99-26887. Executive Office for Immigration Review; Board of Immigration Appeals: Streamlining  

  • [Federal Register Volume 64, Number 200 (Monday, October 18, 1999)]
    [Rules and Regulations]
    [Pages 56135-56142]
    From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
    [FR Doc No: 99-26887]
    
    
    =======================================================================
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
    
    8 CFR Part 3
    
    [EOIR No. 122F; AG Order No. 2263-99]
    RIN 1125-AA22
    
    
    Executive Office for Immigration Review; Board of Immigration 
    Appeals: Streamlining
    
    AGENCY: Department of Justice.
    
    ACTION: Final rule.
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    SUMMARY: This final rule establishes a streamlined appellate review 
    procedure for the Board of Immigration Appeals. The final rule responds 
    to an enormous and unprecedented increase in the caseload of the Board. 
    The rule recognizes that in a significant number of appeals and motions 
    filed with the Board, a single appellate adjudicator can reliably 
    determine that the result reached by the adjudicator below is correct 
    and should not be changed on appeal. In these cases, the rule 
    authorizes a single permanent Board Member to review the record and 
    affirm
    
    [[Page 56136]]
    
    the result reached below without issuing an opinion. This procedure 
    will enable the Board to render decisions in a more timely manner, 
    while concentrating its resources primarily on cases where there is a 
    reasonable possibility that the result below was incorrect, or where a 
    new or significant issue is presented. In addition, the rule provides 
    that a single Board Member may decide certain additional types of 
    cases, motions, or other procedural or ministerial appeals, where the 
    result is clearly dictated by statute, regulation, or precedential 
    decision.
    
    EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on October 18, 1999.
    
    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    
    Background
    
        The mission of the Board of Immigration Appeals is to provide fair 
    and timely immigration adjudications and authoritative guidance and 
    uniformity in the interpretation of the immigration laws. Rapid growth 
    in the Board's caseload has severely challenged the Board's ability to 
    accomplish its mission and requires the adoption of new case management 
    techniques.
        In 1984, the Board received fewer than 3,000 new appeals and 
    motions. In 1994, it received more than 14,000 new appeals and motions. 
    In 1998, in excess of 28,000 new appeals and motions were filed. There 
    is no reason to believe that the number of matters filed with the Board 
    will decrease in the foreseeable future, especially as the number of 
    Immigration Judges continues to increase.
        As the number of appellate filings has increased, the need for the 
    Board to provide guidance and uniformity to the Immigration Judges, the 
    Immigration and Naturalization Service, affected individuals, the 
    immigration bar, and the general public, has grown. The Board now 
    reviews the decisions of more than 200 Immigration Judges. There were, 
    in comparison, 69 Immigration Judges in 1990 and 86 Judges in 1994. 
    Frequent and significant changes in the complex immigration laws over 
    the last several years, including a major overhaul of those laws in the 
    Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, 
    heighten the need for the Board's authoritative guidance in the 
    immigration area, particularly in view of the fact that the 1996 
    legislation drastically reduced aliens' rights to judicial review.
        To meet its overriding objective of providing fairness in 
    adjudicating appeals, the Board must achieve four goals. It must: (1) 
    Promote uniformity in dispositions by Immigration Judges by providing 
    authoritative guidance in high quality appellate decisions; (2) decide 
    all incoming cases in a timely and fair manner; (3) assure that 
    individual cases are decided correctly; and (4) eliminate its backlog 
    of cases.
        To accomplish these goals under current conditions, the Board must 
    limit its use of three-Member panels to cases where there is a 
    reasonable possibility of reversible error in the result below. The 
    Department published a proposed rule on September 14, 1998, at 63 FR 
    49043 (Sept. 14, 1998), with written comments due by November 13, 1998. 
    The proposed rule included a new provision, now designated as 8 CFR 
    3.1(a)(7),1 designed to allow single permanent Board 
    Members, selected by the Board Chairman, to affirm the results reached 
    below without an opinion where (1) the result reached in the decision 
    under review was correct; (2) any errors in the decision under review 
    were harmless or nonmaterial; and (3) either (a) the issue on appeal 
    was squarely controlled by existing Board or federal court precedent 
    and did not involve the application of such precedent to a novel fact 
    situation; or (b) the factual and legal questions raised on appeal were 
    so insubstantial that three-Member review was not warranted.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        \1\ This new provisions was cited in the proposed rule as 8 CFR 
    3.1(a)(5). Due to intervening changes in 8 CFR 3.1(a), is it now 
    designated as 8 CFR 3.1(a)(7).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
        Under the proposed rule, if the single permanent Board Member found 
    the case to be appropriate for affirmance without opinion, that Board 
    Member would sign a simple order to that effect, without additional 
    explanation or reasoning. If the Board Member found affirmance without 
    opinion to be inappropriate, the case would be assigned to a three-
    Member panel for review and decision. Thus, the proposed rule described 
    an affirmance without opinion as a determination that the result 
    reached below was correct and that the case did not warrant three-
    Member review. The proposed rule also authorized three-Member panels to 
    affirm without opinion, where such a disposition was determined to be 
    appropriate.
        The proposed rule at 8 CFR 3.1(a)(5) (now 8 CFR 3.1(a)(7)) also 
    included provisions that would authorize the Chairman to designate 
    certain categories of cases as suitable for affirmance without opinion 
    by a single permanent Board Member or by a three-Member panel. These 
    categories could include, but would not be limited to, the following: 
    (1) Cases challenging findings of fact where the findings below are not 
    against the weight of the evidence; (2) cases controlled by precedents 
    of the Board where there is no basis for overruling the precedent, or 
    by precedents of the relevant United States Court of Appeals, or the 
    United States Supreme Court; (3) cases seeking discretionary relief for 
    which the appellant is clearly ineligible; (4) cases challenging 
    discretionary decisions where the decision maker has neither applied 
    the wrong criteria nor deviated from precedents of the Board or the 
    controlling law from the United States Court of Appeals or the United 
    States Supreme Court; and (5) cases challenging only procedural rulings 
    or deficiencies that are not material to the outcome of the case.
        The proposed rule also contained provisions that would authorize 
    the Chairman to designate the permanent Board Members who would be 
    authorized to affirm cases without opinion.
        The proposed rule also suggested amendments to the regulation 
    regarding motions to reconsider. Under proposed 8 CFR 3.2(b)(3), a 
    motion to reconsider based solely on an argument that the case should 
    not have been summarily affirmed--that a full opinion was required--
    would be barred. Otherwise, the standard motions to reconsider and/or 
    reopen are allowed, but are subject to all the regular requirements and 
    restrictions regarding motions, including the time and number 
    limitations.
        In addition to describing a new procedure for affirmance without 
    opinion by a single Board Member, the proposed rule also included 
    provisions that would empower a single Board Member or the Chief 
    Attorney Examiner to rule on certain dispositive motions or to issue 
    other orders disposing of appeals on procedural or ministerial grounds. 
    Presently, the regulations allow a single Board Member to adjudicate 
    unopposed motions or motions to withdraw an appeal. See 8 CFR 3.1(a). 
    The proposed rule identified additional categories of cases that were 
    deemed suitable for disposition by a single Board Member. Unlike the 
    one-line affirmances by single Board Members that the proposed rule 
    would authorize, these dispositions generally would not affirm a result 
    below. Rather, in these cases, a single fact, easily identified in the 
    record of proceedings, dictates the result through a straightforward, 
    nondiscretionary application of a statute, a regulation, or a 
    controlling precedent. Dispositions under this procedure are separate 
    and
    
    [[Page 56137]]
    
    distinct from affirmances without opinions.
        Under Sec. 3.1(a)(1) of the proposed rule, a single Board Member 
    would be authorized to issue orders (1) remanding an appeal from the 
    denial of a visa petition where the Regional Service Center Director 
    requests a remand for further consideration of the appellant's 
    arguments or evidence raised on appeal; (2) remanding to correct for a 
    defective or missing transcript; and (3) disposing of other procedural 
    or ministerial matters designated by the Chairman (possible examples 
    might include dismissal of an appeal as moot where the alien has since 
    become a lawful permanent resident).
        The proposed rule also set forth proposed amendments to the 
    regulation regarding summary dismissals of appeals. This regulation, 
    presently codified at 8 CFR 3.1(d)(1-a), generally provides for 
    dismissals on grounds that do not go to the underlying merits of a 
    case. The proposed revisions to this provision, redesignated as 
    Sec. 3.1(d)(2), would add to the existing rule's listing of the types 
    of cases that are appropriate for summary dismissal, authorize a single 
    Board Member to dispose of such cases, and empower the Chairman to 
    designate who from among the Board Members may exercise this authority. 
    Summary dismissal under proposed section 3.1(d)(2) would be separate 
    and distinct from affirmance without opinion.
        The proposed rule also would augment existing grounds for summary 
    dismissals, authorizing dismissal of (1) cases in which the appeal or 
    motion does not fall within the Board's jurisdiction; (2) cases in 
    which jurisdiction over a motion lies with the Immigration Judge rather 
    than with the Board; (3) untimely appeals and motions; and (4) cases in 
    which it is clear that the right of appeal was affirmatively waived.
    
    Comments
    
        In response to the proposed rule, the Department received 24 
    comments pertaining to the proposed summary affirmance procedures. 
    Because a number of these comments overlap or endorse the submissions 
    of other commenters, the comments are addressed by topic rather than 
    individually. Before describing the comments and the Department's 
    responses, it is important to mention two changes that the Department 
    has decided to make to the proposed rule for reasons not presented in 
    the comments.
        First, although the Department did not receive any comments 
    criticizing our proposal to change the summary dismissal regulation, we 
    have determined that an additional change is warranted. In particular, 
    current 8 CFR 3.1(d)(1-a)(i)(D) will be deleted to avoid confusion in 
    light of the new summary affirmance procedure. Current Sec. 3.1(d)(1-
    a)(i)(D) allows summary dismissal when, ``[t]he Board is satisfied, 
    from a review of the record, that the appeal is filed for an improper 
    purpose, such as to cause unnecessary delay, or that the appeal lacks 
    an arguable basis in law or fact unless the Board determines that it is 
    supported by a good faith argument for extension, modification or 
    reversal of existing law.'' This summary dismissal authority is 
    virtually never used by the Board, and retaining it could lead to 
    confusion concerning the relationship between this provision and the 
    new summary affirmance procedure. Accordingly, this part of the 
    existing summary dismissal regulation will be deleted.
        A second change that was not advocated by any commenter concerns 
    the proposed rule's references to the Chief Attorney Examiner. Because 
    that position was eliminated after publication of the proposed rule, 
    references to the Chief Attorney Examiner will be eliminated from the 
    final rule.
        The Department has also concluded, in the course of preparing this 
    streamlining rule, that the regulations governing BIA procedures have 
    become unduly complex and that a complete reorganization of part 3 of 8 
    CFR is needed. The Executive Office for Immigration Review is presently 
    working on such a reorganization. This final rule is being published in 
    advance of that reorganization because of the overriding need to 
    implement the streamlining procedures.
    
    Single Board Member Summary Affirmance Without Opinion
    
        Comments: Twenty-three commenters objected to the proposal to allow 
    a single permanent Board Member to affirm the result reached below by 
    issuing a form, one-line affirmance order. Most of the commenters 
    recognized the difficulties the Board faces in managing its expanding 
    caseload, and several offered alternatives for accomplishing that task. 
    However, the commenters uniformly stated that an appellate body such as 
    the Board should meaningfully address the issues before it by providing 
    reasons for its decisions. A number of the commenters cited Mathews v. 
    Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), as support for their contention that the 
    Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires the Board to provide 
    a rationale for its decisions. Some pointed out that several courts of 
    appeals have criticized the Board when it did not provide an adequate 
    rationale, suggesting that the proposed rule could therefore be struck 
    down in court. Some suggested that, given the Board's caseload, there 
    would be a temptation to avoid detailed review or consideration of 
    complex issues.
        Response and Disposition: The Department has carefully considered 
    the comments regarding the proposal to allow one permanent Board Member 
    to affirm a decision by issuing a one-line form order, and has decided 
    to retain the regulation as proposed. To operate effectively in an 
    environment where over 28,000 appeals and motions are filed yearly, the 
    Board must have discretion over the methods by which it handles its 
    cases. The process of screening, assigning, tracking, drafting, 
    revising, and circulating cases is extremely time consuming. Even in 
    routine cases in which all Panel Members agree that the result reached 
    below was correct, disagreements concerning the rationale or style of a 
    draft decision can require significant time to resolve. The Department 
    has determined that the Board's resources are better spent on cases 
    where there is a reasonable possibility of reversible error in the 
    result reached below.
        Appellants have a right to a reasoned administrative decision. In 
    cases that are adjudicated by one Board Member, that right will be 
    protected by a written decision by the Immigration Judge or the INS 
    Director and a determination by the Board that the result below is 
    correct. A permanent Board Member will review and consider every case. 
    The decision rendered below will be the final agency decision for 
    judicial review purposes. Under this new system of streamlined review, 
    complex and significant cases will not be avoided, nor will they be 
    adjudicated by one Board Member. Rather, they will be given additional 
    time and consideration by three-Member panels of the Board. The most 
    important of the three-Member panel cases may receive en banc review 
    (either full or limited) by the Board.
        The streamlined review process that the Board will follow is 
    different from the ``leave to appeal'' and certiorari systems that some 
    appellate courts and administrative tribunals use to control their 
    dockets. These systems often look to a variety of factors apart from 
    whether the decision for which appellate review is sought reached a 
    correct result. In contrast, the summary affirmance system that the 
    Department is adopting will continue to focus on the importance of 
    correct results, even in
    
    [[Page 56138]]
    
    cases that do not present significant legal or factual issues or a 
    question requiring guidance from the Board. The summary affirmance 
    system represents a careful balancing of the need to ensure correct 
    results in individual cases with the efficiencies necessary to maintain 
    a viable appellate organization that handles an extraordinarily large 
    caseload. The streamlining system will allow the Board to manage its 
    caseload in a more timely manner while permitting it to continue 
    providing nationwide guidance through published precedents in complex 
    cases involving significant legal issues.
        In Mathews v. Eldridge, supra, the Supreme Court held that due 
    process is a flexible concept and identified three factors that 
    agencies and courts must consider in determining the administrative 
    procedures that due process requires in a particular setting. Those 
    factors are, ``[f]irst, the private interest that will be affected by 
    the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of 
    such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if 
    any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, 
    the Government's interest, including the function involved and the 
    fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute 
    procedural requirement would entail.'' 424 U.S. at 334-35.
        In the case of immigration proceedings, the private interests at 
    stake are undoubtedly very weighty, as many commenters have pointed 
    out. However, the Department believes that the risk of erroneous 
    decisions resulting from the streamlining of Board procedures is 
    minimal. Most appellants will already have had a full evidentiary 
    hearing before an Immigration Judge; some will have had their cases 
    considered by an INS Director. The case will then be considered on its 
    merits by a permanent Member of the Board. If that Board Member finds a 
    reasonable possibility that the result reached below was incorrect, the 
    case will be referred to a three-Member Panel, and a written decision 
    will be provided. Only if the permanent Board Member determines, after 
    review of the appeal, that the regulatory criteria are satisfied and, 
    consequently, that there is no reasonable possibility that the result 
    below was incorrect, will he or she issue a one-line, form order 
    affirmance. The Department believes that appellants' rights are 
    protected by these procedures.
        Finally, as noted earlier, the Government's interests are also 
    significant here. The number of appeals filed with the Board in recent 
    years has exceeded the Board's capacity to give meaningful, three-
    Member consideration to each appeal, and to issue written decisions in 
    every case. The summary affirmance process is a reasonable response to 
    the current situation, because it allows the Board to concentrate its 
    resources on cases where there is a reasonable possibility of reversal, 
    or where a significant issue is raised in the appeal, while still 
    providing assurances that correct results are achieved in all cases 
    under the Board's appellate jurisdiction.
        The Department is aware of one federal appeals court decision 
    indicating that due process requires the Board to state reasons for its 
    decisions. See De la Llana-Castellon v. INS, 16 F.3d 1093, 1098 (10th 
    Cir. 1994) (due process ``requires that the decisionmaker actually 
    consider the evidence and argument that a party presents''). In 
    addition, several other appeals court decisions have struck down, on 
    statutory grounds, Board decisions that were found to have lacked 
    adequate explanations of the Board's reasoning. See, e.g., Velerde v. 
    INS, 140 F.3d 1305, 1310-11 (9th Cir. 1998) (BIA abused its discretion 
    by failing to provide reasoned basis for its decision); Sanon v. INS, 
    52 F.3d 648, 651 (7th Cir. 1995) (in reviewing BIA denials of asylum 
    requests, court requires ``some proof that the Board has exercised its 
    expertise in hearing a case.''); Turri v. INS, 997 F.2d 1306, 1308 
    (10th Cir. 1993) (to survive statutory review, Board decision must 
    contain terms sufficient to demonstrate that the Board heard, 
    considered, and decided the case); Diaz-Resendez v. INS, 960 F.2d 493, 
    495 (5th Cir. 1992) (Board decision will be reversed as arbitrary if it 
    ``fails to address meaningfully all material factors'').
        Notwithstanding these decisions, eight federal courts of appeals 
    have rejected direct challenges to the Board's practice of affirming 
    decisions of Immigration Judges, where appropriate, for the reasons 
    given in those decisions. See Giday v. INS, 113 F.3d 230, 234 (D.C. 
    Cir. 1997) (Board's summary affirmance of an Immigration Judge's 
    decision for the reasons given by the Immigration Judge is ``not only 
    common practice, but universally accepted by every other circuit that 
    has squarely confronted the issue''); Chen v. INS, 87 F.3d 5, 7-8 (1st 
    Cir. 1996) (``[I]f the Board's view is that the Immigration Judge ``got 
    it right,'' the law does not demand that the Board go through the idle 
    motions of dressing the Immigration Judge's findings in its own 
    prose.''); Prado-Gonzalez v. INS, 75 F.3d 631, 632 (11th Cir. 1996); 
    Urokov v. INS, 55 F.3d 222, 227-28 (7th Cir. 1995); Alaelua v. INS, 45 
    F.3d 1379, 1382 (9th Cir. 1995); Maashio v. INS, 45 F.3d 1235, 1238 
    (8th Cir. 1995); Panrit v. INS, 19 F.3d 544, 545-46 (10th Cir. 1994) 
    (distinguishing Turri v. INS); Arango-Aradondo v. INS, 13 F.3d 610, 613 
    (2nd 1994). In addition, two other federal courts of appeals have 
    treated summary affirmance by the BIA as a proper method of disposing 
    of appeals, sustaining such summary affirmances against merits 
    challenges after review of the reasoning set forth in the Immigration 
    Judge decisions that the BIA affirmed. See, e.g., Gomez-Mejia v. INS, 
    56 F.3d 700, 702 (5th Cir. 1995) (court will review the Immigration 
    Judge's decision where the Board affirms without any additional 
    reasoning); Gandarillas-Zambrana v. BIA, 44 F.3d 1251, 1255 (4th Cir. 
    1995) (where the Board relies on the Immigration Judge's decision, the 
    immigration Judge's reasoning will be the sole basis for the court 
    review).
        It is therefore well-established that the Board may decline to 
    write a full decision in any given case, and may instead summarily 
    affirm the Immigration Judge's decision. The summary affirmance 
    procedure set forth in this streamlining rule makes clear that a 
    summary affirmance does not necessarily indicate that the Board Member 
    is adopting the Immigration Judge's or Service Officer's decision in it 
    entirety, including all its reasoning; rather, it is a determination by 
    the Board Member, upon review of the record, that the result reached 
    below is correct. For purposes of judicial review, however, the 
    Immigration Judge's decision becomes the decision reviewed.
        In addressing any due process concerns, it is also important to 
    point out that due process does not confer a right to appeal, even in 
    criminal prosecutions. See Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U.S. 600, 611 (1974) 
    (``[W]hile no one would agree that the State may simply dispense with 
    the trial stage of proceedings without a criminal defendant's consent, 
    it is clear that the State need not provide any appeal at all.''); 
    Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 18 (1956) (plurality opinion) (noting 
    that ``a State is not required by the Federal Constitution to provide 
    appellate courts or a right to appellate review at all'') (citation 
    omitted). Indeed, one federal court has specifically stated that 
    ``[t]he Constitution does not entitle aliens to administrative appeals 
    * * *. The Attorney General could dispense with the Board and delegate 
    her power to the immigration judge's, or could give the Board 
    discretion to choose which cases to review.'' Guentchev v. INS, 77 F.3d 
    1036, 1037 (7th Cir. 1996).
    
    [[Page 56139]]
    
        It is true that the power to eliminate appeals does not carry with 
    it the power to maintain a procedurally deficient appellate process. 
    See, e.g., Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 400-05 (1985) (although due 
    process does not require that a state provide any appeal, it does 
    require that a defendant receive effective assistance of counsel on the 
    first appeal as of right, if such an appeal is provided); Mayer v. 
    Chicago, 404 U.S. 189, 198 (1971) (if the Government chooses to provide 
    for appeals, an impecunious defendant in a petty offense prosecution 
    ``cannot be denied a record of sufficient completeness to permit proper 
    (appellate) consideration of his claims'' (internal quotation marks 
    omitted)); see also M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 117-124 (1996) 
    (state cannot use parent's inability to pay record preparation fees as 
    grounds for denying an appeal in a proceeding that could result in 
    permanent termination of her parental rights). However, the omission of 
    a case-specific statement of reasons for an appellate ruling does not 
    represent a constitutional deficiency in appellate procedure.
        In sum, appeals are not constitutionally required, and an 
    endorsement of the result reached by the decision-maker below satisfies 
    any conceivable due process requirement concerning justifications for 
    the decisions made in any appellate process that the government decides 
    to provide. The Department believes it is within the Attorney General's 
    authority to provide for the streamlining of BIA procedures in 
    appropriate cases as described in this final rule.
    
    Single Board Member Adjudication on the Merits
    
        Comments: In addition to objecting to a one-line, form order, most 
    of the 23 commenters objected to allowing a single permanent Board 
    Member to decide appeals on the merits. Commenters noted that appellate 
    review by a single Board Member increases the risk of error resulting 
    from the mistakes or prejudices of one person. Three-Member panels 
    provide both a moderating influence and a check against possible 
    undetected errors. Commenters also feared that review by a single Board 
    Member would compromise consistency and thereby devalue the guidance 
    that the Board provides.
        Response and Disposition: After careful consideration, the 
    Department has decided to retain the provision that allows a single 
    Board Member to adjudicate certain routine appeals on the merits. While 
    three-Member review can reduce the risk of error in complex cases, this 
    process is extremely time and labor intensive and is of significantly 
    less value in routine cases. The Department believes that single-Member 
    review without appellate opinion represents an appropriate means of 
    resolving routine appeals that do not present substantial legal issues 
    or substantial arguments for reversal of the result reached below. The 
    current requirement that three Board Members review such cases results 
    in a serious misallocation of resources in an agency that receives over 
    28,000 appeals and motions per year. The Department believes that the 
    Board Members' time will be more effectively used if they are able to 
    concentrate on the more significant issues, and on cases where there is 
    a reasonable possibility of reversible error in the result reached 
    below. Authorizing a single permanent Board Member to adjudicate cases 
    where there is no reasonable possibility of reversible error and no 
    significant legal issues are presented will allow this more effective 
    use of Board Member time. Single-Member review and summary affirmance 
    in routine cases will actually preserve the ability of the Board to 
    conduct three-Member review and prepare careful opinions in a 
    significant number of more complex cases.
    
    Single Board Member Adjudications for All Cases
    
        Comments: Two commenters suggested that the Board adopt a system of 
    single Board Member adjudication of most cases, but with reasons given 
    in every case. One of these comments was signed by 52 individuals and 
    organizations. These commenters acknowledged that under current 
    conditions, the Board cannot continue to give full three-Member review 
    to all cases, and further recognized that most cases do not require 
    three-Member review. It was suggested that only a few cases per year 
    would need to be considered by the en banc Board, and that single-
    Member review of the rest of the cases would be appropriate, so long as 
    the reasons for the decisions were provided, even briefly. Several 
    other commenters also referred to this comment with approval.
        Response and Disposition: The Department carefully considered the 
    option of moving to single-Member review of most cases, but has decided 
    not to adopt that option at this time. The Department believes that 
    single-Member review is appropriate in many cases coming before the 
    Board. However, in cases where a significant issue is presented, or 
    where there is a reasonable possibility that the result below was 
    incorrect, three-Member adjudication is preferable for the reasons 
    discussed above. Three-Member adjudication of such cases also provides 
    an additional check, and provides more guidance to the Immigration 
    Judges, the Service, the bar, and the public.
        In addition, a move to single-Member adjudication of nearly all 
    cases would make it more difficult to maintain the consistency of 
    adjudication that the Board attempts to provide. Therefore, the 
    Department has decided to adopt the system as proposed, under which 
    some cases will be adjudicated on the merits by a single Board Member, 
    while those presenting significant issues or a reasonable possibility 
    of a change in the result reached below, will continue to be decided by 
    three-Member panels. Of course, the Board also retains the authority to 
    consider cases under its en banc or limited en banc procedures.
    
    Expand Board To Handle Caseload
    
        Comments: Several commenters noted the recent expansion of the 
    Board and staff. Some questioned why these increases had not been 
    adequate to handle all cases and several suggested that the Board 
    should be further expanded as necessary to deal with current and 
    incoming cases.
        Response and Disposition: The Department has carefully considered 
    these comments and has decided against further expansion of the Board 
    at this time. The Attorney General has made significant efforts to aid 
    the Board in handling its burgeoning caseload by increasing its size 
    from 5 to 12 Members in 1995, from 12 to 15 in 1998, and by recently 
    authorizing four additional permanent Board Members, which will bring 
    the total to 19 Board Members. Significant staff increases have 
    accompanied the expansion of the Board.
        Board production has increased commensurately with these 
    expansions. For example, in fiscal year 1998, more than 29,000 final 
    dispositions were issued by the Board. However, this figure included 
    some 6000 routine, form dispositions resulting from new legislation, 
    including approximately 5000 cases that the Board remanded following 
    enactment of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act. 
    Moreover, while the Board was able to reduce its backlog by 1000 cases 
    in 1998, the pending caseload at the Board is over 47,000 cases. The 
    backlog must be reduced at a greater rate than 1000 cases per year.
        Even with Board Member and staff increases, the Board is not 
    currently able to adjudicate its pending caseload, to deal with its 
    entire incoming caseload
    
    [[Page 56140]]
    
    on a timely basis, to meaningfully reduce its backlog, to position 
    itself to deal with future increases in caseload, and to provide 
    nationwide guidance through published precedents (most of which are 
    issued by the full en banc Board) in a growing number of complex cases 
    involving application of new statutory and regulatory provisions. 
    Moreover, continued expansion of the Board and its staff would have 
    significant institutional costs in terms of the collegiality of the 
    Board's decision-making process, the uniformity of its decisions, and 
    the administration and supervision of its staff.
    
    Standards for Selecting Cases for Adjudication by a Single Board 
    Member
    
        Comments: Several commenters stated that the proposed rule 
    contained inconsistent formulations of the standard for determining 
    which cases would be adjudicated on the merits by a single Board 
    Member. They pointed out that the Supplementary Information 
    accompanying the proposed rule referred variously to one-Member review 
    in cases where there is no ``realistic chance'' that three-Member 
    review would change the result below, where the factual and legal 
    questions raised on appeal are ``so insubstantial'' that three-Member 
    review is not warranted, or where no legal or factual basis for 
    reversal ``is apparent.'' In addition, the Supplementary Information 
    also stated that an affirmance without opinion would not be issued if 
    an appellant made a ``substantial argument for reversal.'' The 
    commenters pointed out that the proposed regulation itself allows 
    single-Member affirmance without opinion where, inter alia, the factual 
    and legal questions raised were ``so insubstantial that three-Member 
    review is not warranted.'' These commenters suggested that the 
    Department adopt a realistic and consistent standard for determining 
    which cases are subject to summary affirmance.
        One commenter, responding to the proposed rule's statement that 
    single Board Member review can be appropriate where the issue on appeal 
    is squarely controlled by existing Board or federal court precedent and 
    does not involve the application of such precedent ``to a novel fact 
    situation,'' suggested that virtually every case will present a novel 
    fact situation.
        Response and Disposition: The Department agrees that some of the 
    language in the Supplementary Information of the proposed rule could 
    have been clearer. However, the Department also recognizes that any 
    standard adopted could be attacked as involving a subjective element. 
    The Department believes that use of the three-part test set forth 
    above--requiring determinations that the result below was correct, that 
    any errors were harmless or immaterial, and either that the issues on 
    appeal are controlled by precedent or that the factual or legal 
    questions raised are insubstantial--will ensure that only cases where 
    there is no reasonable possibility of changing the result reached below 
    will be subject to single-Member summary affirmance. Moreover, the 
    Department believes it is reasonable to require an appellant to make a 
    substantial argument that the result reached below should be reversed.
        The Department believes that the language regarding a ``novel fact 
    situation'' requires clarification. The Department notes that while the 
    facts of each case are different, the legally significant facts often 
    fall into recognizable patterns, and that where this occurs, a novel 
    fact situation may not be presented. As just one example, the Attorney 
    General's decision in Matter of Soriano held that section 212(c) relief 
    was no longer available to aliens in certain appeals pending before the 
    Board. See Matter of Soriano, Op. Att'y Gen. (Feb. 21, 1997), 
    overruling Interim Decision No. 3289 (BIA June 27, 1996) (en banc). 
    That decision made the factual differences in a large number of those 
    cases legally insignificant from the standpoint of the Board's 
    appellate review. Such cases would be appropriate for single-Member 
    affirmance even though each case presented a different set of facts.
    
    Single Board Member Authority To Reverse or Remand
    
        Comments: Several commenters suggested that the proposed rule was 
    biased in favor of the Government because it would allow a single Board 
    Member to affirm by summary decision but not to reverse or remand 
    without referral to a three-Member panel. These commenters stated that 
    in some cases an obvious error may appear that clearly warrants 
    reversal or remand, without the necessity of three-Member review, and 
    the regulation should allow single-Member reversals or remands in such 
    cases.
        Response and Disposition: The Department has considered these 
    comments and has decided to retain the regulation as proposed on this 
    point. The cornerstone of the new streamlining procedures is that 
    summary affirmance by a single permanent Board Member is authorized 
    only when the result reached below was correct. A reversal or remand 
    will necessarily require some explanation, while an affirmance without 
    opinion leaves the decision below as the final agency decision. The 
    Department has determined that it is appropriate to allow the Board to 
    affirm without opinion only when this disposition leaves intact correct 
    results reached below. The Department also notes that a decision below 
    that is unfavorable to the Government may also be summarily affirmed.
    
    Chairman's Authority
    
        Comments: Several commenters expressed concern about the authority 
    given to the Chairman to select the Board Members who will be 
    authorized to affirm cases without opinion. They stated that giving 
    this authority to the Chairman could invite an abuse of authority and 
    suggested that a more neutral or random selection process be 
    established.
        Response and Disposition: The Department has considered this 
    comment and decided to retain the regulation as proposed. It is 
    anticipated that all Board Members will be given the opportunity to 
    participate in the streamlined adjudication process. However, the 
    Chairman must have the flexibility to administer the program as he sees 
    fit. The selection of Board Members for participation in the single 
    Board Member affirmance process, and the process of selection, are 
    internal Board matters and will remain so.
    
    Fine Cases
    
        Comment: One of the 24 comments came from an airline. It noted that 
    there was a large backlog of airline fine cases, and suggested that the 
    rule should specifically address the Board's handling of these cases.
        Response and Disposition: Fine cases could potentially be handled 
    under the procedures set forth in the new rule. The Department does not 
    find it necessary to establish special streamlining procedures for fine 
    cases at this time.
    
    Regulatory Flexibility Act
    
        In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the Attorney General certifies 
    that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
    substantial number of small entities. The rule will only affect 
    individuals involved in immigration proceedings and transportation 
    firms subject to fines under 8 CFR part 280. See 8 CFR 3.1(b)(4). This 
    rule will not have a substantial economic impact on these firms because 
    it will only change the procedures under which the BIA adjudicates 
    appeals of such fines. These
    
    [[Page 56141]]
    
    procedural reforms are not expected to alter substantive outcomes 
    except to the extent the BIA's redirection of its resources improves 
    the consistency and uniformity of its adjudications and the quality of 
    the legal guidance that the Board provides to Immigration Judges and 
    the Service.
    
    Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    
        This final rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local, 
    and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of 
    $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or 
    uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed 
    necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 
    1995.
    
    Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
    
        This final 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 
    companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and 
    export markets.
    
    Executive Order 12866
    
        This final rule has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with 
    Executive Order 12866, section 1(b), Principles of Regulation. This 
    rule falls within a category of actions that the Office of Management 
    and Budget (OMB) has determined not to constitute ``significant 
    regulatory actions'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, 
    Regulatory Planning and Review, and accordingly has not been submitted 
    to OMB for review.
    
    Executive Order 12612
    
        This final 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 12612, the Department of Justice has determined that 
    this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant 
    the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
    
    Executive Order 12988
    
        The final rule meets the applicable standards provided in sections 
    3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
    
    List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 3
    
        Administrative practice and procedure, Immigration, Lawyers, 
    Organizations and functions (Government agencies), Reporting and 
    recordkeeping requirements.
    
        Accordingly, part 3 of chapter 1 of title 8 of the Code of Federal 
    Regulations is to be amended as follows:
    
    PART 3--EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW
    
        1. The authority citation for part 3 is revised to read as follows:
    
        Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 8 U.S.C. 1101 note, 1103, 1252 note, 
    1324b, 1362; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 1746; sec. 2, Reorg. Plan No. 2 of 
    1950, 3 CFR, 1949-1953 Comp., p. 1002.
    
        2. Section 3.1 is amended by:
        a. Adding two sentences at the end of paragraph (a)(1);
        b. Adding a new paragraph (a)(7);
        c. Redesignating paragraphs (d)(1-a), (2), and (3) as paragraphs 
    (d)(2), (3), and (4), respectively;
        d. Removing redesignated paragraph (d)(2)(i)(D);
        e. Redesignating paragraph (d)(2)(i)(E) as paragraph (d)(2)(i)(D) 
    and removing the word ``or'' at the end of that paragraph;
        f. Redesignating paragraph (d)(2)(i)(F) as paragraph (d)(2)(i)(G);
        g. Adding new paragraphs (d)(2)(i)(E) and (F);
        h. Redesignating paragraph (d)(2)(ii) as paragraph (d)(2)(iii); and 
    by
        i. Adding a new paragraph (d)(2)(ii). The additions to Sec. 3.1 
    read as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 3.1  General authorities.
    
        (a)(1) Organization. * * * In addition, a single Board Member may 
    exercise such authority in disposing of the following matters: a 
    Service motion to remand an appeal from the denial of a visa petition 
    where the Regional Service Center Director requests that the matter be 
    remanded to the Service for further consideration of the appellant's 
    arguments or evidence raised on appeal; a case where remand is required 
    because of a defective or missing transcript; and other procedural or 
    ministerial issues as provided by the Chairman. A motion to reconsider 
    or to reopen a decision that was rendered by a single Board Member may 
    be adjudicated by that Board Member.
    * * * * *
        (7) Affirmance without opinion. (i) The Chairman may designate, 
    from time-to-time, permanent Board Members who are authorized, acting 
    alone, to affirm decisions of Immigration Judges and the Service 
    without opinion. The Chairman may designate certain categories of cases 
    as suitable for review pursuant to this paragraph.
        (ii) The single Board Member to whom a case is assigned may affirm 
    the decision of the Service or the Immigration Judge, without opinion, 
    if the Board Member determines that the result reached in the decision 
    under review was correct; that any errors in the decision under review 
    were harmless or nonmaterial; and that
        (A) the issue on appeal is squarely controlled by existing Board or 
    federal court precedent and does not involve the application of 
    precedent to a novel fact situation; or
        (B) the factual and legal questions raised on appeal are so 
    insubstantial that three-Member review is not warranted.
        (iii) If the Board Member determines that the decision should be 
    affirmed without opinion, the Board shall issue an order that reads as 
    follows: ``The Board affirms, without opinion, the result of the 
    decision below. The decision below is, therefore, the final agency 
    determination. See 8 CFR 3.1(a)(7).'' An order affirming without 
    opinion, issued under authority of this provision, shall not include 
    further explanation or reasoning. Such an order approves the result 
    reached in the decision below; it does not necessarily imply approval 
    of all of the reasoning of that decision, but does signify the Board's 
    conclusion that any errors in the decision of the Immigration Judge or 
    the Service were harmless or nonmaterial.
        (iv) If the Board Member determines that the decision is not 
    appropriate for affirmance without opinion, the case will be assigned 
    to a three-Member panel for review and decision. The panel to which the 
    case is assigned also has the authority to determine that a case should 
    be affirmed without opinion.
    * * * * *
        (d) Powers of the Board--(1) * * *
        (2) Summary dismissal of appeals. (i) Standards. * * *
        (E) The appeal does not fall within the Board's jurisdiction, or 
    lies with the Immigration Judge rather than the Board;
        (F) The appeal is untimely, or barred by an affirmative waiver of 
    the right of appeal that is clear on the record; or
    * * * * *
        (ii) Action by the Board. The Chairman may provide for the exercise 
    of the appropriate authority of the Board
    
    [[Page 56142]]
    
    to dismiss an appeal pursuant to paragraph (d)(2) of this section by a 
    three-Member panel, or by a single Board Member. The Chairman may 
    determine who from among the Board Members is authorized to exercise 
    the authority under this paragraph and the designation may be changed 
    by the Chairman as he deems appropriate. Except as provided in this 
    part for review by the Board en banc or by the Attorney General, or for 
    consideration of motions to reconsider or reopen, an order dismissing 
    any appeal pursuant to this paragraph (d)(2) shall constitute the final 
    decision of the Board. If the single Board Member to whom the case is 
    assigned determines that the case is not appropriate for summary 
    dismissal, the case will be assigned for review and decision pursuant 
    to paragraph (a) of this section.
    * * * * *
        3. Section 3.2 is amended by adding a new paragraph (b)(3) to read 
    as follows:
    
    
    Sec. 3.2  Reopening or reconsideration before the Board of Immigration 
    Appeals.
    
    * * * * *
        (b) * * *
        (3) A motion to reconsider based solely on an argument that the 
    case should not have been affirmed without opinion by a single Board 
    Member, or by a three-Member panel, is barred.
    
        Dated: October 6, 1999.
    Janet Reno,
    Attorney General.
    [FR Doc. 99-26887 Filed 10-15-99; 8:45 am]
    BILLING CODE 4410-30-P
    
    
    

Document Information

Effective Date:
10/18/1999
Published:
10/18/1999
Department:
Justice Department
Entry Type:
Rule
Action:
Final rule.
Document Number:
99-26887
Dates:
This rule is effective on October 18, 1999.
Pages:
56135-56142 (8 pages)
Docket Numbers:
EOIR No. 122F, AG Order No. 2263-99
RINs:
1125-AA22: Board of Immigration Appeals: Streamlining
RIN Links:
https://www.federalregister.gov/regulations/1125-AA22/board-of-immigration-appeals-streamlining
PDF File:
99-26887.pdf
CFR: (3)
8 CFR 3.1(d)(2)
8 CFR 3.1
8 CFR 3.2