[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 228 (Monday, November 25, 1996)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 59825-59827] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 96-29971] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 8 CFR Part 245 [INS No. 1373-95] RIN 1115-AD12 Adjustment of Status to That of Person Admitted for Permanent Residence: Interview AGENCY: Immigration and Naturalization Service, Justice. ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: This final rule adopts without change an interim rule published in the Federal Register by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (the Service) on November 2, 1992, which allows the Service to determine when interviews are needed to adjudicate applications for adjustment of status to that of a lawful permanent resident alien. This action is considered necessary to promote more efficient adjudications and convenience to the public. EFFECTIVE DATE: December 26, 1996. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerard Casale, Senior Adjudications Officer, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Room 3214, 425 I Street, NW., Washington, DC 20536, telephone (202) 514-5014. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) provides that the status of certain aliens in the United States may be adjusted to that of lawful permanent residents at the discretion of the Attorney General under such regulations as she may prescribe. This process, known as adjustment of status, is governed by section 245 of the Act and 8 CFR part 245. Pursuant to 8 CFR 245.6, an applicant over the age of 14 is generally required to be interviewed by an officer of the Service. On November 2, 1992, the Service published an interim rule with request for public comments in the Federal Register, at 57 FR 49374- 49375. The rule revised 8 CFR 245.6 to allow the Service to conduct interviews only in cases where it determines that an interview is necessary. The rule also eliminated a provision allowing interviews to be waived for persons who had applied before November 20, 1990, for adjustment of status under the Cuban Adjustment Act of November 2, 1996, since that specific provision was no longer needed. The interim rule became effective on November 2, 1992. Interested persons were invited to submit written comments regarding the interim rule on or before December 2, 1992. The Service received five written comments regarding the rule. Since the closing of the period for public comment, no new factors have affected the stated basis for the interim rule. Meanwhile, significant increases in total application receipts have underscored the need for promoting efficient use of adjudications resources. The following discussion summarizes the issues involved in the interview determination rule, including those raised by the commenters, and the conclusions reached by the Service. Fraud Traditionally, the interview of applicants for adjustment of status has been seen as an important element in the Service's ability to detect and deter fraud. On that account, one commenter opposed the change to selective interviewing. Citing reports indicating a significant number of fraudulent marriages connected with petitions for immigration benefits, he concluded that the prospect of an interview deters additional persons from fraudulently claiming eligibility for lawful permanent resident status. The Service shares this interest in avoiding the creation of opportunities for fraud. However, the conversion to select interviewing does not assure any particular applicants that they will not be interviewed and does not limit the Service's ability to interview a particular applicant for permanent resident status. Interviews of a significant number of applicants, particularly those claiming eligibility based on a recent marriage, will continue. In fact, the Service intends to conduct interviews in all cases in which [[Page 59826]] it is likely that the interview would disclose a basis for ineligibility. The possibility that fraudulent claims would be increased by the combination of selective interviewing and the direct mailing of adjustment applications to the four service centers was another consideration. A commenter suggested that service center adjudicators, who do not conduct interviews, lack the experience of working on suspect cases and the knowledge of fraud patterns prevalent in particular localities, and therefore would be unable to identify those applications for which an interview is needed. The Service's view is that adjudicators at the service centers have sufficient experience and training in the detection of fraudulent claims to eligibility for immigration benefits and that they will continue to apply this knowledge in determining when interviews are not necessary. For example, when processing petitions to remove the conditions imposed on persons who obtained permanent residency based on a recent marriage during the past several years, the responsibility for assessing the risk of fraud has been assigned to service center adjudicators, who refer suspect cases to local offices for interview. Service center adjudicators also recently handled a large number of applications for adjustment of status under the Chinese Student Protection Act of 1992 in a similar manner. Impact of the Interview Determination Program on the Adjustment Application Filing Fee Another issue raised by the interview determination program is whether its efficiencies should result in a reduction in the current fee for adjustment of status applications. One commenter reasoned that a decrease in the number of interviews would result in the Service spending less to process applications for adjustment of status, yielding savings that should be passed to the public in the form of a lower filing fee. However, the Service does not intend that the elimination of some interviews will lessen the total resources devoted to adjudication of applications for adjustment of status; rather, the change will shift some workloads and costs from the district offices to the service centers. Officer time and other resources formerly devoted to interviewing clearly eligible applicants will be dedicated to uncovering fraud in high-risk adjustment of status cases. Also, a previously discussed, a significant number of applicants will continue to be interviewed. Therefore, while the decrease in the percentage of cases interviewed will benefit many applicants, the Service does not expect it to change significantly the overall cost of adjudicating adjustment applications. Processing Time As far as maintenance of adjudications standards allows, the Service has an abiding interest in minimizing the time required to complete action on adjustment of status applications. One commenter saw the interim rule as an example of Service efforts to alleviate adjudications backlogs and make the most of existing resources, while another recommended that the Service issue a decision within 90 days of receipt of the application. Timely adjudication of requests for benefits is a Service goal, and selective waiving of interviews will allow decisions to be issued more quickly in routine and non-suspect adjustment of status cases. The Service has recently introduced Customer Service Standards which aim at completing action on adjustment applications within a shorter time. However, since some Service offices currently have heavier caseloads in relation to available personnel, they may incur backlogs longer than those of other offices. Caseloads are also subject to unanticipated surges in the number or type of applications received. Final processing may be delayed in individual cases for other reasons outside the adjudicator's control, as when additional time is required to await an immigrant visa priority date, the receipt of supplementary information from the applicant, or the completion of an investigation regarding a questionable claim. Applicant Request for Waiver of Interview A question whether there would be a procedure allowing an applicant to request a waiver of the interview has been considered. The determination whether an interview is necessary involves evaluation of all relevant factors concerning the application, including any special circumstances. However, the decision will be made on the basis of the evidence of eligibility and not an applicant's desire to avoid an interview. The Service cannot assure an applicant in advance that no interview will be required, since information may be received which discloses the need for interview of an application who initially did not appear to require it. Consequently, the INS will not adopt a procedure to entertain advance requests to waive the interview. The Selection of Cases Each adjustment of status application will be reviewed on a case- by-case basis to determine whether an interview is needed. The Service will monitor fraud trends and the use of the interview determination provision to provide guidelines for adjudicators. Concern was expressed as to how the interview determination decision would be reached, particularly if it would result in interviews being called merely to address minor documentary deficiencies. A minor deficiency is not, in itself, an indicator of fraud. The Service does not plan to interview an applicant solely because he or she neglected to submit a document which can be more easily requested and submitted by mail. A commenter suggested that the Service adopt a nationwide list of specified adjustment application categories which, in her opinion, presented a low risk of fraud and yet were consuming nearly half of the staff time devoted to adjustment interviews in a large district office; the time freed by waiving interviews of such cases could then be re- directed to fraud deterrence and reduction of the waiting time for processing applications. The Service recognizes that at any point in time there are categories of applications which pose a generally lower risk of fraud than others. However, it does not follow that the rule must be altered on that account. A regulation prescribing fixed categories of applications for which interviews must be waived would hamper the Service's flexibility in adjusting to changes in fraud profiles and caseloads. The existing rule, which neither specifies nor limits the types of adjustment cases on which the interview determination may be made, affords the Service and its adjudicating offices the widest freedom of action to balance local needs and priorities. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this regulation and, by approving it, certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because of the following factors: This rule merely adopts as final an interim rule which has been in effect since November 2, 1992. By removing the interview requirement, the rule has eliminated an inconvenience to a number of individual applicants for adjustment of status who otherwise would have been required to appear in [[Page 59827]] person at a Service office to be interviewed by an immigration examiner. This rule does not have impact on small entities. Executive Order 12866 This rule is not considered by the Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, to be a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review, and the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review process under section 6(a)(3)(A). Executive Order 12612 The regulations adopted herein 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 Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 245 Aliens, Immigration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, the interim rule amending 8 CFR part 245 which was published at 57 FR 49374-49375 on November 2, 1992, is adopted as a final rule without change. Dated: October 28, 1996. Doris Meissner, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service. [FR Doc. 96-29971 Filed 11-22-96; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-10-M