Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2

46938

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 159 / Friday, August 20, 2021 / Proposed Rules
be realized. In other words, there is likely to be a time horizon ranging from several months to more than a year for a sizeable portion of the impacts to begin to be realized. As a result, resources and efforts related to the applicants support network can be expected to be maintained in the short to medium term.
In addition to the likely pecuniary benefits associated with early labor force entry, there could be other benefits as well. As a result of this proposed rule, DHS will begin to consider parole on a case-by-case basis for noncitizens who have been referred to USCIS for a credible fear screening under an expanded set of factors. Allowing for parole to be considered for more individuals in government custody could also provide resource redistribution to DHS in terms of shifting resources otherwise dedicated to the transportation and detention of these individuals and families. This will allow DHS to prioritize use of its limited detention bed space to detain those noncitizens who pose the greatest threats to national security and public safety, while facilitating the expanded use of the expedited removal process to order the removal of those who make no fear claim or who express a fear but subsequently fail to meet the credible fear screening standard after interview by an asylum officer or, if applicable, by an IJ. However, DHS does not know how many future referrals for a credible fear screening will be eligible for parole;
therefore, DHS cannot make an informed monetized estimate of the potential impact.
This proposed rule presents substantial costs for USCIS, especially as costs are expended to upgrade IT
systems and begin hiring and training new staff. However, there are several expected qualitative benefits associated with the increased efficiency that would enable some asylum-seeking individuals claiming credible fear to move through the asylum process more expeditiously than through the current process. Under current timelines, it takes anywhere from eight months to five years for individuals claiming credible fear to reach a final asylum determination, whereas this proposed rule is expected to take 90 days in most cases for the initial determination, assuming no further review is sought. Greater efficiencies in the adjudicative process could lead to individuals spending less time in detention, which is a benefit to both the individuals and the Federal Government. Another benefit is that EOIR will not see the cases in which USCIS grants asylum, which we estimate as at least a 15 percent
VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:46 Aug 19, 2021

Jkt 253001

reduction in their overall credible fear workload.103 DHS anticipates this will help to mitigate the number of cases pending in immigration court.
Additionally, this benefit will extend to individuals granted or denied asylum faster than if they were to go through the current process with EOIR. For those credible fear cases that receive a positive screen but a denial of their asylum claim, USCIS recognizes that only certain cases seeking further review will reach EOIR. Therefore, the benefit to EOIR through this process could be greater than we are able to currently quantify.
Given EOIRs significant pending caseload, the reduction of credible fear cases it would process would enable EOIR to focus its resources on addressing existing pending cases and reducing the growth of the overall pending caseload. It would also allow EOIR to shift some resources to other work. We cannot currently make a oneto-one comparison between the worktime actually spent on a credible fear case between EOIR judges and USCIS
asylum officers, but if there is a reduction in average work-times spent on cases, there could be cost savings to EOIR, though it is emphasized that these cost-savings would not be budgetary.
The Departments welcome public comment on this topic and will integrate additional information into the final rule, as appropriate.
Further, this proposed rule may stop adding to the existing volumes for Form I765 for pending asylum applicants. As explained above, if some individuals are granted asylum earlier than they would under current conditions, some applicants in this process may choose not to file for an EAD. This could result in cost savings to applicants, as discussed, and it would also reduce USCISs adjudication burden.
Assuming DHS places those noncitizens into expedited removal proceedings, the Departments assess that it will be more likely that they would receive a more prompt adjudication of their claims for asylum, withholding of removal, or CAT
protection than they would under the existing regulations. Depending on the individual circumstances of each case, this proposed rule could mean that such noncitizens would likely not remain in 103 Based on the five-year FY 2016 through FY
2020 average, an estimated 15 percent of EOIR
asylum claims were granted asylum in cases originating with a credible fear claim. See EOIR
Adjudications Statistics: Asylum Decision and Filing Rates in Cases Originating with a Credible Fear Claim Apr. 19, 2021, https www.justice.gov/
eoir/page/file/1062976/download last visited Aug.
4, 2021.

PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 4701

Sfmt 4702

the United Statesfor years, potentiallypending resolution of their claims, and those who qualify for asylum will be granted asylum several years earlier than they are under the present process.
Overall, the anticipated operational efficiencies from this proposed rule may provide for a more prompt grant of protection to qualifying noncitizens and ensure that those who do not qualify for relief or protection are removed more efficiently than they are under current rules. Considering both quantifiable and unquantifiable benefits and costs, the Departments believe that the aggregate benefits of the rule would amply justify the aggregate costs.
I. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
RFA, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and small organizations during the development of their rules.
The term small entities comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
The proposed rule does not directly regulate small entities and is not expected to have a direct effect on small entities. Rather, this proposed rule regulates individuals, and individuals are not defined as small entities by the RFA.104 While some employers could experience costs or transfer effects, these impacts would be indirect.
Based on the evidence presented in this analysis and throughout this preamble, DHS certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. DHS nonetheless welcomes comments regarding potential impacts on small entities, which DHS may consider as appropriate in a final rule.
J. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 UMRA is intended, among other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on State, local, and Tribal governments.
Title II of UMRA requires each Federal 104 See Public Law 104121, tit. II, 110 Stat. 847
5 U.S.C. 601 note. A small business is defined as any independently owned and operated business not dominant in its field that qualifies as a small business per the Small Business Act. See 15 U.S.C.
632a1.

E:FRFM20AUP2.SGM

20AUP2