55662 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1EOIR, a component of the Department of Justice, 

includes the immigration judges and the Board of 

Immigration Appeals. The immigration judges, who 

are appointed by the Attorney General, conduct 

removal proceedings and other immigration 

proceedings, resolving questions such as whether 

an alien is inadmissible to or deportable from the 

United States, and whether he or she qualifies for 

relief from removal. 

2The term ‘‘immigration court location,’’ as used 

in this proposed rule, refers both to the immigration 

courts and to facilities where hearings may be 

conducted, but where no EOIR personnel have a 

permanent duty station. 

3 In addition, the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) provides a modified version of 

EOIR’s List to asylum applicants before that agency, 

and DHS provides EOIR’s List to aliens in certain 

other instances as well. As explained in more detail 

below, this proposed rule does not limit DHS’s 

ability to provide aliens with EOIR’s List or with 

DHS’s modified versions of the List. 

Entry of Appearance(s) has previously 

been filed with the DHS for 

appearance(s) before the DHS. 

* * * * * 

Dated: July 29, 2014. 

Eric H. Holder, Jr., 

Attorney General. 

[FR Doc. 2014–21679 Filed 9–16–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–30–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Executive Office for Immigration 

Review 

8 CFR Parts 1003, 1240, and 1241 

[EOIR Docket No. 164P; AG Order No. 3463– 

2014] 

RIN 1125–AA62 

List of Pro Bono Legal Service 

Providers for Aliens in Immigration 

Proceedings 

AGENCY: Executive Office for 

Immigration Review, Justice. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This rule proposes to amend 

8 CFR parts 1003, 1240, and 1241 by 

changing the name of the ‘‘List of Free 

Legal Services Providers’’ to the ‘‘List of 

Pro Bono Legal Service Providers.’’ The 

rule also would enhance the eligibility 

requirements for organizations, private 

attorneys, and referral services to be 

included on the List of Pro Bono Legal 

Service Providers (List). 

DATES: Electronic comments must be 

submitted and written comments must 

be postmarked on or before November 

17, 2014. The electronic Federal Docket 

Management System at 

www.regulations.gov will accept 

electronic comments submitted prior to 

midnight Eastern Time at the end of that 

day. 

ADDRESSES: Please submit written 

comments to Jeff Rosenblum, General 

Counsel, Executive Office for 

Immigration Review, 5107 Leesburg 

Pike, Suite 2600, Falls Church, Virginia, 

20530. To ensure proper handling, 

please reference RIN 1125–AA62 or 

EOIR docket number 164P on your 

correspondence. You may view an 

electronic version and provide 

comments via the Internet by using the 

www.regulations.gov comment form for 

this regulation. When submitting 

comments electronically, you must 

include RIN 1125–AA62 in the subject 

box. See Section I of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section for more 

information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff 

Rosenblum, General Counsel, Executive 

Office for Immigration Review, 5107 

Leesburg Pike, Suite 2600, Falls Church, 

Virginia 20530, telephone (703) 305– 

0470 (not a toll-free call). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Public Participation—Posting of 

Public Comments 

Please note that all comments 

received are considered part of the 

public record and made available for 

public inspection online at 

www.regulations.gov. Such information 

includes personal identifying 

information (such as your name, 

address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by 

the commenter. 

If you want to submit personal 

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 ‘‘PERSONAL IDENTIFYING 

INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph 

of your comment. You must also locate 

all the personal identifying information 

you do not want posted online 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 must also 

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 

www.regulations.gov. 

Personal identifying information 

identified and 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. If you wish to inspect the agency’s 

public docket file in person by 

appointment, please see the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

Interested persons are invited to 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting written data, views, or 

arguments on all aspects of this rule. 

Comments that will provide the most 

assistance to the Department of Justice 

will reference a specific portion of the 

rule, explain the reason for any 

recommended change, and include data, 

information, or authority that support 

the recommended change. 

For access to the electronic docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to 

www.regulations.gov. Submitted 

comments may also be inspected at the 

Executive Office for Immigration 

Review, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2600, 

Falls Church, Virginia 20530. To make 

an appointment, please contact EOIR at 

(703) 305–0470 (not a toll-free call). 

II. Explanation of Proposed Changes 

Aliens who are placed in removal 

proceedings pursuant to section 240 of 

the Immigration and Nationality Act 

(Act or INA), or who seek asylum under 

section 208 of the Act (whether or not 

in removal proceedings), must be 

provided with a list of persons who 

have indicated their availability to 

represent aliens on a pro bono basis. See 

INA 208(d)(4)(B) (relating to asylum 

proceedings), and INA 239(a)(1)(E), 

(b)(2) (relating to removal proceedings). 

In order to meet this statutory 

obligation, the Executive Office for 

Immigration Review (EOIR) publishes 

the Free Legal Services Providers List 

(List).1 The regulations governing the 

List were promulgated on February 28, 

1997, at 62 FR 9071, and are found at 

8 CFR 1003.61–1003.65. The List is 

organized by immigration court 

location; 2 for each location, the List 

provides the names of private attorneys 

and non-profit organizations aliens in 

proceedings may contact for free legal 

services. At each location, aliens are 

given the portion of the List with the 

providers for that location. The 

complete List is posted on the EOIR 

Web site.3 See www.usdoj.gov/eoir/

probono/states.htm. 

The List is central to EOIR’s efforts to 

improve the amount and quality of 

representation before its adjudicators, 

and it is an essential tool to inform 

aliens in proceedings before EOIR of 

available pro bono legal services. 

However, as explained further below, 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 55663 

4Under this proposed rule, an organization or 

attorney on the List must provide 50 hours of pro 

bono legal services per year in cases in front of each 

immigration court location on its application. See 

proposed §§ 1003.62, 1003.63. This requirement is 

discussed further below. 

5For aliens before the Board, EOIR helps to 

provide pro bono representation in appropriate 

cases through the BIA Pro Bono Project, which is 

administered by EOIR’s Office of Legal Access 

Programs. Based on criteria determined by 

partnering organizations, EOIR assists in identifying 

cases appropriate for pro bono representation. 

Partnering organizations then work to find pro bono 

representatives in those cases. Additional 

information is available at http://www.justice.gov/

eoir/probono/probono.htm#BIAProBono. 

concerns have been expressed to EOIR 

by government sources and the public 

about problems with the List, and EOIR 

believes it is important to improve the 

functioning of the List. Therefore, the 

Department of Justice (Department) is 

proposing to amend the regulations 

governing the List, as described further 

below. 

A. ‘‘Pro Bono Legal Service Providers’’ 

As the List is intended to provide 

aliens access to pro bono representation, 

this proposed rule replaces the term 

‘‘free legal service providers’’ with ‘‘pro 

bono legal service providers.’’ Replacing 

the word ‘‘free’’ with the term ‘‘pro 

bono’’ reflects the relevant statutory 

language (see INA 208(d)(4)(B), 

239(a)(1)(E), 239(b)(2)), describes more 

accurately the nature of the services 

provided, and will improve the integrity 

of the List. Further, removing the word 

‘‘free’’ will clarify that entities and 

private attorneys on the List are not 

necessarily available to work free of 

charge for every alien regardless of the 

alien’s financial means or the type of 

legal work involved. Rather, use of the 

term ‘‘pro bono’’ indicates that such 

services are for the public good, e.g., to 

help ensure qualified representation for 

those indigent aliens who do not have 

sufficient means to hire a private 

attorney. 

B. Definition of ‘‘Pro Bono’’ 

This proposed rule also sets forth a 

definition of the term ‘‘pro bono’’ to 

ensure that entities or private attorneys 

that want to be included on the List 

understand the kind of services 

expected from them if they are included 

on the List. The proposed rule defines 

‘‘pro bono legal services’’ at 

§ 1003.61(a)(2) as ‘‘those 

uncompensated legal services 

performed for indigent aliens or the 

public good without any expectation of 

either direct or indirect remuneration, 

including referral fees (other than filing 

fees or photocopying and mailing 

expenses), although a representative 

may be regularly compensated by the 

firm, organization, or pro bono referral 

service with which he or she is 

associated.’’ This definition not only 

reflects the spirit of pro bono 

representation, but is also consistent 

with the common law understanding of 

the terms pro bono and pro bono 

publico. See, e.g., Black’s Law 

Dictionary (9th ed. 2009). 

Use of the term pro bono indicates 

that work performed should be for the 

good of the public from the outset and 

a commitment to continue such 

representation throughout the duration 

of the administrative proceeding before 

an immigration judge. It is inappropriate 

for legal service providers to 

subsequently count as ‘‘pro bono’’ those 

services provided to paying clients who 

fall delinquent in paying attorney fees. 

In addition, EOIR recognizes that some 

organizations charge reduced or 

nominal fees in an attempt to provide 

services to aliens who cannot afford 

private attorneys but have a modest 

ability to pay. However, services 

provided for a reduced or nominal fee 

do not constitute ‘‘pro bono’’ services 

under the proposed rule. Although 

services provided for reduced or 

nominal fees are not ‘‘pro bono’’ 

services, organizations that charge such 

fees to some of their clients are not 

prohibited from inclusion on the List. 

As set forth in § 1003.62(a) and (b), such 

an organization can be included on the 

List if it provides a requisite amount of 

pro bono legal services and meets the 

other requirements for inclusion, even 

though it charges fees to some of its 

other clients.4

As the foregoing definition reflects, 

this proposed rule also adopts reference 

to ‘‘pro bono referral services’’ in place 

of the current reference to ‘‘bar 

associations.’’ There is no need to 

specifically list bar associations since 

any pro bono programs offered by them 

would either be in the form of a pro 

bono referral service or an organization 

that is eligible to be included on the List 

under proposed § 1003.62(a), (b), or (c). 

Adopting the term ‘‘pro bono referral 

services’’ also broadens eligibility for 

inclusion on the List to referral services 

that are not administered by a bar 

association. 

C. Proposed Changes to Preserve the 

Integrity of the List 

EOIR has strongly supported various 

local efforts to provide pro bono legal 

services to aliens appearing before the 

immigration judges, the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (Board), and the 

Office of the Chief Administrative 

Hearing Officer (which adjudicates 

certain immigration-related civil penalty 

actions). In April 2000, EOIR 

established a national pro bono program 

to improve the development and 

coordination of these services and, in 

March 2008, EOIR issued formal policy 

guidance to immigration judges and 

immigration court staff on facilitating 

pro bono legal services. See ‘‘Office of 

Legal Access Programs,’’ 

www.usdoj.gov/eoir/probono/

probono.htm; ‘‘Operating Policies and 

Procedures Memorandum 08–01: 

Guidelines for Facilitating Pro Bono 

Legal Services,’’ Mar. 10, 2008, 

www.usdoj.gov/eoir/efoia/ocij/oppm08/

08–01.pdf (Last visited July 15, 2014]). 

EOIR encourages organizations and 

private attorneys to publicize their 

willingness to provide pro bono legal 

services to aliens appearing before 

immigration judges by being included 

on the List.5 The EOIR Committee on 

Pro Bono, which was formed in 

response to Directive 22 of Attorney 

General Alberto R. Gonzales’ ‘‘Measures 

to Improve the Immigration Courts and 

the Board of Immigration Appeals,’’ 

Aug. 9, 2006, http://www.justice.gov/ag/ 

readingroom/ag-080906.pdf (Last 

visited July 15, 2014), reviewed issues 

and concerns regarding the need for 

additional safeguards for the List. In its 

recommendations to expand and 

improve EOIR’s pro bono programs, the 

EOIR Committee on Pro Bono 

(Committee) recommended that EOIR 

publish new regulations to strengthen 

the requirements for placing 

organizations and private attorneys on 

the List. See ‘‘EOIR to Expand and 

Improve Pro Bono Programs,’’ Nov. 15, 

2007, www.usdoj.gov/eoir/press/07/

ProBonoEOIRExpandsImprove.pdf (Last 

visited July 15, 2014). Specifically, the 

Committee recommended that private 

attorneys not be included on the List 

unless they could demonstrate their 

inability to provide pro bono legal 

services through or in association with 

local pro bono organizations or referral 

services. The Committee also 

recommended that the List be 

monitored periodically to ensure that 

listed organizations and individuals 

were indeed providing free legal 

services. 

Since the creation of the List, EOIR 

has increasingly received complaints 

from numerous government sources and 

the public that certain private attorneys 

may be using the List to advertise or 

solicit for paying clients, and do not 

provide legal representation to a 

significant number of aliens on a pro 

bono basis or for any particular amount 

of time. For instance, a private attorney 

who has declared his or her willingness 

to represent indigent aliens on a pro 

bono basis may provide pro bono 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
55664 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

6The standards described in this footnote relate 

to compliance with EOIR’s professional conduct 

standards. In addition, to be eligible for inclusion 

on the List, or to provide pro bono services before 

EOIR on behalf of an organization on the List, an 

attorney must comply with state bar association 

standards. Specifically, EOIR’s regulatory definition 

of ‘‘attorney’’ states that an attorney cannot be 

‘‘under any order suspending, enjoining, 

restraining, disbarring, or otherwise restricting him 

in the practice of law.’’ § 1001.1(f). This includes 

any such order issued by a state bar association. In 

an application to be included on the List, an 

attorney must declare, under penalty of perjury, 

‘‘[t]hat he or she is not under any order suspending, 

enjoining, restraining, disbarring, or otherwise 

restricting him or her in the practice of law.’’ 

Proposed § 1003.63(d)(6). An organization must 

make such a declaration with respect to every 

attorney providing pro bono legal services before 

EOIR on the organization’s behalf. Proposed 

§ 1003.63(b)(2)(ii). 

representation to only one alien and 

otherwise cease to provide pro bono 

representation. It is, unfortunately, 

common for aliens who contact private 

attorneys on the List to be informed that 

these attorneys are not available to 

accept any more pro bono cases, and are 

only available to represent the aliens for 

a fee. Though there may be different 

reasons why attorneys may find 

themselves unable to accept new pro 

bono cases at a particular time, there is 

reason for concern that at least some 

attorneys may not be using the List for 

its intended purpose and may be 

misleading EOIR, the public, and aliens 

as to their true willingness and 

availability to provide pro bono 

services. 

EOIR has not received similar 

complaints regarding organizations or 

pro bono referral services on the List. 

This may be because, unlike private 

attorneys, organizations and pro bono 

referral services are primarily non-profit 

operations and are formed specifically 

to assist indigent and low-income 

individuals. Thus, although there may 

be similar potential for abuse, there is 

less incentive for such entities to use the 

List improperly. Further, attorneys and 

accredited representatives who provide 

pro bono services on behalf of 

organizations or referral services are 

typically supervised, unlike some 

private attorneys on the List. 

Finally, the regulations do not 

currently require organizations or 

private attorneys who are included on 

the List to represent any minimum 

number of indigent aliens on a pro bono 

basis over a given period of time. 

Requiring ‘‘an attorney to accept a 

specific number or percentage of cases 

on a pro bono basis in order to be 

included on the list of free legal services 

providers’’ was considered in 

promulgating the 1997 rule. 62 FR 9072 

(Feb. 28, 1997). At that time, EOIR 

determined that it was not necessary to 

include such a requirement. Id. 

However, the rule also stated that ‘‘this 

issue is subject to further review if 

necessary to eliminate any abuses.’’ Id. 

The proposed rule seeks to prevent in 

five ways the potential for abuse by all 

organizations and private attorneys on 

the List, explained in greater detail 

below. First, the proposed rule requires 

that private attorneys on the List, and 

attorneys and accredited representatives 

providing pro bono legal services before 

EOIR on behalf of the organization on 

the List, not be subject to an order of 

disbarment under § 1003.101(a)(1) or 

suspension under § 1003.101(a)(2). 

Second, the proposed rule provides that 

attorneys must seek to provide pro bono 

legal services through or in association 

with an organization or pro bono 

referral service if possible. Third, it 

requires every organization or 

individual on the List to provide a 

minimum of 50 pro bono hours a year 

in each immigration court location 

where the provider intends to be 

included on the List. Fourth, this 

proposed rule allows for and encourages 

public participation in the application 

process of an organization, referral 

service, or private attorney seeking to be 

included on the List. Finally, once a 

provider’s name is included on the List, 

the provider must declare under penalty 

of perjury every three years that the 

provider is qualified to remain on the 

List. 

The following is a description of the 

five ways the proposed rule seeks to 

limit the potential for abuse by the 

organizations and private attorneys on 

the List. 

1. Professional Conduct Standards 

The new eligibility requirements aim 

to ensure that private attorneys on the 

List, and attorneys and accredited 

representatives who provide pro bono 

legal services for organizations on the 

List, satisfy EOIR’s professional conduct 

standards.6

The proposed rule requires that 

private attorneys on the List, as well as 

attorneys and accredited representatives 

who provide pro bono services before 

EOIR on behalf of an organization on the 

List, not be subject to an order of 

disbarment under § 1003.101(a)(1) or 

suspension under § 1003.101(a)(2). See 

proposed § 1003.62(a)(3) (pertaining to 

organizations recognized under 

§ 1292.2), (b)(4) (pertaining to 

organizations not recognized under 

§ 1292.2), (d)(1) (pertaining to 

attorneys). When applying to be 

included on the List, an attorney must 

submit a written declaration that he or 

she is not the subject of an order of 

disbarment under § 1003.101(a)(1) or 

suspension under § 1003.101(a)(2). See 

proposed § 1003.63(d)(7). Similarly, an 

organization, whether or not recognized, 

must submit a written declaration that 

no attorney or accredited representative 

who will provide pro bono legal 

services on behalf of the organization 

before EOIR is the subject of such an 

order of disbarment or suspension. 

Each of the declarations to be made by 

private attorneys under proposed 

§ 1003.63(d), or organizations under 

proposed § 1003.63(b), must be made 

‘‘under penalty of perjury.’’ Use of this 

term is consistent with language used in 

the declarations on Forms EOIR–28 

(Notice of Entry of Appearance as 

Attorney or Representative Before the 

Immigration Court) and EOIR–27 

(Notice of Entry of Appearance as 

Attorney or Representative Before the 

Board of Immigration Appeals), which 

must be signed and filed each time an 

attorney or representative enters his or 

her appearance in a matter before the 

immigration judge or the Board. See 

§ 1003.17(a) (requiring the filing of Form 

EOIR–28 with the immigration court); 

§ 1003.2(g)(1) (requiring the filing of 

Form EOIR–27 with the Board); 

§ 1003.3(a)(3) (same). 

The proposed rule contains no 

requirement pertaining to other 

disciplinary actions. Such actions 

include public or private censure under 

1003.101(a)(3) and admonition under 

§ 1003.104(c). An attorney can be 

included on the List even if he or she 

was recently subject to such a 

disciplinary action, and an organization 

can be included on the List even if an 

attorney or accredited representative 

providing pro bono legal services on its 

behalf before EOIR was recently subject 

to such an action. 

2. Ability To Provide Pro Bono Legal 

Services in Association With 

Organizations and Referral Services 

The new eligibility requirements for 

private attorneys further aim to ensure 

that only those attorneys who are 

genuinely interested in and capable of 

providing pro bono services are 

included on the List. 

Many immigration court locations are 

in areas with developed pro bono 

programs that are sufficiently capable of 

assessing the legal claims and financial 

resources (‘‘intake’’ and ‘‘screening’’) of 

large numbers of aliens in immigration 

proceedings and coordinating pro bono 

representation with local private 

attorneys. These programs often provide 

private attorneys with specialized legal 

training, ongoing mentoring, and other 

assistance in their pro bono cases as a 

recruitment incentive. Thus, where 

sufficient local organizations or pro 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 55665 

7Pro bono legal services provided before the 

Board do not count toward the 50-hour 

requirement. As noted in footnote 5, EOIR assists 

in providing pro bono legal services in appropriate 

instances through the BIA Pro Bono Project. 

8ABA Rule 6.1 (Voluntary Pro Bono Publico 

Service) states that ‘‘[a] lawyer should aspire to 

render at least (50) hours of pro bono publico legal 

services per year.’’ 

bono referral programs are available to 

identify aliens in need of pro bono legal 

services, as well as recruit and assist 

private attorneys interested in providing 

these services, private attorneys are able 

to provide pro bono services through or 

in association with such local 

organizations or referral programs. In 

such a situation, there is little to no 

need for private attorneys to be included 

by name on the List. 

However, EOIR recognizes that in 

some instances, especially for 

immigration court locations in rural 

areas or small cities, private attorneys 

may be the only available and willing 

sources of pro bono legal services. For 

instance, some areas may have no pro 

bono organizations or may have 

organizations that lack programs to 

recruit and support pro bono attorneys. 

In addition, some pro bono 

organizations offer a limited range of 

immigration services, and do not offer 

referral programs for all types of cases 

before the immigration court. 

The Department has designed the 

proposed rule to allow private attorneys 

in such circumstances to continue to be 

included on the List. Accordingly, this 

rule proposes to amend § 1003.62(d) to 

state that, to be included on the List, an 

individual attorney must demonstrate 

that he or she cannot provide pro bono 

legal services through or in association 

with an organization or referral service 

because: (i) Such an organization or 

referral service is unavailable; or (ii) the 

range of services provided by the 

existing organization(s) or referral 

service(s) are insufficient to address the 

needs of the community. Under the 

‘‘Applications’’ section at 

§ 1003.63(d)(3), an attorney is further 

required to submit a written declaration 

that describes the good-faith efforts he 

or she made to provide pro bono legal 

services through an organization or pro 

bono referral service at each 

immigration court location where the 

private attorney is willing to provide 

pro bono legal services. 

3. Minimum Requirement of 50 Pro 

Bono Hours per Year 

This rule proposes a new requirement 

that, once on the List, an attorney or 

organization perform at least 50 hours of 

pro bono legal services annually at each 

immigration court location where the 

attorney or organization intends to be 

included on the List. See proposed 

§ 1003.62(a)(1), (b)(2), (d)(2). This 

requirement aims to ensure that only 

those organizations and private 

attorneys genuinely interested in 

providing pro bono services are 

included on the List. This requirement 

applies to organizations as well as 

private attorneys. As noted above, some 

organizations charge reduced or 

nominal fees in an attempt to provide 

services to aliens who cannot afford 

private attorney rates but have a modest 

ability to pay. However, services 

provided for a fee—even a nominal 

fee—are not pro bono services, and 

therefore do not count toward the 50- 

hour requirement. This requirement 

does not apply to pro bono referral 

services; there is no minimum annual 

amount of pro bono legal services that 

a referral service must provide. 

Only pro bono legal services provided 

in cases before the immigration court 

location identified in the attorney’s or 

organization’s application count toward 

the 50-hour requirement. See proposed 

§ 1003.63(a)(3), (b)(1), (d)(1). If an 

attorney or organization identifies more 

than one immigration court location, 

then the attorney or organization must 

provide at least 50 hours of pro bono 

legal services in cases before each 

location. For instance, a provider who 

seeks to be listed as providing pro bono 

services before the Arlington 

Immigration Court and the Baltimore 

Immigration Court must provide 50 

hours of pro bono services before the 

Arlington Immigration Court and 50 

hours of pro bono services before the 

Baltimore Immigration Court each year. 

This is intended to ensure, to the 

maximum extent possible, that attorneys 

and organizations listed as available to 

provide pro bono legal services at a 

particular immigration court location 

are actually able to provide pro bono 

services at that location.7 However, a 

provider is not required to provide 50 

hours of in-court pro bono service per 

year. Rather, all time spent providing 

pro bono legal services in cases before 

a particular immigration court location, 

including out-of-court preparation time, 

counts toward the 50-hour requirement. 

Due to the new requirement that 

private attorneys must first seek to 

provide pro bono services through an 

organization or referral service, the 

Department does not believe that this 

50-hour requirement will overly burden 

an individual attorney’s ability to 

provide pro bono services. The 

individual attorney might commit to 

provide any number of pro bono hours 

through an organization or referral 

service on the List. An individual 

attorney associated with an organization 

on the List would not be required to 

provide 50 hours per year. Rather, the 

organization as a whole would commit 

to providing at least 50 hours of pro 

bono representation per year before each 

immigration court location identified in 

the organization’s application. 

This 50-hour annual minimum is 

intended to provide a clear measure of 

the amount of pro bono representation 

that is acceptable in order for an 

organization or private attorney to be 

qualified to be included on the List. A 

number of state bar associations and 

private law firms use 50 hours as the 

recommended annual minimum for pro 

bono work and this number is also 

found in the American Bar Association’s 

(ABA) Model Rules of Professional 

Conduct.8 The Department believes this 

prevailing standard strikes the balance 

between private attorneys whose 

primary practice is the business of feegenerating clients but who are genuinely 

interested in providing pro bono 

services, and organizations that are 

primarily formed to assist indigent and 

low-income individuals. The proposed 

rule also provides that failure to provide 

the 50-hour annual minimum subjects 

attorneys and organizations to removal 

from the List under new § 1003.65. 

The Department also recognizes, 

however, that a particular minimum 

may be burdensome for some or result 

in a de facto maximum standard that 

undermines the purpose of the List. 

Accordingly, the Department is 

soliciting comments on whether this 50- 

hour annual minimum is an acceptable 

measure of how much pro bono 

representation an organization or 

private attorney should provide in order 

to remain on the List. In particular, the 

Department welcomes comments on the 

following questions: 

Question 1. Would a 50-hour annual 

minimum be too demanding for private 

attorneys who manage a fee-generating 

practice, but also want to engage in 

immigration-related pro bono work and 

cannot provide pro bono service 

through or in association with an 

organization or referral service? 

Question 2. Conversely, is a 50-hour 

annual minimum not enough for 

organizations that seek to be included 

on the List? 

Question 3. Should the standards for 

organizations and private attorneys 

differ from one another in any other 

way? For example, should the rule 

require that each attorney or accredited 

representative performing legal services 

on behalf of an organization perform a 

certain amount of pro bono work per 

year, as opposed to requiring that the 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
55666 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

9As described further in section II–G of this 

preamble, a provider can be removed from the List 

in other circumstances as well. Specifically, as 

provided in § 1003.65, a provider may be removed 

if subject to automatic removal, if the provider 

submits a request for removal, if the provider fails 

to answer an EOIR inquiry in response to 

complaints, or if, following proceedings initiated by 

the EOIR Director, the EOIR Director determines 

that the provider is no longer qualified to remain 

on the List. 

10Under § 1003.102(f), a practitioner is subject to 

disciplinary action by EOIR if he or she 

‘‘[k]nowingly or with reckless disregard makes a 

false or misleading communication about his or her 

qualifications or services. A communication is false 

or misleading if it: (1) Contains a material 

misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact 

necessary to make the statement considered as a 

whole not materially misleading. . . .’’ 

11Most, if not all, states have a rule similar to 

ABA Model Rule 7.1 (Communications Concerning 

A Lawyer’s Services), which states that: ‘‘[A] lawyer 

shall not make a false or misleading communication 

about the lawyer or the lawyer’s services. A 

communication is false or misleading if it contains 

a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits 

a fact necessary to make the statement considered 

as a whole not materially misleading.’’ 

organization as a whole perform a 

certain amount of work? 

Question 4. Are there alternative 

standards that would be more 

appropriate measures of the level of pro 

bono representation that an organization 

or a private attorney should provide in 

order to be included on the List, e.g., the 

number of cases accepted or the types 

of cases accepted? 

4. Continuing Certification 

This proposed rule also would require 

at § 1003.64(b)(2) that, every three years 

from the date the application to be 

included on the List is approved, each 

provider must declare that the provider 

continues to be qualified to remain on 

the List under paragraphs (a), (b), (c), or 

(d) of § 1003.62. As part of the 

declaration, the provider must include 

alien registration numbers of clients in 

whose cases the provider rendered pro 

bono legal services under EOIR’s 

regulations, representing at least 50 

hours of pro bono legal services each 

year since the provider’s most recent 

such declaration, or since the provider 

was included on the List, whichever 

was more recent. This continuing 

certification puts a reasonable 

responsibility on providers to keep 

EOIR informed of their willingness to 

provide pro bono legal services and 

their qualifications to be included on 

the List. The current rule provides no 

means by which EOIR remains informed 

that providers continue to provide pro 

bono legal services once their names are 

included on the List. Unless EOIR is 

specifically notified that a provider is 

no longer providing pro bono legal 

services, it is difficult for EOIR to 

ascertain whether a provider should 

remain on the List. Under the proposed 

rule, however, EOIR will remove a 

provider from the List at the next 

quarterly update if the provider fails to 

comply with the continuing certification 

requirement.9

For providers whose applications to 

be included on the List are approved 

before the date of publication of the 

final rule, a new application must be 

filed in compliance with the new 

qualification and eligibility 

requirements set forth in this rule as 

follows: organizations and pro bono 

referral services, within one year of the 

date of publication of the final rule; 

attorneys, within six months of the date 

of publication of the final rule. See 

proposed § 1003.63(e). These time 

periods strike a balance between 

allowing both providers and EOIR 

sufficient time to phase in these new 

requirements and addressing the 

public’s need for an updated list of 

available, local pro bono legal service 

providers. The time period for attorneys 

is shorter than for organizations and pro 

bono referral services because, as noted 

above, the complaints EOIR has 

received primarily relate to attorneys. 

While the List already comprises well 

over 100 providers, the allotted time 

periods should be sufficient for these 

providers to reapply and be subject to 

the 15-day notice and comment period 

under § 1003.63(f). 

5. Public Participation 

Another means by which the 

proposed rule aims to improve the 

integrity of the List is by engaging the 

public in the application process under 

§ 1003.63(f). The proposed rule requires 

EOIR to publicly post for a 15 day 

period the names of applicants, whether 

organizations, pro bono referral services, 

or individuals, who meet the regulatory 

requirements to provide pro bono 

services to aliens in proceedings in 

order to allow the public an opportunity 

to send comments to EOIR and the 

applicant. The names of applicants will 

be posted on EOIR’s Web site, and may 

also be posted at the immigration court 

location where the applicant intends to 

provide pro bono services. Under the 

proposed rule, any individual or 

organization may forward its comments 

or recommendations for approval or 

disapproval of the publicly available 

applications to the Director. The rule 

will require that such comments also be 

served on the applicant so that the 

applicant has an opportunity to 

respond. 

D. Improper Use of the List To Solicit or 

Advertise for Paying Clients 

This proposed rule also states, at 

§ 1003.65(d)(1)(iii), that a provider shall 

be removed from the List for improperly 

using the List for the primary purpose 

of soliciting, or advertising to, potential 

paying clients since doing so is clearly 

contrary to the List’s intended purpose. 

Current regulations do not explicitly 

impose a removal requirement for use of 

the List for these purposes. 

Unfortunately, EOIR has received 

numerous complaints that aliens who 

contact private attorneys on the List are 

commonly informed that the private 

attorneys are not available to accept any 

pro bono cases and are only available to 

represent the aliens for a fee. As noted 

above, though there may be different 

reasons why attorneys are not able to 

accept additional pro bono cases at a 

particular time, this gives rise to 

concerns that at least some private 

attorneys may be using the List as free, 

government-supported advertising for 

fee-generating services. This may be 

misleading to aliens who would not 

have otherwise contacted the private 

attorney and who may also mistakenly 

believe that private attorneys on the List 

are in some manner endorsed by the 

government. These issues are of 

particular concern as aliens in 

immigration proceedings are often 

unfamiliar with the legal system in the 

United States and may have limited 

English proficiency. 

Such practice not only degrades the 

integrity of the List, but may also violate 

§ 1003.102(f)(1),10 state bar rules or the 

ABA’s Model Rules of Professional 

Conduct.11 Use of the List by a private 

attorney to induce aliens into contacting 

the attorney for pro bono legal services 

when these are not commonly provided 

may also raise questions about whether 

such conduct might amount to 

impermissible solicitation by the private 

attorney for fee-generating legal 

services. Improperly soliciting clients is 

grounds for discipline under 

§ 1003.102(d) and is prohibited by 

various state bar rules, and the ABA’s 

Model Rules. In order to safeguard the 

integrity of the List and promote aliens’ 

interests in obtaining pro bono legal 

services, § 1003.65(d)(1)(iii) of the 

proposed rule states that a provider is 

subject to removal from the List for 

improperly using it primarily to 

advertise for or solicit clients for 

compensated legal services. 

Additionally, § 1003.65(d)(5) states that 

removal from the list pursuant to 

§ 1003.65(d)(1)(iii) shall be without 

prejudice to the authority to discipline 

an attorney or representative under 

EOIR’s rules and procedures for 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 55667 

professional conduct for practitioners 

listed in part 1003, subpart G. 

E. Requesting Removal From the List 

The Department recognizes that 

circumstances may arise where an 

individual attorney or organization on 

the List may legitimately be unable to 

continue accepting additional pro bono 

cases for a certain period, such as a full 

case load or reaching the annual 

limitation on pro bono hours by an 

attorney practicing in a law firm. In that 

instance, the provider can request 

removal from the List as set forth in 

§ 1003.65(b)(1). Under § 1003.65(b)(2), 

any provider granted removal from the 

List may thereafter seek reinstatement 

upon written notice and submission of 

a new eligibility declaration, as 

specified in section 1003.63(b), (c), or 

(d). However, reinstatement, like initial 

inclusion, is subject to the discretion of 

the Director. Also, reinstatement will 

not affect the continuing qualification 

requirement set forth in § 1003.64(b)(2), 

which requires providers to submit a 

new declaration of eligibility every three 

years from the date of the original 

application’s approval. 

F. Available Services From the Pro Bono 

Provider 

The proposed rule also requires at 

§ 1003.63 that when applying to be 

included on the List, providers specify 

whether there are any limitations on the 

pro bono legal services they provide. 

Currently, § 1003.63 only requires the 

application to indicate whether a 

provider will represent ‘‘indigent aliens 

in immigration proceedings pro bono.’’ 

§ 1003.63(d)(1)(ii). Yet, it is common 

practice for providers on the List to 

specify not only if they will represent 

aliens in specific types of proceedings 

(e.g., asylum, VAWA), but to state other 

limitations on the services they are 

willing to provide. For instance, some 

providers are unwilling to represent 

detained aliens. However, immigration 

court locations often use the same List 

for both detained and non-detained 

aliens, even though many providers on 

the List for a particular court are 

unwilling or unable to provide pro bono 

legal services to detained aliens. This 

practice can create confusion and 

unnecessary frustration for both 

detained aliens and the local court. 

Accordingly, this proposed rule 

codifies the already existing practice of 

specifying any limitations that may exist 

on a provider’s willingness to provide 

pro bono legal services. For example, if 

a provider only provides pro bono 

representation for asylum seekers, or 

does not represent aliens in detention, 

this must be specified. Sections 

1003.65(d)(1)(i) and 1003.66 of the rule 

also subject a provider to removal from 

the List for failing to notify EOIR of any 

changes to these limitations. This rule 

will assist both EOIR in assembling the 

List for each immigration court location, 

as well as aliens in directing their 

search. 

G. Removal of Providers From the List 

The proposed rule transfers from the 

Chief Immigration Judge to the Director 

of EOIR responsibility for maintaining 

the List, exercising authority and 

discretion to approve or deny an 

application, and removing a provider 

from the List. The Director may delegate 

such authority to any office or official 

within EOIR. See proposed 

§ 1003.61(a)(1)(b). 

Under the proposed rule, there are 

four ways a provider can be removed 

from the List. 

First, under § 1003.65(a), an attorney 

can be automatically removed from the 

List if the Director determines that the 

attorney is the subject of an order of 

disbarment under § 1003.101(a)(1) or 

suspension under § 1003.101(a)(2). 

Automatic removal applies only to 

private attorneys, and not to 

organizations or referral services. 

Second, under § 1003.65(b), a 

provider can voluntarily request to be 

removed from the List. 

Third, under § 1003.65(c), if EOIR 

receives complaints that a particular 

provider may no longer be providing 

pro bono services, EOIR can inquire, in 

writing, into the provider’s pro bono 

practices. This will allow the provider 

to become aware of the receipt of 

complaints, and to provide an 

appropriate response. In appropriate 

cases, if in fact the provider is no longer 

in a position to provide pro bono 

services, the provider may request 

voluntary removal from the List. Where 

the provider fails to respond, EOIR may 

choose to remove the provider from the 

List. 

Fourth, paragraph (d) of 1003.65 

provides formal procedures for 

removing a provider from the List in 

circumstances not covered by 

paragraphs (a), (b), or (c) of that section. 

Under § 1003.65(d), the Director can 

initiate procedures to remove a provider 

from the List if the Director determines 

that a provider has: Failed to comply 

with § 1003.66 (change in address or 

status), filed a false declaration in 

connection with an application filed 

pursuant to § 1003.63, improperly used 

the List primarily to advertise or solicit 

clients for compensated legal services, 

or failed to comply with any other 

requirements under subpart E. 

If the Director decides to initiate 

procedures under § 1003.65(d), the 

Director must promptly inform the 

provider in writing of the Director’s 

intention to remove the provider from 

the List. The provider then has 30 days 

to submit a written response 

establishing, by clear and convincing 

evidence, that the provider continues to 

meet the qualifications for inclusion on 

the List. The response must include a 

declaration under penalty of perjury as 

to the provider’s continued compliance 

with the eligibility requirements, 

including individual examples of 

specific alien registration numbers of 

clients in whose cases the provider 

rendered pro bono legal services, 

representing at least 50 hours of service 

each year since the provider’s most 

recent declaration under § 1003.64(b)(2), 

or since the provider was included on 

the List, whichever was more recent. 

See proposed § 1003.65(d)(3). If the 

provider submits a response, the 

Director will consider the response 

before deciding whether to remove the 

provider from the List. See proposed 

§ 1003.65(d)(4). 

H. Additional Revisions 

The proposed rule provides 

additional clarification by rearranging 

some of the sections and section 

headings. For instance, the proposed 

rule renames the heading of § 1003.62 as 

‘‘Eligibility’’ (presently titled 

‘‘Qualifications’’), as the new heading 

better describes the requirements set 

forth in that section. Proposed new 

§ 1003.61(c) (‘‘Qualification’’) sets forth 

the criteria that make an entity or 

individual ‘‘qualified’’ to be included on 

the List, including that the entity or 

individual meet the eligibility 

requirements under § 1003.62. 

Moreover, the proposed rule specifies 

at § 1003.64(a) that the approval and 

denial of applications to be included on 

the List are discretionary determinations 

by the EOIR Director. The proposed rule 

also eliminates the right to appeal to the 

Board, as currently provided in 

§ 1003.64 and § 1003.65(a), the denial of 

an application to be included on the 

List, as well as a determination to 

remove a provider from the List. These 

changes are made for two reasons. First, 

the List is designed specifically to 

benefit aliens and not the providers 

listed. As application for placement on 

the List is completely voluntary and 

does not confer any rights or benefits to 

providers, there are no due process 

concerns with denying an application to 

be included on the List or removing a 

provider from the List. Second, 

applicants to be included on the List, as 

well as providers who are removed from 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
55668 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

the List, may reapply through the 

normal application process, or may seek 

reinstatement in the limited 

circumstance where the Director 

previously granted removal at the 

request of the person or organization, as 

set forth in § 1003.65(b)(2). 

Finally, with regard to the denial of 

an application under § 1003.64 or a 

decision to remove a provider from the 

List under § 1003.65, the proposed rule 

states that when serving documents on 

an applicant, the Director shall comply 

with the definition of ‘‘service’’ in 

§ 1003.13. 

I. Proceedings Before the Department of 

Homeland Security 

As noted above, section 208(d)(4)(B) 

of the Act requires that asylum 

applicants be provided ‘‘a list of persons 

. . . who have indicated their 

availability to represent aliens in 

asylum proceedings on a pro bono 

basis.’’ For aliens in asylum proceedings 

before the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services (USCIS), USCIS 

currently complies with this 

requirement by providing a modified 

version of EOIR’s List. Specifically, 

USCIS reorganizes EOIR’s List around 

the geographic area served by each of 

USCIS’s eight asylum offices; the 

providers in the area served by each 

office are listed under that office. 

Separately, U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (ICE) with DHS 

provides EOIR’s List to aliens subject to 

expedited removal as aggravated felons 

who are not lawful permanent residents, 

and in certain instances involving 

detained juveniles. See §§ 236.3(g) 

(detained juveniles), 238.1(b)(2)(iv) 

(expedited removal). 

The new requirements of this 

proposed rule are focused solely on pro 

bono providers who wish to be included 

on EOIR’s List because they are 

providing pro bono legal services before 

the immigration courts; these 

requirements and limitations are not 

intended to account for pro bono 

representation of aliens before DHS. 

Thus, this proposed rule does not 

limit whether and how pro bono 

providers may represent aliens before 

DHS, nor does it limit how DHS notifies 

aliens of the availability of pro bono 

legal services. Under this proposed rule, 

DHS can continue to provide EOIR’s 

List to aliens who are in proceedings 

before DHS, and can continue to modify 

the List as DHS deems appropriate. As 

explained above, under the proposed 

rule, only pro bono services in cases 

before EOIR, specifically at the 

immigration court location or locations 

identified in a provider’s application, 

will count toward the 50-hour annual 

requirement. This is to ensure, as much 

as possible, that pro bono providers 

listed for a particular immigration court 

location are actually available to 

provide pro bono services there. But the 

50-hour annual requirement under this 

proposed rule does not apply with 

respect to providing pro bono services 

before DHS. Thus, in modifying EOIR’s 

List, if DHS wishes to add providers 

EOIR did not include—for example, 

those who practice exclusively or 

mostly before DHS—then DHS may do 

so. EOIR recognizes the importance of 

its List in assisting DHS to notify aliens 

of pro bono legal service providers. The 

Department believes that this proposed 

rule is appropriate in that it responds to 

concerns regarding pro bono 

representation before EOIR, while not 

limiting DHS’s ability to modify EOIR’s 

List as it chooses, or otherwise to inform 

aliens of pro bono legal service 

providers in the manner DHS deems 

best. 

III. Regulatory Requirements 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Attorney General, in accordance 

with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this 

regulation and, by approving it, certifies 

that this rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Some small 

entities, such as non-profit 

organizations or small law offices, will 

be affected by this rule. Organizations or 

private attorneys may be removed from 

the List of Pro Bono Legal Service 

Providers if they are no longer qualified 

to be on the List under this proposed 

rule. Likewise, those who wish to have 

their names included on this List will be 

affected as they will have to 

demonstrate their eligibility to have 

their names listed. However, application 

for placement on the List is completely 

voluntary and does not confer any rights 

or benefits on such organizations or law 

offices. Placement on the List does not 

constitute government endorsement of a 

particular entity or private attorney; nor 

is the List to be used for advertising or 

soliciting. Rather, the purpose of the 

List is to provide aliens notification that 

these entities or private attorneys are 

available to provide uncompensated 

legal services without any direct or 

indirect remuneration (other than filing 

fees or photocopying and mailing 

expenses). 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

This rule will not result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year and also 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 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1535). 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 

This rule is not a major rule as 

defined by section 251 of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 804). This 

rule will not result in an annual effect 

on the economy of $100 million or 

more; a major increase in costs or prices; 

or significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or on the 

ability of United States-based 

enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic and 

export markets. 

Executive Order 12866 and Executive 

Order 13563 (Regulatory Planning and 

Review) 

The Department has determined that 

this rule is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and 

Review, and, therefore, it has not been 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget. Nevertheless, the 

Department certifies that this regulation 

has been drafted in accordance with the 

principles of Executive Order 12866, 

section 1(b), and Executive Order 13563. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct agencies to assess all costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health, and safety 

effects, distributive impacts, and 

equity). Executive Order 13563 

emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, 

reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and 

promoting flexibility. Additionally, it 

calls on each agency to periodically 

review its existing regulations and 

determine whether any should be 

modified, streamlined, expanded, or 

repealed so as to make the agency’s 

regulatory program more effective or 

less burdensome in achieving its 

regulatory objectives. 

This rule affects the function and 

purpose of the Pro Bono Service 

Provider List. The benefits of this 

proposed rule include addressing longstanding problems of abuse associated 

with the existing List, updating the term 

‘‘free’’ with ‘‘pro bono’’ legal services to 

reflect the proper statutory language, 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 55669 

12The Department contemplates implementing an 

electronic/Internet-based system in the future that 

may facilitate the collection of information. 

creating a minimum number of annual 

pro bono hours to ensure proper 

compliance with the spirit of the 

regulation, and creating greater agency 

flexibility to remove List participants 

who do not meet the minimum 

regulatory requirements. Further, the 

rule is intended to provide aliens with 

better information regarding the 

availability of pro bono representation 

before the immigration courts, thus 

benefitting aliens who appear in 

proceedings before the courts. 

Burdens to the public are applicable 

only to attorneys and organizations 

making a voluntary decision to seek to 

be included on the list; these include 

requirements to apply for inclusion on 

the List, maintain updated contact 

information, perform a minimum of 50 

annual pro bono hours of service at each 

immigration court location where the 

attorney or organization intends to be 

included on the List, and file a 

declaration every three years of 

continuing eligibility to be on the List. 

The regulations provide for removal 

from the List of a provider who can no 

longer meet the requirements of 

inclusion on the List. The Department 

examined these burdens to the public 

and has determined that the benefits 

outweigh the burdens. The Department 

believes that this rule will have a 

minimal economic impact on List 

participants because it provides List 

participants with flexible means of 

complying with the rule’s requirements. 

Further, it will not have a substantial 

economic impact on Department 

functions, as the Department is already 

maintaining and updating such a List 

quarterly. The Department believes this 

rule will have a positive economic 

impact for aliens in proceedings before 

EOIR who need legal services, as the 

rule is intended to preserve the integrity 

of the List and ensure that providers on 

the List are actually available to provide 

pro bono legal services. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

This rule will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Therefore, in 

accordance with section 6 of Executive 

Order 13132, it is determined that this 

rule does not have sufficient federalism 

implications to warrant the preparation 

of a federalism summary impact 

statement. 

Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform) 

This rule meets the applicable 

standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 

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

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Department of Justice, Executive 

Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), is 

submitting the following information 

collection request to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

review and clearance in accordance 

with review procedures of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

Public Law 104–13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 

35, and its implementing regulations, 5 

CFR part 1320. The information 

collection is published to obtain 

comments from the public and affected 

agencies. Written comments and 

suggestions are encouraged and will be 

accepted for 60 days. If you have 

comments on the estimated public 

burden, associated response time, or 

suggestions, please contact EOIR as 

noted above. 

Comments that will provide the most 

assistance will evaluate: (1) Whether the 

proposed collection of information is 

necessary for the proper performance of 

the functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; (2) whether the 

proposed collection of information 

enhances the quality, utility, and clarity 

of the information to be collected; (3) 

the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of 

the burden of the proposed collection of 

information, including the validity of 

the methodology and assumptions used; 

and (4) whether the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond can be minimized 

through the use of appropriate 

automated, electronic, mechanical, or 

other technological collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology, e.g., permitting electronic 

submission of information. 

There is currently no specific form or 

information collection instrument 

associated with this request.12 Rather, 

this rule implements new eligibility and 

application requirements in order for an 

organization, pro bono referral service, 

or private attorney to be included on the 

List of Free Legal Services Providers (to 

be renamed, through this rule, the ‘‘List 

of Pro Bono Legal Service Providers’’). 

Organizations and private attorneys that 

file an application (for which no 

specific form is currently required) with 

EOIR to be included on the List must 

demonstrate that they provide, or plan 

to provide, a minimum of 50 hours per 

year of pro bono legal services at each 

immigration court location where they 

intend to be included on the List. 

Entities and individuals must indicate 

‘‘their availability to represent aliens in 

asylum proceedings on a pro bono 

basis’’ (see INA 208(d)(4)(B)) and ‘‘their 

availability to represent pro bono aliens 

in proceedings under section 240’’ (see 

INA 239(b)(2)). They must also indicate 

whether there are any limitations on the 

services they plan to provide and in 

which immigration court locations they 

plan to provide such services. Private 

attorneys must demonstrate that they 

cannot otherwise provide such services 

through an organization or pro bono 

referral service. Finally, all providers 

must file a declaration every three years 

that they remain eligible to be on the 

List. 

As explained in this proposed rule, 

these additional requirements will 

enhance the integrity of the List by 

ensuring that only those who genuinely 

intend to provide pro bono services are 

included on the List. These 

requirements will benefit aliens in need 

of pro bono legal services and will also 

prevent the use of the List primarily for 

improper solicitation and advertisement 

with respect to potential clients for paid 

legal services. It is not mandatory for 

organizations, pro bono referral services, 

or private attorneys to be included on 

the List in order to represent aliens on 

a pro bono basis before EOIR. Placement 

on the List is completely voluntary and 

does not confer any rights or benefits on 

entities or individuals who are included 

on the List. Placement on the List in no 

way constitutes government 

endorsement of a particular entity or 

private attorney, nor is the List to be 

used for advertising or soliciting. 

Rather, the purpose of the List is to 

provide aliens notification that these 

entities or private attorneys are available 

to provide legal services without any 

direct or indirect remuneration (other 

than filing fees or photocopying and 

mailing expenses). 

EOIR currently uses appropriate 

information technology to reduce 

burden and improve data quality, 

agency efficiency, and responsiveness to 

the public. Under this proposed rule, 

EOIR would continue to do so to the 

maximum extent practicable. EOIR will 

collect the information for any person or 

entity seeking to be included on EOIR’s 

List of Free Legal Services Providers (to 

be renamed the ‘‘List of Pro Bono Legal 

Service Providers’’). Under the current 

regulation, it is estimated that it takes a 

total of 17 hours annually to provide the 

required information (50 applicants per 

year at 20 minutes per application). 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
55670 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Under the proposed rule, it is estimated 

that 129 applicants will file applications 

each year for the first two years (phasein period) and take an average of 30 

minutes for each application, resulting 

in an estimated total of 65 hours each 

year. After the first two years, it is 

estimated that there will be 93 

applicants per year, expending an 

average of 30 minutes for each 

application, resulting in an estimated 

total of 47 hours each year. This would 

be an increase from the current 

estimated annual hours by 48 hours 

annually for the two-year phase-in 

period and 30 hours annually for the 

succeeding years. 

List of Subjects 

8 CFR Part 1003 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Aliens, Immigration, Legal 

services, Organizations and functions 

(Government agencies). 

8 CFR Part 1240 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Aliens. 

8 CFR Part 1241 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Aliens, Immigration. 

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in 

the preamble, the Attorney General 

proposes amending parts 1003, 1240, 

and 1241 of chapter V of title 8 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations as follows: 

PART 1003—EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR 

IMMIGRATION REVIEW 

■ 1. 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. 

§ 1003.1 Organization, jurisdiction, and 

powers of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals. 

■ 2. Amend § 1003.1 by removing and 

reserving paragraph (b)(11). 

■ 3. Revise the heading for subpart E to 

read as follows: 

Subpart E—List of Pro Bono Legal 

Service Providers 

■ 4. Revise § 1003.61 to read as follows: 

§ 1003.61 General provisions. 

(a) Definitions. 

(1) Director. Director means the 

Director of the Executive Office for 

Immigration Review (EOIR), pursuant to 

8 CFR 1001.1(o), and shall also include 

any office or official within EOIR to 

whom the Director delegates authority 

with respect to subpart E of this part. 

(2) Pro bono legal services. Pro bono 

legal services are those uncompensated 

legal services performed for indigent 

aliens or the public good without any 

expectation of either direct or indirect 

remuneration, including referral fees 

(other than filing fees or photocopying 

and mailing expenses), although a 

representative may be regularly 

compensated by the firm, organization, 

or pro bono referral service with which 

he or she is associated. 

(3) Organization. A non-profit 

religious, charitable, social service, or 

similar group established in the United 

States. 

(4) Pro bono referral service. A referral 

service, offered by a non-profit group, 

association, or similar organization 

established in the United States that 

assists persons in locating pro bono 

representation by making case referrals 

to attorneys or organizations that are 

available to provide pro bono 

representation. 

(5) Provider. Any organization, pro 

bono referral service, or attorney whose 

name is included on the List of Pro 

Bono Legal Service Providers. 

(b) Authority. The Director shall 

maintain a list, known as the List of Pro 

Bono Legal Service Providers (List), of 

organizations, pro bono referral services, 

and attorneys qualified under this 

subpart to provide pro bono legal 

services in immigration proceedings. 

The List, which shall be updated not 

less than quarterly, shall be provided to 

aliens in removal and other proceedings 

before an immigration court. 

(c) Qualification. An organization, pro 

bono referral service, or attorney 

qualifies to be included on the List if the 

eligibility requirements under § 1003.62 

and the application procedures under 

§ 1003.63 are met. 

(d) Organizations. Approval of an 

organization’s application to be 

included on the List under this subpart 

is not equivalent to recognition under 

§ 1292.2 of this chapter. Recognition 

under § 1292.2 of this chapter does not 

constitute a successful application for 

purposes of the List. 

■ 5. Revise § 1003.62 to read as follows: 

§ 1003.62 Eligibility. 

(a) Organizations recognized under 

§ 1292.2. An organization that is 

recognized under § 1292.2 of this 

chapter is eligible to apply to have its 

name included on the List if: 

(1) The organization will provide a 

minimum of 50 hours per year of pro 

bono legal services to aliens at each 

immigration court location where the 

organization intends to be included on 

the List, in cases where an attorney or 

representative of the organization files a 

Form EOIR–28 Notice of Entry of 

Appearance as Attorney or 

Representative before the Immigration 

Court (EOIR–28 Notice of Entry of 

Appearance); 

(2) The organization has on its staff at 

least one attorney, as defined in 

§ 1292.1(a)(1) of this chapter, or at least 

one accredited representative, as 

defined in § 1292.1(a)(4) of this chapter; 

and 

(3) No attorney or accredited 

representative who will provide pro 

bono legal services on the organization’s 

behalf before EOIR is the subject of an 

order of disbarment under 

§ 1003.101(a)(1) or suspension under 

§ 1003.101(a)(2). 

(b) Organizations not recognized 

under § 1292.2. An organization that is 

not recognized under § 1292.2 of this 

chapter is eligible to apply to have its 

name included on the List if: 

(1) The organization is established in 

the United States; 

(2) The organization will provide a 

minimum of 50 hours per year of pro 

bono legal services to aliens at each 

immigration court location where the 

organization intends to be included on 

the List, in cases where an attorney of 

the organization files a Form EOIR–28 

Notice of Entry of Appearance; 

(3) The organization has on its staff at 

least one attorney, as defined in 

§ 1292.1(a)(1) of this chapter; and 

(4) No attorney who will provide pro 

bono legal services on the organization’s 

behalf before EOIR is the subject of an 

order of disbarment under 

§ 1003.101(a)(1) or suspension under 

§ 1003.101(a)(2). 

(c) Pro bono referral services. A 

referral service is eligible to apply to 

have its name included on the List at 

each immigration court location where 

the referral service either refers or plans 

to refer cases to attorneys or 

organizations that will provide pro bono 

legal services to aliens in proceedings 

before an immigration judge. 

(d) Attorneys. An attorney, as defined 

in § 1292.1(a)(1) of this chapter, is 

eligible to apply to have his or her name 

included on the List if the attorney: 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 55671 

(1) Is not the subject of an order of 

disbarment under § 1003.101(a)(1) or 

suspension under § 1003.101(a)(2); 

(2) Will provide a minimum of 50 

hours per year of pro bono legal services 

to aliens at each immigration court 

location where the attorney intends to 

be included on the List, in cases where 

he or she files a Form EOIR–28 Notice 

of Entry of Appearance; and 

(3) Cannot provide pro bono legal 

services through or in association with 

an organization or pro bono referral 

service described in paragraph (a), (b), 

or (c) of this section because: 

(i) Such an organization or referral 

service is unavailable; or 

(ii) The range of services provided by 

an available organization(s) or referral 

service(s) are insufficient to address the 

needs of the community. 

■ 6. Revise § 1003.63 to read as follows: 

§ 1003.63 Applications. 

(a) Generally. A form is not required 

in order to apply to be included on the 

List. To be included on the List, any 

organization, pro bono referral service, 

or attorney that is eligible under 

§ 1003.62 to apply to be included on the 

List must file an application with the 

Director. Applications must be 

submitted in writing and received by 

the Director at least 60 days in advance 

of the quarterly update in order to be 

considered. The application must: 

(1) Establish by clear and convincing 

evidence that the applicant qualifies to 

be on the List pursuant to § 1003.61(c); 

(2) Specify how the organization, pro 

bono referral service, or attorney wants 

its name to be set forth on the List; 

(3) Identify each immigration court 

location where the organization, pro 

bono referral service, or attorney 

provides, or plans to provide, pro bono 

legal services; 

(4) Include on the envelope the 

notation ‘‘Application for List of Pro 

Bono Legal Service Providers’’; and 

(5) Include proof of service, as defined 

in § 1003.13, on the court administrator 

for each immigration court location 

where the organization, pro bono 

referral service, or attorney will provide 

pro bono legal services. 

(b) Organizations. An organization, 

whether recognized or not under 

§ 1292.2, must submit with its 

application a declaration signed by an 

authorized officer of the organization 

that states under penalty of perjury: 

(1) That it will provide annually at 

least 50 hours of pro bono legal services 

to aliens in removal or other 

proceedings before each immigration 

court location identified in its 

application; 

(2) That every attorney who will 

provide pro bono legal services before 

EOIR on behalf of the organization: 

(i) Is eligible to practice law in and is 

a member in good standing of the bar of 

the highest court of any State, 

possession, territory, or Commonwealth 

of the United States, or of the District of 

Columbia; and 

(ii) is not under any order suspending, 

enjoining, restraining, disbarring, or 

otherwise restricting him or her in the 

practice of law; 

(3) That no attorney or accredited 

representative who will provide pro 

bono legal services before EOIR on 

behalf of the organization is the subject 

of an order of disbarment under 

§ 1003.101(a)(1) or suspension under 

§ 1003.101(a)(2); and, 

(4) Any specific limitations it has in 

providing pro bono legal services (e.g., 

not available to assist detained aliens or 

aliens with criminal convictions, or 

available for asylum cases only). 

(c) Pro bono referral services. A pro 

bono referral service must submit with 

its application a declaration signed by 

an authorized officer of the referral 

service that states under penalty of 

perjury: 

(1) That it will offer its referral 

services to aliens in removal or other 

proceedings before each immigration 

court location identified in its 

application; and, 

(2) Any specific limitations it has in 

providing its pro bono referral services 

(e.g., not available to assist detained 

aliens or aliens with criminal 

convictions, or available only for 

asylum cases only). 

(d) Attorneys. An attorney must 

submit with his or her application a 

declaration that states under penalty of 

perjury: 

(1) That he or she will provide 

annually at least 50 hours of pro bono 

legal services to aliens in removal or 

other proceedings before each 

immigration court location identified in 

his or her application; 

(2) Any specific limitations the 

attorney has in providing pro bono legal 

services (e.g., not available to assist 

detained aliens or aliens with criminal 

convictions, or available for asylum 

cases only); 

(3) A description of the good-faith 

efforts he or she made to provide pro 

bono legal services through an 

organization or pro bono referral service 

described in paragraph (a), (b), or (c) of 

§ 1003.62 to aliens appearing before 

each immigration court location listed 

in the application; 

(4) An explanation that any such 

organization or referral service is 

unavailable or that the range of services 

provided by available organization(s) or 

referral service(s) are insufficient to 

address the needs of the community; 

(5) The bars of the highest courts of 

the states, possessions, territories, or 

commonwealths of the United States, or 

the District of Columbia, in which he or 

she is eligible to practice law, and that 

he or she is a member in good standing 

of each, including the attorney’s bar 

number, if any; 

(6) That he or she is not under any 

order suspending, enjoining, restraining, 

disbarring, or otherwise restricting him 

or her in the practice of law; and 

(7) That he or she is not the subject 

of an order of disbarment under 

§ 1003.101(a)(1) or suspension under 

§ 1003.101(a)(2). 

(e) Applications approved before 

[insert effective date of final rule]. 

Providers whose applications to be 

included on the List were approved 

before [effective date of final rule to be 

inserted] must file an application under 

this section as follows: Organizations 

and pro bono referral services, within 

one year of [effective date of final rule 

to be inserted]; attorneys, within six 

months of [effective date of final rule to 

be inserted]. The names of providers 

who do not file an application as 

required by this paragraph shall be 

removed from the List following 

expiration of the application time 

period, the removal of which will be 

reflected no later than in the next 

quarterly update. 

(f) Notice and comments. (1) Public 

notice and comment. The names of the 

applicants, whether organizations, pro 

bono referral services, or individuals, 

meeting the regulatory requirements to 

be included on the List shall be publicly 

posted for 15 days after receipt of the 

applications by the Director, and upon 

request a date stamped copy of each 

application shall be made available for 

review. Any individual may forward to 

the Director comments or a 

recommendation for approval or 

disapproval of an application within 15 

days from the last date the name of the 

applicant is publicly posted. The 

commenting party shall also include 

proof of service of a copy of any such 

comment or recommendation on the 

subject organization, pro bono referral 

service, or individual, in accordance 

with the definition of ‘‘service’’ 

described in § 1003.13. 

(2) Response. The applicant has 15 

days to respond from the date of service 

of the comment. All responses must be 

filed with the Director and include 

proof of service of a copy of such 

response on the commenting party, in 

accordance with the definition of 

‘‘service’’ described in § 1003.13. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
55672 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

■ 7. Revise § 1003.64 to read as follows: 

§ 1003.64 Approval and denial of 

applications. 

(a) Authority. The Director in his 

discretion shall have the authority to 

approve or deny an application to be 

included on the List of Pro Bono Legal 

Service Providers. The Director may 

request additional information from the 

applicant to determine whether the 

applicant qualifies to be included on the 

List. 

(b) Decision. The applicant shall be 

notified of the decision in writing. The 

written notice shall be served in 

accordance with the definition of 

‘‘service’’ described in § 1003.13. The 

written notice shall be served on the 

applicant at the address provided on the 

application unless the applicant 

subsequently provides a change of 

address pursuant to § 1003.66. 

(1) Denials. If the application is 

denied, the applicant shall be given a 

written explanation of the grounds for 

such denial, and the decision shall be 

final. Such denial shall be without 

prejudice to file another application at 

any time after the next quarterly 

publication of the List. 

(2) Approval and continuing 

qualification. If the application is 

approved, the applicant’s name will be 

included on the List at the next 

quarterly update. Every three years from 

the date of approval, a provider must 

file with the Director a declaration, 

under penalty of perjury, stating that the 

provider remains qualified to be 

included on the List under paragraphs 

(a), (b), (c), or (d) of § 1003.62. The 

declaration must include alien 

registration numbers of clients in whose 

cases the provider rendered pro bono 

legal services under §§ 1003.62(a)(1), 

(b)(2), or (d)(2), representing at least 50 

hours of pro bono legal services each 

year since the provider’s most recent 

such declaration, or since the provider 

was included on the List, whichever 

was more recent. If a provider fails to 

timely file the declaration or declares 

that it is no longer qualified to be 

included on the List, the provider’s 

name will be removed from the List at 

the next quarterly update. Failure to file 

a declaration within the applicable time 

period does not prohibit the filing of a 

new application to be included on the 

List. 

■ 8. Revise § 1003.65 to read as follows: 

§ 1003.65 Removal of a provider from the 

List. 

(a) Automatic removal. If the Director 

determines that an attorney on the List 

is the subject of a final order of 

disbarment under § 1003.101(a)(1), or an 

order of suspension under 

§ 1003.101(a)(2), then the Director shall: 

(1) Remove the name of the attorney 

from the List no later than at the next 

quarterly update; and, 

(2) Notify the attorney of such 

removal in writing, at the last known 

address given by the provider. 

(b) Requests for removal. 

(1) Any provider may, at any time, 

submit a written request to have the 

provider’s name removed from the List. 

The written request may include an 

explanation for the voluntary removal. 

Upon such written request, the name of 

the provider shall be removed from the 

List, and such removal will be reflected 

no later than in the next quarterly 

update. 

(2) Any provider removed from the 

List at the provider’s request may seek 

reinstatement to the List upon written 

notice to the Director. Any request for 

reinstatement must include a new 

declaration of eligibility, as set forth 

under § 1003.63(b), (c) or (d). 

Reinstatement to the List is at the sole 

discretion of the Director. Upon the 

Director’s approval of reinstatement, the 

provider’s name shall be included on 

the List no later than in the next 

quarterly update. Reinstatement to the 

List does not affect the requirement 

under § 1003.64(b)(2) that a provider 

submit a new declaration of eligibility 

every three years from the date of the 

approval of the original application to 

be included on the List. 

(c) EOIR inquiry in response to 

complaints. If EOIR receives complaints 

that a particular provider on the List 

may no longer be accepting new pro 

bono clients, the Director may send a 

written inquiry to a provider noting that 

EOIR has received complaints with 

regard to the provider’s acceptance of 

pro bono clients and allowing an 

opportunity for the provider to state 

whether the provider is continuing to 

comply with the regulations in this 

subpart or, if appropriate, whether the 

provider wishes to request voluntary 

removal from the List as provided in 

paragraph (b). The Director may remove 

a provider from the List for failure to 

respond to a written inquiry issued 

under this paragraph within 30 days or 

such additional time period stated by 

the Director in the written inquiry. 

(d) Procedures for removing providers 

from the List. The following provisions 

apply in cases not covered by 

paragraphs (a), (b) or (c). 

(1) Grounds. A provider shall be 

removed from the List if it, he, or she: 

(i) Fails to comply with § 1003.66; 

(ii) Has filed a false declaration in 

connection with an application filed 

pursuant to § 1003.63; 

(iii) Improperly uses the List 

primarily to advertise or solicit clients 

for compensated legal services; or, 

(iv) Fails to comply with any and all 

other requirements of this subpart. 

(2) Notice. If the Director determines 

that a provider falls within one or more 

of the enumerated grounds under 

paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the 

Director shall promptly notify the 

provider in writing, at the address last 

provided to the Director by the provider, 

of the Director’s intention to remove the 

name of the provider from the List. 

(3) Response. The provider may 

submit a written answer within 30 days 

from the date the notice is served, as 

described in § 1003.13. The provider 

must establish by clear and convincing 

evidence that the provider continues to 

meet the qualifications for inclusion on 

the List, by declaration under penalty of 

perjury as to the provider’s continued 

compliance with eligibility 

requirements under this subchapter, 

which must include alien registration 

numbers of clients in whose cases the 

provider rendered pro bono legal 

services under § 1003.62(a)(1), (b)(2), or 

(d)(2), representing at least 50 hours of 

pro bono services each year since the 

provider’s most recent declaration 

under § 1003.64(b)(2), or since the 

provider was included on the List, 

whichever was more recent. 

(4) Decision. If, after consideration of 

any response submitted by the provider, 

the Director determines that the 

provider is no longer qualified to remain 

on the List, the Director shall: 

(i) Remove the name of the provider 

from the List no later than in the next 

quarterly update; and 

(ii) Notify the provider of such 

removal in writing, at the address last 

provided to the Director by the provider. 

(5) Disciplinary Action. Removal from 

the List pursuant to § 1003.65(a), (b), (c) 

or (d) shall be without prejudice to the 

authority to discipline a practitioner 

under EOIR’s rules and procedures for 

professional conduct for practitioners 

listed in 8 CFR part 1003, subpart G. 

■ 9. Add § 1003.66, to read as follows: 

§ 1003.66 Changes in address or status. 

All entities or persons with a pending 

application under this subpart, and all 

providers on the List, are under a 

continuing obligation to notify the 

Director, in writing or by whatever 

electronic notification process approved 

by the Director, within ten business 

days, of any: 

(a) Change of address; 

(b) Change of telephone number; 

(c) Change in eligibility under 

§ 1003.62; 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 180 / Wednesday, September 17, 2014 / Proposed Rules 55673 

(d) Change regarding specific 

limitations to providing pro bono legal 

services under § 1003.63; 

(e) Receipt of an order of disbarment 

under § 1003.101(a)(1) or suspension 

under § 1003.101(a)(2) by the provider 

(if an attorney), or by an attorney or 

representative providing pro bono 

services before EOIR on behalf of the 

provider; or 

(f) Change in professional status, 

including bar membership or any order 

suspending, enjoining, restraining, 

disbarring, or otherwise restricting the 

provider (if an attorney), or an attorney 

or representative providing pro bono 

services before EOIR on behalf of the 

provider, in the practice of law. 

PART 1240—PROCEEDINGS TO 

DETERMINE REMOVABILITY OF 

ALIENS IN THE UNITED STATES 

■ 10. The authority citation for part 

1240 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1182, 1186a, 

1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1251, 1252 note, 

1252a, 1252b, 1362; secs. 202 and 203, Pub. 

L. 105–100 (111 Stat. 2160, 2193); sec. 902, 

Pub. L. 105–277, (112 Stat. 2681). 

■ 11. In § 1240.10, revise paragraphs 

(a)(2) and (a)(3), to read as follows: 

§ 1240.10 Hearing. 

(a) * * * 

(2) Advise the respondent of the 

availability of pro bono legal services for 

the immigration court location at which 

the hearing will take place, and 

ascertain that the respondent has 

received a list of such pro bono legal 

service providers. 

(3) Ascertain that the respondent has 

received a copy of appeal rights. 

* * * * * 

§ 1240.32 [Amended] 

■ 12. Amend § 1240.32 in paragraph (a) 

by removing the words ‘‘Government, 

and of the availability of free legal 

services programs qualified under 8 CFR 

part 1003 and organizations recognized 

pursuant to § 1292.2 of this chapter 

located in the district where his or her 

exclusion hearing is to be held; and 

shall ascertain that the applicant has 

received a list of such programs’’ and 

adding, in their place, the words 

‘‘Government; advise him or her of the 

availability of pro bono legal services for 

the immigration court location at which 

the hearing will take place, and 

ascertain that he or she has received a 

list of such pro bono legal service 

providers’’. 

§ 1240.48 [Amended] 

■ 13. Amend § 1240.48 in paragraph (a) 

by removing the words ‘‘free legal 

services programs qualified under 8 CFR 

part 1003 and organizations recognized 

pursuant to § 1292.2 of this chapter, 

located in the district where the 

deportation hearing is being held; 

ascertain that the respondent has 

received a list of such programs’’ and 

adding, in their place, the words ‘‘pro 

bono legal services for the immigration 

court location at which the hearing will 

take place; ascertain that the respondent 

has received a list of such pro bono legal 

service providers’’. 

PART 1241—APPREHENSION AND 

DETENTION OF ALIENS ORDERED 

REMOVED 

■ 14. The authority citation for part 

1241 continues to read as follows: 

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

1103, 1182, 1223, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 

1231, 1251, 1253, 1255, 1330, 1362; 18 U.S.C. 

4002, 4013(c)(4). 

§ 1241.14 [Amended] 

■ 15. Amend § 1241.14 in paragraph 

(g)(3)(i) by removing the words ‘‘a list of 

free legal service providers,’’ and 

adding, in their place, the words ‘‘the 

List of Pro Bono Legal Service Providers 

for the immigration court at which the 

hearing is being held’’. 

Dated: August 4, 2014. 

Eric H. Holder, Jr., 

Attorney General. 

[FR Doc. 2014–21686 Filed 9–16–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–30–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2014–0625; Directorate 

Identifier 2014–NM–044–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier, 

Inc. Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) for certain 

Bombardier, Inc. Model CL–600–2A12 

(CL–601), and CL–600–2B16 (CL–601– 

3A, CL–601–3R, and CL–604 Variants) 

airplanes. This proposed AD was 

prompted by a report of an aft 

equipment bay fire due to chafing and 

subsequent arcing of the integrated 

drive generator (IDG) power cables. 

Additionally, we have received several 

reports of broken support brackets of the 

hydraulic lines. This proposed AD 

would require a one-time inspection of 

the IDG power cables for chafing, and 

for any cracked or broken support 

bracket of the hydraulic line; and 

corrective actions if necessary. We are 

proposing this AD to detect and correct 

broken support brackets of the hydraulic 

lines, which could result in inadequate 

clearance between the IDG power cables 

and hydraulic lines and chafing of the 

IDG power cables, and consequent high 

energy arcing and an uncontrolled fire 

in the aft equipment bay. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this proposed AD by November 3, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

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

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: (202) 493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

For service information identified in 

this proposed AD, contact Bombardier, 

Inc., 400 Coˆte Vertu Road West, Dorval, 

Que ́bec H4S 1Y9, Canada; telephone 

514–855–5000; fax 514 855–7401; email 

thd.crj@aero.bombardier.com; Internet 

http://www.bombardier.com. You may 

view this referenced service information 

at the FAA, Transport Airplane 

Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., 

Renton, WA. For information on the 

availability of this material at the FAA, 

call 425–227–1221. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2014– 

0625; or in person at the Docket 

Management Facility between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this proposed AD, the 

regulatory evaluation, any comments 

received, and other information. The 

street address for the Docket Operations 

office (telephone (800) 647–5527) is in 

the ADDRESSES section. Comments will 

be available in the AD docket shortly 

after receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Assata Dessaline, Aerospace Engineer, 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS