 

document information or click on the 

document title and click the 

‘‘Comment’’ box on the top-left side of 

the screen. For help with submitting 

effective comments please click on 

‘‘Commenter’s Checklist.’’ For 

assistance with the Regulations.gov Beta 

site please call (877)-378–5457 (toll free) 

or (703) 454–9859 Monday-Friday, 9am5pm ET or email to regulations@

erulemakinghelpdesk.com. 

• Mail: Chief Counsel’s Office, 

Attention: Comment Processing, Office 

of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 

7th Street SW, Suite 3E–218, 

Washington, DC 20219. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: 400 7th 

Street SW, Suite 3E–218, Washington, 

DC 20219. 

Instructions: You must include 

‘‘OCC’’ as the agency name and ‘‘Docket 

ID OCC–2020–0025’’ in your comment. 

In general, the OCC will enter all 

comments received into the docket and 

publish the comments on the 

Regulations.gov website without 

change, including any business or 

personal information provided such as 

name and address information, email 

addresses, or phone numbers. 

Comments received, including 

attachments and other supporting 

materials, are part of the public record 

and subject to public disclosure. Do not 

include any information in your 

comment or supporting materials that 

you consider confidential or 

inappropriate for public disclosure. 

You may review comments and other 

related materials that pertain to this 

rulemaking action by the following 

method: 

• Viewing Comments Electronically— 

Regulations.gov Classic or 

Regulations.gov Beta: 

Regulations.gov Classic: Go to https:// 

www.regulations.gov/. Enter ‘‘Docket ID 

OCC–2020–0025’’ in the Search box and 

click ‘‘Search.’’ Click on ‘‘Open Docket 

Folder’’ on the right side of the screen. 

Comments and supporting materials can 

be viewed and filtered by clicking on 

‘‘View all documents and comments in 

this docket’’ and then using the filtering 

tools on the left side of the screen. Click 

on the ‘‘Help’’ tab on the 

Regulations.gov home page to get 

information on using Regulations.gov. 

The docket may be viewed after the 

close of the comment period in the same 

manner as during the comment period. 

Regulations.gov Beta: Go to https://

beta.regulations.gov/ or click ‘‘Visit 

New Regulations.gov Site’’ from the 

Regulations.gov classic homepage. Enter 

‘‘Docket ID OCC–2020–0025’’ in the 

Search Box and click ‘‘Search.’’ Click on 

the ‘‘Comments’’ tab. Comments can be 

viewed and filtered by clicking on the 

‘‘Sort By’’ drop-down on the right side 

of the screen or the ‘‘Refine Results’’ 

options on the left side of the screen. 

Supporting Materials can be viewed by 

clicking on the ‘‘Documents’’ tab and 

filtered by clicking on the ‘‘Sort By’’ 

drop-down on the right side of the 

screen or the ‘‘Refine Results’’ options 

on the left side of the screen.’’ For 

assistance with the Regulations.gov Beta 

site please call (877)-378–5457 (toll free) 

or (703) 454–9859 Monday-Friday, 9am5pm ET or email to regulations@

erulemakinghelpdesk.com. 

The docket may be viewed after the 

close of the comment period in the same 

manner as during the comment period. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ioan 

Voicu, Director, Compliance Risk 

Analysis Division, at (202) 649–5550; or 

Daniel Borman, Senior Attorney, Daniel 

Sufranski, Attorney, or Jean Xiao, 

Attorney, Chief Counsel’s Office, (202) 

649–5490, Office of the Comptroller of 

the Currency, 400 7th Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20219. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Introduction 

On June 5, 2020, the OCC published 

a final rule in the Federal Register (2020 

final rule) to update the regulatory 

framework implementing the 

Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 

(CRA) 1 for national banks and savings