ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers

Home Page

Advanced search


Immigration Daily

Archives

Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board

Resources

Blogs

Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation

Attorney2Attorney

CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network

EB-5

Chinese Immig. Daily

About ILW.COM

Connect to us

Make us Homepage

Questions/Comments


SUBSCRIBE

Immigration Daily

 

Chinese Immig. Daily



The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of free
information!

Copyright
©1995-
ILW.COM,
American
Immigration LLC.

Immigration Daily: the news source for
legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers
Enter your email address here:



< Back to current issue of Immigration Daily < Back to current issue of Immigrant's Weekly

[Federal Register: November 14, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 220)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 56967-56982]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr14no01-1]                         
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each 
week.
========================================================================
[[Page 56967]]

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Immigration and Naturalization Service

8 CFR Parts 3 and 241

[INS No. 2156-01; AG Order No. 2533-2001]
RIN 1115-AG29

Continued Detention of Aliens Subject to Final Orders of Removal

AGENCY: Immigration and Naturalization Service and Executive Office for 
Immigration Review, Justice.

ACTION: Interim rule with request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule amends the custody review process governing the 
detention of aliens who are the subject of a final order of removal, 
deportation or exclusion, in light of the decision of the U.S. Supreme 
Court in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. ____, 121 S. Ct. 2491 (2001). This 
rule adds new provisions to govern determinations by the Immigration 
and Naturalization Service (Service) as to whether there is a 
significant likelihood that an alien will be removed from the United 
States in the reasonably foreseeable future, and whether there are 
special circumstances justifying the continued detention of certain 
aliens. This rule also makes conforming changes to the existing post-
removal-period detention regulations, and provides procedures to 
implement the statutory provision for the extension of the removal 
period beyond 90 days if the alien conspires or acts to prevent his or 
her removal or fails or refuses to assist the Service in obtaining 
documents necessary to effect his or her removal.

DATES: Effective date: This interim rule is effective November 14, 
2001. Comment date: Written comments must be submitted on or before 
January 14, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Please submit written comments to the Director, Policy 
Directives and Instructions Branch, Immigration and Naturalization 
Service, 425 I Street NW., Room 4034, Washington, DC 20536. To ensure 
proper handling, please reference INS No. 2156-01 on your 
correspondence. The public may also submit comments electronically to 
the Service at insregs@usdoj.gov. When submitting comments 
electronically, please make sure that you include INS No. 2156-01 in 
the subject field. Comments are available for public inspection at the 
above address by calling (202) 514-3048 to arrange for an appointment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joan S. Lieberman, Office of the 
General Counsel, Immigration and Naturalization Service, 425 I Street 
NW., Room 6100, Washington, DC 20536, telephone (202) 514-2895 (not a 
toll-free call). For matters relating to the Executive Office for 
Immigration Review: Chuck Adkins-Blanch, General Counsel, Executive 
Office for Immigration Review, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2400, Falls 
Church, VA 22041, telephone (703) 305-0470.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 241(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act), 8 
U.S.C. 1231(a), authorizes the Attorney General to detain aliens who 
are subject to final orders of removal, in order to effectuate their 
removal from the United States. Section 241(a)(1) of the Act provides a 
general rule that such aliens shall be removed within the 90-day 
``removal period,'' commencing on the date the removal order becomes 
administratively final, the date that the Service is able to execute 
the removal order after completion of any judicial review (if the court 
orders a stay of removal), or the date the alien is released from 
criminal incarceration, whichever is later. Detention of aliens during 
the pendency of removal proceedings is governed by Section 236 of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. 1226, including the mandatory detention provisions 
contained in Section 236(c).
    Section 241(a)(2) of the Act governs detention of aliens during the 
statutory removal period; it generally mandates detention of criminal 
and terrorist aliens during that period. Section 241(a)(1)(C) of the 
Act also provides that the removal period ``shall be extended,'' and an 
alien subject to a final order of removal may remain in detention 
during such extended period, if the alien fails or refuses to make 
timely application for travel or other necessary documents for the 
alien's departure, or if the alien conspires or acts to prevent the 
alien's removal. The provisions of section 241(a)(2) of the Act 
continue to apply until expiration of the removal period, as extended, 
including provisions that mandate detention of certain criminal and 
terrorist aliens.
    After expiration of the removal period, section 241(a)(6) of the 
Act grants authority to the Attorney General to continue the detention 
of:
     Any inadmissible alien;
     Any alien who is deportable under subsections (a)(1)(C), 
(a)(2), or (a)(4) of section 237 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1227; and
     Any alien whom the Attorney General determines is a danger 
to the community or is unlikely to comply with the removal order.
    The Department's existing standards for detention or release of 
aliens who are the subject of a final order of removal are set forth in 
8 CFR 241.4. That section provides automatic administrative custody 
review procedures for aliens who are the subject of an administratively 
final order of removal, deportation, or exclusion. Those procedures 
provide for multi-level reviews scheduled at regular intervals. 
District directors have initial responsibility for custody decisions. 
Detention authority then shifts to the INS Headquarters Post-order 
Detention Unit (HQPDU) pursuant to standards set forth in the 
regulation regarding the ability to effect the alien's removal from the 
United States. The review process provides detained aliens with 
numerous opportunities to present evidence in support of release. In 
this rule, the discussion of the provisions of Sec. 241.4 concerns 
detention of aliens subject to a final order of removal, after 
expiration of the removal period.

What Is the Scope of the Supreme Court's Decision?

    In Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. ____, 121 S. Ct. 2491 (2001), the 
Supreme Court held that section 241(a)(6) of the Act generally permits 
the detention of aliens who have been admitted to the United States and 
who are under a final order of removal, only for a period reasonably 
necessary to bring about

[[Page 56968]]

their removal from the United States. The Court held that detention of 
such aliens beyond the statutory removal period, for up to six months 
after entry of a final removal order, is ``presumptively reasonable.'' 
121 S. Ct. at 2504-05. After six months, if an alien can provide ``good 
reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in 
the reasonably foreseeable future,'' the government must rebut the 
alien's showing in order to continue the alien in detention.
    In cases where there is a significant likelihood that the alien 
will be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future, the Supreme 
Court's decision did not question the Service's authority to detain an 
lien under section 241(a)(6) of the Act beyond the six-month period, 
pursuant to the existing detention standards in 8 CFR 241.4. The 
decision does not require that an alien under a final order of removal 
be automatically released after six months if he has not yet been 
removed. Instead, the Court stated: ``To the contrary, an alien may be 
held in confinement until it has been determined that there is no 
significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable 
future.'' Id., at 2505. What counts as the ``reasonably foreseeable 
future'' in this context must take account of the length of the alien's 
prior post-removal prior detention. Id.
    In addition, the Supreme Court acknowledged that there may be cases 
involving ``special circumstances,'' such as those involving terrorists 
or specially dangerous individuals, in which continued detention may be 
appropriate even if removal is unlikely in the reasonably foreseeable 
future. Id. at 2499.
    The Supreme Court's ruling does not govern those aliens who are 
legally still at our borders, as arriving aliens under section 235 of 
the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1225, including those who have been paroled into the 
country pursuant to section 212(d)(5) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(d)(5) 
(such as the Mariel Cubans, who are treated as still seeking 
admission). ``The distinction between an alien who has effected an 
entry into the United States and one who has never entered runs 
throughout immigration law. * * * It is well established that certain 
constitutional protections available to persons inside the United 
States are unavailable to aliens outside of our geographic borders.'' 
121 S. Ct. at 2500. Of particular relevance here, such aliens do not 
have due process rights to enter or to be released into the United 
States, and their continued detention may be appropriate to accomplish 
the statutory purpose of preventing the entry of a person who has, in 
contemplation of the law, been stopped at the border. Furthermore, the 
provisions in section 235 of the Act, governing arriving aliens, and 
section 212(d)(5) of the Act, governing the exercise of the parole 
authority, along with the inherent authority of the sovereign to 
control its borders, furnish additional authority for the detention and 
redetention of arriving aliens, including aliens granted immigration 
parole.

II. Implementation of the New Review Process

    The Supreme Court's decision will require the Service, drawing, as 
appropriate, on the expertise of the Department of State, to assess the 
likelihood of the removal of thousands of aliens to many different 
countries. The Court emphasized in its decision the need to ``take 
appropriate account of the greater immigration-related expertise of the 
Executive Branch, of the serious administrative needs and concerns 
inherent in the necessarily extensive Service efforts to enforce this 
complex statute, and the Nation's need `to speak with one voice' in 
immigration matters.'' 121 S. Ct. at 2504. The Court also stressed the 
need for courts to give expert Executive Branch ``decisionmaking 
leeway,'' for deference to ``Executive Branch primacy in foreign policy 
matters,'' and for uniform administration. Id. at 2504-05.
    This rule institutes procedures by which the Executive Branch will 
make the necessary judgments regarding the likelihood of removal, in a 
regular and consistent manner, based on a review of its experience with 
the country in question, the evidence submitted by the particular 
alien, and other relevant evidence.
    The Executive Branch has the knowledge and expertise essential to 
perform successful its responsibilities to enforce the return of 
criminal and other removable aliens to the country to which removal was 
ordered or to a third country where possible. Generally, the United 
States requests and receives travel documents from most nations without 
a formalized written agreement. The Service routinely works in close 
consultation with consular officers of foreign countries on 
repatriation issues. Formal repatriation agreements are uncommon.
    Efforts to secure travel documents and normalize immigration 
relations with other governments are not static in nature. Efforts to 
achieve comprehensive solutions and joint cooperation with all nations 
are on-going, and seeking removal in individual cases is a continuous 
process as well. Even where experience has demonstrated that obtaining 
travel documents from certain countries is difficult, the Executive 
Branch continues with diplomatic and other efforts to forge normalized 
immigration relations with other governments and to pursue removal 
efforts in individuals cases in the meantime.
    Indeed, while the Service's experience has varied significantly 
from country to country, it has been successful in removing aliens, 
even criminal aliens, to all countries.
    Additionally, the alien and his or her family may be able to secure 
travel documents or removal to a third country in cases where the 
Service has been unable to effect removal. The removal process is a 
shared responsibility among the alien, the Executive Branch and the 
country of return. In several respects, as discussed in more detail 
below, the existing provisions of the Act codify the obligation of the 
alien to cooperate with the removal effort an to comply with requests 
from the Service to obtain travel documents or to take other necessary 
steps to effect the alien's removal from the United States.

What Changes Does This Rule Make?

    In light of the Supreme Court's decision in Zadvydas, this rule 
revises the Department's regulations by adding a new 8 CFR 241.13, 
governing certain aspects of the custody determination of a detained 
alien after the expiration of the removal period. Specifically, the 
rule provides a process for the Service to make a determination as to 
whether there is a significant likelihood that the alien will be 
removed in the reasonably foreseeable future.
    Except as provided in this new Sec. 241.13, the existing detention 
standards in Sec. 241.4 will continue to govern the detention or 
release of aliens who are subject to a final orders of removal. Thus, 
aliens who are determined not to be a danger to the community or a 
flight risk may be released under Sec. 241.4 regardless of whether 
there is a significant likelihood of removal.
    If the Service determines under the procedures of Sec. 241.13 that 
there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably 
foreseeable future, then the Service generally will be required to 
release the alien, under appropriate conditions of supervision intended 
to protect the public safety and to ensure the Service's continued 
ability to remove the alien should that become possible in the future. 
In the alternative, in appropriate cases, the Service may choose to 
invoke the provisions of Sec. 241.14, as added by this rule, in order 
to justify continued detention of a

[[Page 56969]]

particular alien because of special circumstances, of the sort 
discussed in the Supreme Court's decision in Zadvydas, even though the 
alien's removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably 
foreseeable future. In either case, while the Service is evaluating 
whether or not there is a significant likelihood of removal in the 
reasonably foreseeable future under Sec. 241.13, or while the Service 
is pursuing procedures for continued detention of an alien under 
Sec. 241.14 on account of special circumstances, the Service will be 
able to continue an alien in detention pending the conclusion of those 
proceedings as provided for in this rule.
    This rule also makes conforming amendments to the existing 
detention standards in Sec. 241.4 to make appropriate reference to the 
new procedures for determining whether there is a significant 
likelihood of removing an alien in the reasonably foreseeable future. 
This rule does not alter either the substantive standards under 
Sec. 241.4 for the Service to determine whether to release or detain 
aliens because of risk of flight or danger to the community, or the 
procedures for the Service to conduct such custody reviews (first by 
the district director and then by the Service's HQPDU). Thus, aliens 
who are determined not to be a danger to the community or a flight risk 
may be released under Sec. 241.4 regardless of whether there is a 
significant likelihood of removal.
    The custody review provisions of Sec. 241.4 will continue to apply 
to aliens who are subject to final orders of removal, including aliens 
who have requested a review under Sec. 241.13. However, after the 
Service has made a determination in a particular case that removal is 
not significantly likely, the alien's detention will be governed by 
Sec. 241.13 rather than by Sec. 241.4. If the Service subsequently 
determines, because of a change in circumstances, that the Service is 
now likely to be able to remove the alien in the reasonably foreseeable 
future, then the provisions of Sec. 241.4 will once again provide the 
governing standards for the continued detention of the alien. The 
detention standards of Sec. 241.4 will also apply to aliens who are 
continued in detention under Sec. 241.4 because of special 
circumstances.
    This rule also amends Sec. 241.4 to add a new procedural provision 
to implement the statutory directive for extension of the removal 
period if the alien ``fails or refuses to make timely application in 
good faith for travel or other documents necessary to the alien's 
departure or conspires or acts to prevent the alien's removal subject 
to an order of removal,'' as provided in section 241(a)(1)(C) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(1)(C). This rule directs the Service to provide a 
specific notice to the alien, during the 90-day removal period, if the 
alien has acted in a way to invoke the statutory extension of the 
removal period. Until the alien acts to comply with the statutory 
requirements, the removal period will continue to be extended, as 
provided by section 241(a)(1)(C) of the Act. As long as the alien 
remains in the removal period, including any extension attributable to 
the alien's conduct, then the detention provisions of section 241(a)(2) 
of the Act will continue to apply, including provisions that mandate 
detention of certain criminal and terrorist aliens. Section 241(a)(6) 
of the Act applies only to the continued detention of a removable alien 
after the removal period has expired.

Who Is Covered by the New Procedures in Sec. 241.13 Regarding 
Likelihood of Removal?

    New Sec. 241.13 applies to the following individuals in INS 
detention who are under a final order of removal:
     Aliens who have been admitted to the United States 
(including aliens admitted as refugees under section 207 of the Act, 8 
U.S.C. 1157), and who are later ordered removed under sections 237 
(a)(1)(C), (a)(2), or (a)(4) of the Act; and
     Other deportable aliens who are determined to be a danger 
to the community or a flight risk; and
     Inadmissible aliens who are present in the United States 
without inspection.
    As discussed below, the Supreme Court's decision in Zadvydas does 
not apply to arriving aliens who are inadmissible, including aliens who 
have been granted immigration parole into the United States. However, 
the Department of Justice has determined that the provisions of 
Sec. 241.13 shall apply to one category of inadmissible aliens: those 
who are present in the United States without inspection, admission, or 
parole. Before enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and 
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), Pub. L. No. 104-208, 
Div. C, 110 Stat. 3546 (Sept. 30, 1996), these aliens were considered 
to have ``entered'' the United States. Since the removal provisions of 
IIRIRA took effect on April 1, 1997, these aliens are no longer 
considered to have ``entered without inspection,'' but to be applicants 
for admission who are present without inspection, as provided in 
section 235(a)(1) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1225(a)(1).
    Conversely, Sec. 241.13 does not apply to arriving aliens, and 
those who have not entered the United States, including those who have 
been granted immigration parole into the country, such as the Mariel 
Cubans. In Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 
(1953), the Supreme Court upheld the Attorney General's authority to 
hold an excludable alien in custody indefinitely, pursuant to section 
236(e) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1226(e), as it existed prior to enactment 
of IIRIRA. In Zadvydas, the Court acknowledged its opinion in Mezei, 
but distinguished aliens who have entered the United States from such 
inadmissible aliens who are presumed, in the contemplation of the law, 
to be ``at the border,'' rather than ``in'' the United States. 121 S. 
Ct. at 2500. As the Court noted, ``The distinction between an alien who 
has effected an entry into the United States and one who has never 
entered runs throughout immigration law.'' Id. Thus, this interim rule 
reflects what the Court characterized as a ``well-established'' 
distinction between the rights of those seeking admission and those who 
have been admitted. Section 241.13 does not apply to Mariel Cubans or 
parolees. Mariel Cubans will continue to be covered by 8 CFR 212.12, 
and the provisions of 8 CFR 241.4 govern all other cases where the 
alien is the subject of an administratively final order of removal.
    Section 241.13 does not apply to aliens under a final order of 
removal while they are still within the statutory removal period. The 
statutory basis for detention of removable aliens during the removal 
period, under section 241(a)(2) of the Act, is broader than the 
authority to detain such aliens under section 241(a)(6) of the Act 
after the removal period has expired, but it is also strictly time-
limited. The Supreme Court's decision in Zadvydas was only concerned 
with the interpretation of section 241(a)(6) of the Act, in light of 
its concerns that the law should not be read to permit ``indefinite, 
perhaps permanent, detention.'' 121 S. Ct. at 2502. Those concerns are 
inapposite to the detention of aliens during the removal period, since 
that authority, by its terms, expires at the end of the removal period, 
which is generally 90 days. Section 241(a)(1)(C) of the Act does 
expressly provide for an extension of the removal period in those cases 
where the alien ``fails or refuses to make timely application in good 
faith for travel or other documents necessary to the alien's departure 
or conspires or acts to prevent the alien's removal subject to an order 
of removal.'' But any extension

[[Page 56970]]

of the removal period in such circumstances is entirely attributable to 
the alien's own conduct. The extension of the removal period will come 
to an end when the alien complies with his or her statutory 
obligations.

When Can an Eligible Alien Submit a Request for Release From Custody on 
the Ground That There Is No Significant Likelihood of His or Her 
Removal in the Reasonably Foreseeable Future?

    As discussed above, the obligation of the Service to respond to 
issues concerning the likelihood of removal does not arise as long as 
the alien is still within the removal period. However, Sec. 241.13 will 
permit an alien subject to a final order of removal to present, at any 
time after the removal order becomes final, the contention that there 
is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable 
future. The Service may postpone its consideration of such requests 
until after expiration of the removal period.
    In any event, the Service is not obligated to release an alien 
until after the Service has had the opportunity, during the 
``presumptively reasonable'' 6-month period, to endeavor to remove the 
alien and to make its determination as to whether or not there is a 
significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. 
See Zadvydas, 121 S. Ct. at 2503 (faulting the decision of the Ninth 
Circuit in one of the cases under review because ``its conclusion may 
have rested solely upon the `absence' of an `extant or pending' 
repatriation agreement without giving due weight to the likelihood of 
successful future negotiations.'').
    Thus, the Service is entitled to make an assessment of the 
likelihood of removal in each case, including the prospects for a 
change in circumstances, even if (for example) there is not extant or 
pending repatriation agreement at the time the alien makes the request 
for a decision by the Service under Sec. 241.13. The Service works 
continuously with other countries to accomplish repatriation. The 
Service will also evaluate the alien's efforts to fulfill his or her 
statutory obligation to seek to comply with the removal order.
    The six-month presumptively reasonable period of detention to 
effect the alien's removal commences when the removal period begins as 
set forth in section 241(a)(1) of the Act, unless that removal period 
is extended. If the removal period is extended because of the alien's 
failure to comply with the order of removal or to cooperate in securing 
travel documents, as provided in section 241(a)(1)(C) of the Act, the 
Service shall have a reasonable period of time after the expiration of 
the removal period, as extended, to effect the alien's removal.

What are the Procedures for the Alien to Request Release on the Ground 
That There is no Significant Likelihood of Removal in the Reasonably 
Foreseeable Future?

    Section 241.13 provides the procedures for the Service to evaluate 
an alien's challenge to the reasonableness of his or her continued 
detention, as provided in Zadvydas. The alien must provide ``good 
reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in 
the reasonably foreseeable future,'' 121 S. Ct. at 2505, and may submit 
any information that may be relevant to support that contention.
    As a threshold matter, this rule requires that an alien requesting 
a determination under Sec. 241.13 demonstrate his or her efforts to 
comply with the removal order and to cooperate with the Service's 
efforts to effect his or her removal. As provided in Sec. 241.13(e)(2), 
if the HQPDU determines that the alien has not established the 
requisite efforts to comply with the removal order and to cooperate 
with the Service's removal efforts, then the alien shall be given a 
written notice stating those findings and indicating the specific 
actions that the alien will be required to take to come into 
compliance. Until the alien responds to the Service's findings 
regarding the lack of compliance or cooperation with the removal 
effort, the Service will not have complete information as to the likely 
prospects for obtaining a travel document or for taking other 
appropriate steps to remove that alien. Accordingly, the rule provides 
that, until the alien has responded to the Service's notice, the HQPDU 
does not have an obligation to continue its consideration of the 
alien's request for release under this section. Once the alien 
responds, then the HQPDU will take the information provided by the 
alien into consideration.
    In appropriate cases, the rule provides for the HQPDU to advice the 
Department of State of the alien's contention that his or her removal 
is not reasonably foreseeable, and to request the assistance and 
guidance of that Department in evaluating the likelihood of the alien's 
removal under the circumstances. The referral to the Department of 
State will not be automatic, because the Service ordinarily will 
already have considerable information concerning the repatriation of 
aliens to each country, and related diplomatic circumstances. However, 
this rule allows for such a feral in those cases where the HQPDU 
determines that input from the Department of State is needed under the 
circumstances. Since the nature and status of diplomatic relationships 
are likely to be relevant to the prospects for removing aliens to 
various countries, it is important for the Service to take the 
opportunity, in appropriate cases, to solicit involvement by the 
Department of State before the HQPDU must decide whether the alien's 
removal is reasonably foreseeable.
    Although this rule does not set a specific time limit for 
consultation with the State Department, or for the Service's final 
decision on the likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable 
future, the HQPDU will have to be mindful of the overall purposes of 
the detention laws, as interpreted by the Supreme Court. The time for 
the Service to determine the likelihood of removal must also be 
reasonable under the circumstances, in light of the interests at stake. 
the HQPDU review process should not, itself, give rise to the same 
kinds of concerns about ``indefinite, perhaps permanent'' detention 
that troubled the Supreme Court. See Zadvydas, at 2503 (``for detention 
to remain reasonable, as the period of prior post-removal confinement 
grows, what counts as the `reasonably foreseeable future' would have to 
shrink.'')
    The rule provides an opportunity for the alien to comment on the 
available (unclassified) evidence presented by the Service, including 
any information provided by the Department of State on which the 
Service intends to rely. The alien may submit with his or her response 
any evidence or other information that, the alien believes, shows that 
removal is no longer significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable 
future. This may include evidence of why, even if the Service has been 
able to effect the removal of other aliens to that country or to a 
third country, the particular alien's own situation is materially 
different such that he or she is unlikely to be removed.
    After receiving all of the evidence, the HQPDU shall consider all 
the facts of the case, including, but not limited to, those 
considerations specified in Sec. 241.13(f) of this rule. The history of 
the Service's efforts to remove aliens to the particular country is of 
considerable relevance in the determination of the likelihood of 
removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. If the Service can 
demonstrate, for example, that it has been successful in returning most 
aliens to a particular country but the process may often require longer 
periods (beyond six months), that information is

[[Page 56971]]

highly relevant in making the determination as to whether there is a 
significant likelihood of removing the alien to that country in the 
reasonably foreseeable future.
    If, after considering the alien's submission, the HQPDU determines 
that ``there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably 
foreseeable future,'' 121 S. Ct. at 2505, the HQPDU shall include in 
the alien's file a written explanation for this decision. The HQPDU 
shall then arrange for the alien's release from custody under 
appropriate conditions of release, unless the Service determines that 
the case should be referred for consideration of further detention 
under Sec. 241.14, as added by this rule, on account of special 
circumstances.
    Where the determination under Sec. 241.13 is to deny the alien's 
request for release because there is a significant likelihood of 
removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, the alien's detention 
will continue to be governed by Sec. 241.4, including the provisions 
for periodic review of the continued detention of aliens under those 
standards.
    According to Zadvydas, the Service's decision to retain the alien 
in custody remains lawful as long as there is a significant likelihood 
of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. Thus, even after an 
initial decision denying release under Sec. 241.13, this rule will 
allow aliens who remain in detention to make a new request for release 
under Sec. 241.13 after a period of six months since the last 
determination by HQPDU under Sec. 241.13, or at any time upon a showing 
of materially changed circumstances.
    The review process under Sec. 241.13, as required by the Supreme 
Court's decision in Zadvydas, will result in the release of some 
removable aliens even though they would otherwise not have been subject 
to release under the detention standards in Sec. 241.4 on account of a 
danger to public safety or flight risk. The Department is keenly aware 
of the need to minimize those concerns whenever possible, through the 
imposition of appropriate conditions of release for those aliens who 
can no longer be detained. Accordingly, Sec. 241.13(g) makes all of the 
conditions of release enumerated in section 241(a)(3) of the Act and 8 
CFR 241.5(a) mandatory, and specifically provides for the imposition of 
additional particular conditions of supervision in order to protect the 
public safety and to ensure the Service's continued ability to remove 
the alien should circumstances change in the future.
    The Supreme Court's decision made clear that, even if an alien must 
be released under an order of supervision where there is no significant 
likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, such aliens 
may also be returned to custody if they violate conditions of release. 
As the Court noted in its analysis:

    [I]f removal is not reasonably foreseeable, the court should 
hold continued detention unreasonable and no longer authorized by 
statute. In that case, of course, the alien's release may and should 
be conditioned on any of the various forms of supervised release 
that are appropriate to the circumstances, and the alien may no 
doubt be returned to custody upon a violation of those conditions.

    Zadvydas, 121 S. Ct. at 2504. See also id. 2502 (``The choice is 
not between imprisonment and the alien `living at large.' It is between 
imprisonment and supervision under release conditions that cannot be 
violated.'') (emphasis added).
    Accordingly, Sec. 241.13(i) provides that the Service may take back 
into custody any alien released under Sec. 241.13, if the alien 
violates any conditions included in the order of supervision. Section 
241.13(i) includes provisions modeled on Sec. 241.4(1) to govern 
determinations to take an alien back into custody. If the alien's 
release is revoked on account of violations of the conditions of 
release, this rule specifically provides for referrals of those cases 
to the U.S. Attorneys for prosecution in appropriation situations, 
under section 243(b) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1253(b). In addition, this 
rule provides that the alien would once again be subject to detention 
for a six-month period, a time that the Court has already determined to 
be presumptively reasonable in the context of the detention of aliens 
pending removal. After the expiration of the six-month period, the 
alien would again be able to request release under the provisions of 
Sec. 241.13. At that time, the Service would again conduct a review 
under the procedures of Sec. 241.13. In appropriate cases, taking into 
account the alien's conduct after his or her prior release under 
Sec. 241.13 and the reasons for revoking release, the Service may 
decide to initiate proceedings under Sec. 241.14 for continued 
detention of the alien because of special circumstances.
    On the other hand, if the alien is returned to custody because the 
Service determines that there is now a significant likelihood that the 
alien may be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future, the alien's 
continued detention will once again be governed by the regular 
procedures under Sec. 241.4 rather than Sec. 241.13.

What Substantive Changes Does This Rule Make to 8 CFR 241.4?

    This rule amends 8 CFR 241.4(b), as amended by final rule on 
December 21, 2000, at 65 CFR 80281, to provide that the detention 
standards of Sec. 241.4 no longer apply to a detained alien after the 
Service has made the determination under Sec. 241.13 that there is no 
significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. 
As long as that determination by the Service remains in effect, the 
detention or release of the alien is governed by the standards of 
Sec. 241.13 (or Sec. 241.14 if applicable). However, in any case where, 
based on a change of circumstances, the Service later makes a 
determination that there is a significant likelihood that the Service 
subsequently will be able to remove the alien to the country to which 
the alien was ordered deported, or to a third country, in the 
reasonably foreseeable future, the custody provisions of Sec. 241.4 
will again apply. In that event, the Service may return the alien to 
detention in connection with the removal, and any issues relating to 
the detention or release of the alien pending his or her removal will 
once again be governed by the standards of Sec. 241.4.
    Although Secs. 241.4 and 241.13 are related, this rule keeps the 
standards and procedures for post-removal period custody reviews under 
Sec. 241.4 unchanged except as necessary to take account of the new 
review procedures under Sec. 241.13. Under Sec. 241.4(i)(7), as added 
by this rule, at the time the HQPDU conducts its review of whether a 
detained alien should continue to be detained under the established 
post-removal period detention standards in Sec. 241.4, the HQPDU shall 
also consider whether there is a substantial reason to believe that the 
removal of an alien who is now covered under the provisions of 
Sec. 241.13, may not be significantly likely in the reasonably 
foreseeable future. If so, the HQPDU shall initiate the review 
procedures under Sec. 241.13, whether or not the alien has make a 
specific request for such a review. However, the detention standards 
and procedures of Sec. 241.4 will continue to apply to such an alien 
unless the Services has made a determination, after competition of the 
review process under Sec. 241.13, that there is no significant 
likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable furture.
    With these limited changes to take account of the establishment of 
a separated review procedure under Sec. 241.13, this rule does not make 
substantive changes to the existing post-removal period detention 
standards. It is

[[Page 56972]]

important to note that this rule does not alter the existing criteria 
for release in Sec. 241.4(e), the factors for consideration in 
Sec. 241.4(f), the procedures governing the review and determination of 
custody issues by the district directors and the HQPDU in 
Sec. 241.4(d), (h) or (i), the conditions of release in Sec. 241.(j), 
or the timing of reviews in general as provided in Sec. 241.4(k). For 
aliens who continue in detention under the standards of Sec. 241.4 (for 
example, inadmissible aliens who are not covered by the procedures of 
Sec. 241.13, or deportable aliens for whom there is a significant 
likelihood of removal), the provisions in Sec. 241.4 for periodic 
review of the alien's detention will continue to apply. The periodic 
reviews under Sec. 241.4 will also apply to aliens who are continued in 
detention because of special circumstances, pursuant to Sec. 241.14.
    However, this rule does include procedural instructions to the 
Service to take account of the statutory provisions relating to the 
running of the removal period. The removal period is the time during 
which the Service and the alien seek to effect the final order of 
removal. The period described by the statute does not commence until 
the point at which the alien's removal can be effected--in a case that 
is stayed pending judicial review, the date when, pursuant to the 
court's orders, any stay of removal has expired. Accordingly, the 
regulations specify the circumstances to determine the commencement of 
the removal period under the statute, based on the earliest 
availability of a final, executable order of removal.
    The revisions to Sec. 241.4(g) specifically take account of the 
existing statutory provision in section 241(a)(1)(C) of the Act, which 
provides for extension of the length of the removal period beyond 90 
days, if the alien fails or refuses to make timely application in good 
faith for documents necessary to effect the alien's departure or 
conspires or acts to prevent his or her removal subject to an order of 
removal, deportation or exclusion. There are also applicable criminal 
sanctions in section 243(a) of the Act. These are not new obligations--
they are clearly established in the existing law--and this rule does 
not create any novel obligations for aliens who refuse to comply.
    Accordingly, this rule directs the Service to provide a Notice of 
Failure to Comply to the alien in order to make clear the statutory 
obligations, the grounds for determining that the alien has met those 
requirements, and the specific actions that the alien will need to take 
to comply. A Notice of Failure to Comply has the effect of extending 
the removal period as provided by law. Since the inability to obtain 
travel documents is the first criterion for release under 
Sec. 241.4(e), this rule provides that the Service shall also advise 
the alien that the Service shall not be obligated to complete its 
pending scheduled custody reviews under Sec. 241.4 until the alien has 
responded to the Notice of Failure to Comply and has demonstrated his 
or her compliance with the statutory requirements. Once the alien's 
statutory obligations are met, the Service will have a reasonable 
period to effect the alien's removal. (The Service's failure to provide 
a Notice of Failure to Comply during the 90-day removal period, 
however, does not have the effect of excusing the alien's conduct.)

Why is the Department Issuing Sec. 241.14 Regarding Special 
Circumstances?

    The Department is issuing Sec. 241.14 to provide procedures for 
determining whether particular removable aliens may be continued in 
detention even if their removal is not significantly likely in the 
reasonably foreseeable future, in light of the Supreme Court's decision 
in Zadvydas. Under section 241(a)(6) of the Act and the post-removal 
period review procedures in Sec. 241.4, the Service has been continuing 
to detain aliens subject to a final order of removal beyond the 
statutory removal period where the Service determines the alien to be 
either a risk to the community or a risk of flight. Zadvydas, however, 
interpreted section 241(a)(6) of the Act, in general, to provide that 
the Service cannot continue to detain criminal aliens who pose a risk 
to the community once there is not a significant likelihood of removal 
in the reasonably foreseeable future.
    However, the Court did acknowledge that there may be special 
circumstances where continued detention of particular aliens may be 
appropriate to avoid special risks to the public. The Court also 
indicated that detention due to dangerousness may be appropriate in 
certain limited situations where there are particular reasons to 
consider an alien to be specially dangerous. 121 S. Ct. at 2499 (``[W]e 
have upheld preventive detention based on dangerousness only when 
limited to specially dangerous individuals * * *''.). These special 
circumstances justifying continued detention may also be based on 
national security or terrorism grounds. 121 S. Ct. at 2502 (``Neither 
do we consider terrorism or other special circumstances where special 
arguments might be made for forms of preventive detention and for 
heightened deference to the judgments of the political branches with 
respect to matters of national security'').
    Section 241(a)(6) of the Act explicitly allows the Service to 
continue to detain aliens whom the Service determines to be a risk to 
the community. This rule is being issued to provide procedures to 
determine whether individual aliens can continue to be detained even 
when their removal is not reasonably foreseeable in accordance with the 
Court's decision in Zadvydas. The regulation is narrowly drawn to allow 
continued detention only in certain specific situations where the risk 
to the public is particularly strong, and where no conditions of 
release can avoid the danger to the public.
    This rule has been written to allow continued detention when there 
is not a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably 
foreseeable future, only in limited situations involving: (1) Highly 
contagious diseases posing a danger to the public; (2) foreign policy 
concerns; (3) national security and terrorism concerns; and (4) 
individuals who are specially dangerous due to a mental condition or 
personality disorder.
    The rule provides that, after the Service has determined in 
accordance with Sec. 241.13 that a particular alien's removal is not 
significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future, the Service 
may consider whether that alien's release presents such a danger to the 
public that the alien should remain detained due to those special 
circumstances.

What is the Procedure for a Determination That Continued Detention is 
Justified by Special Circumstances?

    The procedures for determining whether continued detention is 
justified on the basis of special circumstances depend upon which 
justification in Sec. 241.14 is invoked.
Aliens With Highly Contagious Diseases Posing a Danger to the Public
    Under Sec. 241.14(b)(1), the Service may continue to detain an 
alien with a highly contagious disease posing a danger to the public, 
upon the advice of the Public Health Service. The alien will remain in 
custody only until the Service, in consultation with the Public Health 
Service and appropriate state or local health officials, is able to 
make arrangements for appropriate medical treatment after the alien is 
released.
    This provision only applies to highly contagious diseases, such as 
active tuberculosis, smallpox or yellow fever, where the Public Health 
Service has affirmatively advised the Service that

[[Page 56973]]

releasing that alien would pose a danger to the public. Although the 
law and applicable regulations contain a much broader definition of 
contagious diseases for use in other immigration contexts (see section 
212(a)(1)(A) of the Act; 42 CFR 34.2), only the narrow definition of 
highly contagious diseases posing a danger to the public will be 
considered for purposes of special circumstances under this rule.
Aliens Whose Release Would Cause Serious Adverse Foreign Policy 
Consequences
    Section 241.14(c) allows the Service to continue to detain certain 
aliens whose release would have serious adverse foreign policy 
consequences. A determination not to release an alien because of 
serious adverse foreign policy consequences can only be made upon the 
recommendation of the Secretary of State.
    The Department has determined not to refer a decision to continue 
to detain someone under this justification for review by an immigration 
judge, and to rely upon the State Department's expertise in foreign 
policy matters to determine those rare instances when continued 
detention is appropriate. A decision to detain an alien on this ground 
would be based on the expertise of the Secretary of State in foreign 
relations and would not involve factual determinations of the sort that 
would necessitate a hearing before an immigration judge.
    In this context, due process is satisfied by an administrative 
determination by the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General, upon 
recommendation by the Secretary of State. Courts have long recognized 
that deference should be given to the Executive Branch regarding issues 
implicating foreign policy and our relations with other nations. 
Judicial deference to the Executive Branch is especially appropriate in 
the immigration context, where officials ``exercise especially 
sensitive political functions that implicate questions of foreign 
relations.'' See INS v. Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 U.S. 415, 425 (1999). In 
Zadvydas, 121 S. Ct. at 2502, the Court acknowledged that the judiciary 
should give deference to ``Executive Branch primacy in foreign policy 
matters.''
    These issues are addressed in more detail in the following section 
as well, in conjunction with the discussion of cases involving a 
significant national security or terrorism risk.
Aliens Whose Release Would Pose Significant National Security or 
Terrorism Risks
    Under Sec. 241.14(d), the Service shall continue to detain an alien 
whose release would pose a significant threat to the national security 
or a significant risk of terrorism.
    The rule provides that the Commissioner must make the decision to 
invoke the detention procedures on account of security or terrorism 
grounds, and provides for several levels of review at the highest 
levels of the Department of Justice in each case.
    At the start of the proceedings, the alien will be advised that the 
Service intends to keep the alien in custody and, to the greatest 
extent possible consistent with the protection of national security and 
classified information, will be provided a written description of the 
factual basis for the alien's continued detention. The alien will have 
the opportunity to submit a written statement and relevant evidence for 
consideration before a certification is made. The Commissioner shall 
consider all evidence relating to the case, including evidence that the 
alien has previously committed national security or terrorism-related 
offenses, has engaged in terrorist activity, or otherwise poses a 
danger to the national security in the United States or abroad; prior 
convictions in a federal, state or foreign court of relevance to the 
risk of release; and any other special circumstances relating to the 
alien's situation indicating that his or her release would pose a 
significant threat to the national security or a significant risk of 
terrorism.
    In any case where the basis of the alien's final order of removal 
was some ground not relating to terrorism or national security, and 
immigration officer will conduct an interview in person at which the 
alien may be represented by counsel and present any relevant evidence 
on his or her behalf. This situation will arise, for example, if an 
alien was ordered removed because he or she overstayed a student or 
tourist visa but the government has information indicating that the 
alien's release would pose a significant threat to the national 
security or a significant risk of terrorism.
    Based on the Commissioner's recommendation, and the recommendation 
of the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Attorney 
General personally shall determine whether to certify that the alien 
should not be released from custody because of a significant threat to 
the national security or a significant risk of terrorism. The rule 
provides that, before making such a certification, the Attorney General 
shall order any further hearings or review proceedings as may be 
appropriate under the circumstances.
    A decision to continue detention of a removable alien because of 
national security or terrorism concerns requires a predictive judgment. 
It is an attempt to predict an alien's possible future behavior and to 
assess whether, under compulsion of circumstances or for other reasons, 
he might act in a way that creates a real and legitimate national 
security threat or an imminent threat to public safety. The decision 
may be based upon past or present conduct, but it also may be based on 
a wide variety of other circumstances. Cf. Department of the Navy v. 
Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528-29 (1988) (applying this rationale in security 
clearance case). Thus, the ``attempt to define not only the 
individual's future actions, but those of outside and unknown 
influences renders the [decision] * * * an inexact science at best.'' 
See Adams v. Laird, 420 F.2d 230, 239 (D.C. Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 
397 U.S. 1039 (1970).
    In these circumstances, it is the Attorney General who is best 
situated to assess the due process interests of any particular alien 
with respect to the matters at issue, to weigh those interests against 
the national security and public safety concerns presented in the case, 
to assess the nature and quality of the information that triggered 
those concerns, and to provide procedures that honor those competing 
interests. This section creates a process whereby that Executive 
authority and expertise can be exercised.
    The Department has decided to include these provisions for 
continued detention because cases may arise where the Attorney General 
believes that it would be irresponsible to release from detention an 
alien subject to a final order of removal because the release of the 
alien would result in serious damage to the national security or pose 
an imminent threat of terrorism. Similarly, there may arise a case 
where the Attorney General believes, based on a recommendation by the 
Secretary of State, that it would be irresponsible to release an alien 
because of serious adverse foreign policy consequences.
    Because of the unique relationship that the Attorney General 
maintains with the intelligence community, particularly the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation, and based on the broad delegation of 
discretionary authority granted the Attorney General by Congress in the 
Act, as well as the Attorney General's unique responsibilities in the 
Executive Branch,

[[Page 56974]]

this section places in the Attorney General the personal responsibility 
to make the final certification, in those cases where he determines 
that continued detention beyond the presumptively reasonably six-month 
period is warranted because of significant national security or 
terrorism concerns.
    Similarly, as provided in Sec. 241.14(c), the State Department is 
the appropriate agency to assess the foreign policy implications of the 
release of a particular alien. The judiciary is not well positioned to 
shoulder primary responsibility for determining the likelihood and 
importance of such diplomatic repercussions. See INS v. Abudu, 485 U.S. 
94, 110 (1988).
    Where national security, foreign relations, and immigration matters 
converge, as they do in these cases, the decision to detain a certain 
alien will require the perspective only a high Aguirre-Aguirre, 526 
U.S. 415, 425 (1999) (``judicial deference to the Executive Branch is 
especially appropriate in the immigration context where officials 
exercise especially sensitive political functions that implicate 
questions of foreign relations''); Galvan v. Press, 347 U.S. 522, 531 
(1954) (``Policies pertaining to * * * right [of aliens] to remain here 
are peculiarly concerned with the political conduct of government.''); 
Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, 525 U.S. 471, 491 
(1999) (declaring that courts are unable to assess the adequacy of the 
Executive's reasons for ``deeming nationals of a particular country a 
special threat''); People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran v. 
Department of State, 182 F.3d 17, 23 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (Executive Branch 
finding that foreign terrorist organization threatened national 
security is nonjusticiable because ``[t]hese are political judgments, 
decisions of a kind for which the Judiciary has neither aptitude, 
facilities nor responsibility and have long been held to belong to the 
domain of political power not subject to judicial intrusion or 
inquiry''), cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1104 (2000).
Specially Dangerous Aliens
    Under Sec. 241.14(f) the Service may seek to detain specially 
dangerous aliens. Subject to review before an immigration judge, the 
Service shall continue to detain in alien if the alien's release would 
create a special danger to the public due to the three factors 
identified in Sec. 241.14(f)(1):
     The alien must have been convicted of a crime of violence 
as defined as 18 U.S.C. 16. This will include relevant state 
convictions where the offense meets the definitions of a ``crime of 
violence'' under 18 U.S.C. 16.
     Due to a mental condition or personality disorder and 
behavior associated with that condition or disorder, the alien is 
likely to engage in acts of violence in the future.
     No conditions of release can reasonably be expected to 
ensure the safety of the public.
    The Department recognizes that freedom from bodily restraint has 
always been at the core of the liberty protected by the Due Process 
Clause from arbitrary government action. See, e.g., Youngberg v. Romeo, 
457 U.S. 307, 316 (1982). However, the Supreme Court has held that the 
``Government's regulatory interest in community safety can, in 
appropriate circumstances, outweigh an individual's liberty interest.'' 
United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 748 (1987); see also Foucha v. 
Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71, 80 (1992). Many states ``have in certain narrow 
circumstances provided for the forcible civil detainment of people who 
are unable to control their behavior and thereby pose a danger to the 
public health and safety.'' Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 357 
(1997). The Supreme Court has ``consistently upheld such involuntary 
commitment statutes provided the confinement takes place pursuant to 
proper procedures and evidentiary standards.'' Id.
    Accordingly, the Department has decided that it is necessary to 
provide specific procedural protections to aliens who may be considered 
for detention under this standard. See Zadvydas, 121 S. Ct. at 2499 
(discussing continued detention of ``specially dangerous individuals'' 
subject to strong procedural protections). Such cases will be referred 
for a hearing under appropriate standards, where an immigration judge 
will conduct a full hearing, limited to reviewing the Service's 
determination regarding dangerousness, and where the Service has the 
burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence.
    This rule contemplates that evidence of the alien's dangerousness 
must be accompanied by additional evidence relating to whether the 
alien's mental condition or personality disorder, and associated 
physical behavior, indicates that the alien is likely to engage in acts 
of violence in the future. Where preventive detention can be of 
indefinite duration, the Court ``has demanded that the dangerousness 
rationale be accompanied by some other special circumstances such as 
mental illness, that helps to create the danger.'' Id.
    The rule requires that the Service rely upon a report by a 
physician employed or designated by the Public Health Service, after a 
full psychiatric evaluation of the alien, before initiating the review 
procedures to establish that the alien is specially dangerous. The 
Service cannot determine the issue of dangerousness without the 
recommendation of the physician who is a neutral and professional 
decisionmaker. Cf. Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 607 (1979) (due 
process is satisfied where the neutral decisionmaker is a medical 
professional making a medical judgment); see also Youngberg v. Romeo, 
457 U.S. 397, 323 (1982) (due process only requires the courts to make 
certain that professional judgment was exercised; a decision, if made 
by a professional, presumptively valid.)
    The provisions of this rule authorizing continuing detention apply 
only where the alien poses a special danger to others under the 
standards of the rule, not for those cases where an alien is mentally 
incompetent but poses no danger to others. In the latter case, where 
the Service determines that it cannot responsibly release, without 
continued care or treatment, an alien who is incapable of caring for 
himself or herself on account of mental illness or mental incompetence, 
the Service will not continue to detain the alien indefinitely under 
the authority of section 241(a)(6) of the Act. Instead, the Service 
will initiate appropriate efforts with the alien's family members, the 
Public Health Service, or proper State or local government officials to 
secure proper arrangements for the alien's continued care or treatment, 
as a condition of the alien's release. Accordingly, Sec. 241.14(f) does 
not apply to such aliens.
    The rule provides that review proceedings will take place before an 
immigration judge in two phases. After the case is referred for a 
hearing, the immigration judge will promptly schedule a reasonable 
cause proceeding. The purpose of the reasonable cause hearing is to 
provide a quick evaluation by a neutral decision maker as to whether 
there is a sufficient basis to proceed with the review proceedings.
    The reasonable cause hearing is intended to be only a preliminary 
review of the case, and will likely be based on the evidence initially 
provided by the Service when it instituted the review proceedings. This 
hearing is not intended to duplicate the full hearing on the merits of 
the alien's circumstances, but only to determine whether there is 
reasonable cause to proceed. The merits hearing is necessary in order 
to provide

[[Page 56975]]

due process, but it will also necessarily require additional time for 
preparation and resolution, and the Service must continue to detain the 
alien pending the completion of those proceedings.
    If the immigration judge determines that the Service has failed to 
meet its burden of establishing reasonable cause, the immigration judge 
may dismiss the review proceeding without a full hearing on the merits. 
In that case, the Service will be able to make an expedited appeal to 
the Board. Under the rule, a single Board Member will review the record 
under the Board's rules and determine whether the Service has 
established reasonable cause to continue the review proceedings.
    Once it is determined that there is reasonable cause for further 
proceedings, the immigration judge will promptly schedule a merits 
hearing. At all phases of the review process, the alien will have a 
number of important rights, including the right to be represented by 
counsel at no cost to the government, the right to examine the evidence 
presented by the Service, and the right to cross-examine any witnesses 
that the Service presents. At the merits hearing, the alien will enjoy 
the additional right to cross-examine the medical doctor who authored 
any medical report that formed the basis for the Service's 
determination that the alien is specially dangerous.
    In Sec. 241.14(i)(2), the rule provides a non-exclusive list of 
factors the immigration judge will consider in making a determination 
at the conclusion of a merits hearing. If the immigration judge 
concludes that the Service has met its burden by clear and convincing 
evidence, the immigration judge will enter an order for the continued 
detention of the alien. If the immigration judge concludes that the 
Service has not met its burden, the review proceedings will be 
dismissed.
    Either party may appeal the immigration judge's decision after the 
merits hearing to the Board of Immigration Appeals pursuant to 
Sec. 3.38, except that the Service will have only five business days to 
appeal an adverse decision to the Board. If the Service appeals a 
dismissal of review proceedings, the immigration judge's order shall be 
automatically stayed until the Board renders its decision. The Board 
shall expedite review of a decision and shall consider detention cases 
involving specially dangerous aliens under Sec. 241.14 as its highest 
priority.
    If a final decision by either the immigration judge or the Board 
orders the dismissal of the review proceedings, the Service will 
promptly release the alien on conditions of supervision to be 
determined by the Service pursuant to Sec. 241.13. As in all other 
cases involving post-order detention, it is the responsibility of the 
Service to determine the appropriate conditions of supervision, in 
order to protect the public and to deter the alien's flight. 
Accordingly, the conditions of release will not be subject to review by 
either the immigration judge or the Board.
    The case of any alien ordered to remain in Service custody by 
either an immigration judge or the Board will be periodically reviewed 
to determine whether the alien's release still poses a special danger 
to the public. The Service will continue to review the alien's case 
periodically according to Sec. 241.4. The alien may also request review 
of his or her case by the Service and the immigration judge because, 
due to materially changed circumstances, the alien's release would no 
longer pose a special danger to the public.
    The alien must make the request first to the Service, in order to 
allow the Service to evaluate all of the circumstances and to determine 
whether the alien would still pose a special danger to the public. 
After the Service responds to the alien's request, the alien will have 
the right to file a motion to set aside the prior determination in the 
review proceedings. In that motion, the alien will bear the burden of 
proof to demonstrate that the alien's circumstances have changed 
materially, and that because of those changed circumstances, the 
alien's release would no longer pose a special danger to the public. If 
the immigration judge determines that the alien has shown good reason 
to believe that this is true, the immigration judge shall set aside the 
prior determination and schedule the case for a new merits hearing 
under Sec. 241.14(i). Otherwise, the immigration judge will deny the 
motion. If review is denied, the alien may renew the request for 
release based on changed circumstances six months after the prior 
determination under Sec. 241.14(i).

Effective Date of This Interim Rule

    The Department's implementation of this interim rule effective upon 
publication in the Federal Register, with provision for post-
promulgation of public comment, is based upon the ``good cause'' 
exceptions found at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3). In response to 
the Supreme Court's decision limiting the authority to continue aliens 
in detention after the removal period under section 241(a)(6) of the 
Act, it is essential to implement without delay a standardized plan for 
dealing with the detention or release of numerous aliens whom the 
Service had determined should not be released because of a danger to 
the public or a risk of flight. Hundreds of individuals are affected. 
Failure to act expeditiously would be contrary to the public interest 
because it would result in continuing uncertainty and delay compliance 
with the law. Accordingly, the Service finds that there is good cause 
to forgo prior publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking and to 
make this rule effective upon publication in the Federal Register.

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. This rule would 
provide a more uniform review process governing the detention of 
certain aliens who have received a final administrative removal order 
but whose departure has not been effected within the 90-day removal 
period. This rule does not affect small entities as that term is 
defined in 5 U.S.C. 601(6).

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 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 rule is not a major rule as defined by section 251 of the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 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 rule is considered by the Department to be a ``significant 
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), 
Regulatory Planning and Review. Accordingly, this

[[Page 56976]]

rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for 
review.

Executive Order 13132

    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

    This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) 
and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, all 
Departments are required to submit to the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB), for review and approval, any reporting or recordkeeping 
requirements inherent in a final rule. Although Sec. 241.13 and 
Sec. 241.14 provide that an alien held in a detention facility may 
submit a written request and supporting documentation in support of his 
or her assertion that removal is not reasonably foreseeable, the 
request and documentation are not considered collections of information 
under 5 CFR 1320.3 and 1320.4. Accordingly, this rule does not impose 
any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act.

List of Subjects

8 CFR Part 3

    Administrative practice and procedure, Immigration, Organization 
and functions (government agencies).

 8 CFR Part 241

    Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Immigration.

    Accordingly, chapter I of title 8 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations is 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, 
1252b, 1324b, 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.

    2. In Sec. 3.1, the next to last sentence of paragraph (a)(1) is 
revised and paragraph (b)(14) is added, to read as follows:


Sec. 3.1  General authorities.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * * 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; an appeal by the Service of a 
reasonable cause decision under Sec. 241.14(h)(4) of this chapter; and 
other procedural or ministerial issues as provided by the Chairman. * * 
*
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (14) Decisions of immigration judges regarding custody of aliens 
subject to a final order of removal made pursuant to Sec. 241.14 of 
this chapter.
* * * * *

PART 241--APPREHENSION AND DETENTION OF ALIENS ORDERED REMOVED

    3. The authority citation for part 241 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1223, 1227, 1231, 1253, 1253, 1255, 
and 1330; 8 CFR part 2.

    4. Section 241.4 is amended by
    a. Adding a new paragraph (b)(4);
    b. Removing the words ``beyond the removal period'' in paragraph 
(g) heading;
    c. Redesignating paragraphs (g)(1) through (g)(4) as paragraphs 
(g)(2) through (g)(5), respectively;
    d. Adding a new paragraph (g)(1);
    e. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (g)(5); and by
    f. Adding a new paragraph (i)(7).
    The additions and revisions reasons as follows:


Sec. 241.4  Continued detention of inadmissible, criminal, and other 
aliens beyond the removal period.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) Service determination under 8 CFR 241.13. The custody review 
procedures in this section do not apply after the Service has made a 
determination, pursuant to the procedures provided in 8 CFR 241.13, 
that there is no significant likelihood that an alien under a final 
order of removal can be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future. 
However, if the Service subsequently determines, because of a change of 
circumstances, that there is a significant likelihood that the alien 
may be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future to the country to 
which the alien was ordered removed or to a third country, the alien 
shall again be subject to the custody review procedures under this 
section.
* * * * *
    (g) * * *
    (1) Removal period. (i) The removal period for an alien subject to 
a final order of removal shall begin on the latest of the following 
dates:
    (A) the date the order becomes administratively final;
    (B) If the removal order is subject to judicial review (including 
review by habeas corpus) and if the court has ordered a stay of the 
alien's removal, the date on which, consistent with the court's order, 
the removal order can be executed and the alien removed; or
    (C) If the alien was detained or confined, except in connection 
with a proceeding under this chapter relating to removability, the date 
the alien is released from the detention or confinement.
    (ii) The removal period shall run for a period of 90 days. However, 
the removal period is extended under section 241(a)(1)(C) of the Act if 
the alien fails or refuses to make timely application in good faith for 
travel or other documents necessary to the alien's departure or 
conspires or acts to prevent the alien's removal subject to an order of 
removal. The Service will provide such an alien with a Notice of 
Failure to Comply, as provided in paragraph (g)(5) of this section, 
before the expiration of the removal period. The removal period shall 
be extended until the alien demonstrates to the Service that he or she 
has complied with the statutory obligations. Once the alien has 
complied with his or her obligations under the law, the Service shall 
have a reasonable period of time in order to effect the alien's 
removal.
* * * * *
    (5) Alien's compliance and cooperation. (i) Release will be denied 
and the alien may remain in detention if the alien fails or refuses to 
make timely application in good faith for travel documents necessary to 
the alien's departure or conspires or acts to prevent the alien's 
removal. The detention provisions of section 241(a)(2) of the Act will 
continue to apply, including provisions that mandate detention of 
certain criminal and terrorist aliens.

[[Page 56977]]

    (ii) The Service shall serve the alien with a Notice of Failure to 
Comply, which shall advise the alien of the following: the provisions 
of sections 241(a)(1)(C) (extension of removal period) and 243(a) of 
the Act (criminal penalties related to removal); the circumstances 
demonstrating his or her failure to comply with the requirements of 
section 241(a)(1)(C) of the Act; and an explanation of the necessary 
steps that the alien must take in order to comply with the statutory 
requirements.
    (iii) The Service shall advise the alien that the Notice of Failure 
to Comply shall have the effect of extending the removal period as 
provided by law, if the removal period has not yet expired, and that 
the Service is not obligated to complete its scheduled custody reviews 
under this section until the alien has demonstrated compliance with the 
statutory obligations.
    (iv) The fact that the Service does not provide a Notice of Failure 
to Comply, within the 90-day removal period, to an alien who has failed 
to comply with the requirements of section 241(a)(1)(C) of the Act, 
shall not have the effect of excusing the alien's conduct.
* * * * *
    (i) * * *
    (7) No significant likelihood or removal. During the custody review 
process as provided in this paragraph (i), or at the conclusion of that 
review, if the alien submits, or the record contains, information 
providing a substantial reason to believe that the removal of a 
detained alien is not significantly likely in the reasonably 
foreseeable future, the HQPDU shall treat that as a request for review 
and initiate the review procedures under Sec. 241.13. To the extent 
relevant, the HQPDU may consider any information developed during the 
custody review process under this section in connection with the 
determinations to be made by the Service under Sec. 241.13. The Service 
shall complete the custody review under this section unless the HQPDU 
is able to make a prompt determination to release the alien under an 
order of supervision under Sec. 241.13 because there is no significant 
likelihood that the alien will be removed in the reasonably foreseeable 
future.
* * * * *


Sec. 241.4  [Amended]

    5. Section 241.4 is further amended by removing the term ``90-day'' 
whenever that term appears in the following paragraphs:
    (c)(1)
    (c)(2)
    (h)(1)
    (k)(1)(i)
    (k)(1)(ii)
    6. Section 241.13 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 241.13  Determination of whether there is a significant likelihood 
of removing a detained alien in the reasonably foreseeable future.

    (a) Scope. This section establishes special review procedures for 
those aliens who are subject to a final order of removal and are 
detained under the custody review procedures provided at Sec. 241.4 
after the expiration of the removal period, where the alien has 
provided good reason to believe there is no significant likelihood of 
removal to the country to which he or she was ordered removed, or to a 
third country, in the reasonably foreseeable future.
    (b) Applicability to particular aliens. (1) Relationship to 
Sec. 241.4. Section 241.4 shall continue to govern the detention of 
aliens under a final order of removal, including aliens who have 
requested a review of the likelihood of their removal under this 
section, unless the Service makes a determination under this section 
that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably 
foreseeable future. The Service may release an alien under an order of 
supervision under Sec. 241.4 if it determines that the alien would not 
pose a danger to the public or a risk of flight, without regard to the 
likelihood of the alien's removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.
    (2) Continued detention pending determinations. (i) The Service's 
Headquarters Post-order Detention Unit (HQPDU) shall continue in 
custody any alien described in paragraph (a) of this section during the 
time the Service is pursuing the procedures of this section to 
determine whether there is no significant likelihood the alien can be 
removed in the reasonably foreseeable future. The HQPDU shall continue 
in custody any alien described in paragraph (a) of this section for 
whom it has determined that special circumstances exist and custody 
procedures under Sec. 241.14 have been initiated.
    (ii) The HQPDU has no obligation to release an alien under this 
section until the HQPDU has had the opportunity during a six-month 
period, dating from the beginning of the removal period (whenever that 
period begins and unless that period is extended as provided in section 
241(a)(1) of the Act), to make its determination as to whether there is 
a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable 
future.
    (3) Limitations. This section does not apply to:
    (i) Arriving aliens, including those who have not entered the 
United States, those who have been granted immigration parole into the 
United States, and Mariel Cubans whose parole is governed by 
Sec. 212.12 of this chapter;
    (ii) Aliens subject to a final order of removal who are still 
within the removal period, including aliens whose removal period has 
been extended for failure to comply with the requirements of section 
241(a)(1)(C) of the Act; or
    (iii) Aliens who are ordered removed by the Alien Terrorist Removal 
Court pursuant to title 5 of the Act.
    (c) Delegation of authority. The HQPDU shall conduct a review under 
this section, in response to a request from a detained alien, in order 
to determine whether there is no significant likelihood that the alien 
will be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future. If so, the HQPDU 
shall determine whether the alien should be released from custody under 
appropriate conditions of supervision or should be referred for a 
determination under Sec. 241.14 as to whether the alien's continued 
detention may be justified by special circumstances.
    (d) Showing by the alien. (1) Written request. An eligible alien 
may submit a written request for release to the HQPDU asserting the 
basis for the alien's belief that there is no significant likelihood 
that the alien will be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future to 
the country to which the alien was ordered removed and there is no 
third country willing to accept the alien. The alien may submit 
whatever documentation to the HQPDU he or she wishes in support of the 
assertion that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the 
reasonably foreseeable future.
    (2) Compliance and cooperation with removal efforts. The alien 
shall include with the written request information sufficient to 
establish his or her compliance with the obligation to effect his or 
her removal and to cooperate in the process of obtaining necessary 
travel documents.
    (3) Timing of request. An eligible alien subject to a final order 
of removal may submit, at any time after the removal order becomes 
final, a written request under this section asserting that his or her 
removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable 
future. However, the Service may, in the exercise of its discretion, 
postpone its consideration of such a request until after expiration of 
the removal period.
    (e) Review by HQPDU. (1) Initial response. Within 10 business days 
after the HQPDU receives the request (or, if later, the expiration of 
the removal

[[Page 56978]]

period), the HQPDU shall respond in writing to the alien, with a copy 
to counsel of record, by regular mail, acknowledging receipt of the 
request for a review under this section and explaining the procedures 
that will be used to evaluate the request. The notice shall advise the 
alien that the Service may continue to detain the alien until it has 
made a determination under this section whether there is a significant 
likelihood the alien can be removed in the reasonably foreseeable 
future.
    (2) Lack of compliance, failure to cooperate. The HQPDU shall first 
determine if the alien has failed to make reasonable efforts to comply 
with the removal order, has failed to cooperate fully in effecting 
removal, or has obstructed or hampered the removal process. If so, the 
HQPDU shall so advise the alien in writing, with a copy to counsel of 
record by regular mail. The HQPDU shall advise the alien of the efforts 
he or she needs to make in order to assist in securing travel documents 
for return to his or her country of origin or a third country, as well 
as the consequences of failure to make such efforts or to cooperate, 
including the provisions of section 243(a) of the Act. The Service 
shall not be obligated to conduct a further consideration of the 
alien's request for release until the alien has responded to the HQPDU 
and has established his or her compliance with the statutory 
requirements.
    (3) Referral to the State Department. If the HQPDU believes that 
the alien's request provides grounds for further review, the Service 
may, in the exercise of its discretion, forward a copy of the alien's 
release request to the Department of State for information and 
assistance. The Department of State may provide detailed country 
conditions information or any other information that may be relevant to 
whether a travel document is obtainable from the country at issue. The 
Department of State may also provide an assessment of the accuracy of 
the alien's assertion that he or she cannot be returned to the country 
at issue or to a third country. When the Service bases its decision, in 
whole or in part, on information provided by the Department of State, 
that information shall be made part of the record.
    (4) Response by alien. The Service shall permit the alien an 
opportunity to respond to the evidence on which the Service intends to 
rely, including the Department of State's submission, if any, and other 
evidence of record presented by the Service prior to any HQPDU 
decision. The alien may provide any additional relevant information to 
the Service, including reasons why his or her removal would not be 
significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future even though 
the Service has generally been able to accomplish the removal of other 
aliens to the particular country.
    (5) Interview. The HQPDU may grant the alien an interview, whether 
telephonically or in person, if the HQPDU determines that an interview 
would provide assistance in reaching a decision. If an interview is 
scheduled, the HQPDU will provide an interpreter upon its determination 
that such assistance is appropriate.
    (6) Special circumstances. If the Service determines that there are 
special circumstances justifying the alien's continued detention 
nowithstanding the determination that removal is not significantly 
likely in the reasonably foreseeable future, the Service shall initiate 
the review procedures in Sec. 241.14, and provide written notice to the 
alien. In appropriate cases, the Service may initiate review 
proceedings under Sec. 241.14 before completing the HQPDU review under 
this section.
    (f) Factors for consideration. The HQPDU shall consider all the 
facts of the case including, but not limited to, the history of the 
alien's efforts to comply with the order of removal, the history of the 
Service's efforts to remove aliens to the country in question or to 
third countries, including the ongoing nature of the Service's efforts 
to remove this alien and the alien's assistance with those efforts, the 
reasonably foreseeable results of those efforts, the views of the 
Department of State regarding the prospects for removal of aliens to 
the country or countries in question, and the receiving country's 
willingness to accept the alien into its territory. Where the Service 
is continuing its efforts to remove the alien, there is no presumptive 
period of time within which the alien's removal must be accomplished, 
but the prospects for the timeliness of removal must be reasonable 
under the circumstances.
    (g) Decision. The HQPDU shall issue a written decision based on the 
administrative record, including any documentation provided by the 
alien, regarding the likelihood of removal and whether there is a 
significant likelihood that the alien will be removed in the reasonably 
foreseeable future under the circumstances. The HQPDU shall provide the 
decision to the alien, with a copy to counsel of record, by regular 
mail.
    (1) Finding of no significant likelihood of removal. If the HQPDU 
determines at the conclusion of the review that there is no significant 
likelihood that the alien will be removed in the reasonably foreseeable 
future, despite the Service's and the alien's efforts to effect 
removal, then the HQPDU shall so advise the alien. Unless there are 
special circumstances justifying continued detention, the Service shall 
promptly make arrangements for the release of the alien subject to 
appropriate conditions, as provided in paragraph (h) of this section. 
The Service may require that the alien submit to a medical or 
psychiatric examination prior to establishing appropriate conditions 
for release or determining whether to refer the alien for further 
proceedings under Sec. 214.14 because of special circumstances 
justifying continued detention. The Service is not required to release 
an alien if the alien refuses to submit to a medical or psychiatric 
examination as ordered.
    (2) Denial. If the HQPDU determines at the conclusion of the review 
that there is a significant likelihood that the alien will be removed 
in the reasonably foreseeable future, the HQPDU shall deny the alien's 
request under this section. The denial shall advise the alien that his 
or her detention will continue to be governed under the established 
standards in Sec. 214.4. There is no administrative appeal from the 
HQPDU decision denying a request from an alien under this section.
    (h) Conditions of release. (1) In general. An alien's release 
pursuant to an HQPDU determination that the alien's removal is not 
significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future shall be upon 
appropriate conditions specified in this paragraph and in the order of 
supervision, in order to protect the public safety and to promote the 
ability of the Service to effect the alien's removal as ordered, or 
removal to a third country, should circumstances change in the future. 
The order of supervision shall include all of the conditions provided 
in section 241(a)(3) of the Act, and Sec. 241.5, and shall also include 
the conditions that the alien obey all laws, including any applicable 
prohibitions on the possession or use of firearms (see, e.g., 18 U.S.C. 
922(g)); and that the alien continue to seek to obtain travel documents 
and provide the Service with all correspondence to Embassies/Consulates 
requesting the issuance of travel documents and any reply from the 
Embassy/Consulate. The order of supervision may also include any other 
conditions that the HQPDU considers necessary to ensure public safety 
and guarantee the alien's compliance with the order of removal, 
including, but not limited to, attendance at any rehabilitative/
sponsorship program or

[[Page 56979]]

submission for medical or psychiatric examination, as ordered.
    (2) Advice of consequences for violating conditions of release. The 
order of supervision shall advise an alien released under this section 
that he or she must abide by the conditions of release specified by the 
Service. The order of supervision shall also advise the alien of the 
consequences of violation of the conditions of release, including the 
authority to return the alien to custody and the sanctions provided in 
section 243(b) of the Act.
    (3) Employment authorization. The Service may, in the exercise of 
its discretion, grant employment authorization under the same 
conditions set forth in Sec. 241.5(c) for aliens released under an 
order of supervision.
    (4) Withdrawal of release approval. The Service may, in the 
exercise of its discretion, withdraw approval for release of any alien 
under this section prior to release in order to effect removal in the 
reasonably foreseeable future or where the alien refuses to comply with 
the conditions of release.
    (i) Revocation of release.
    (1) Violation of conditions of release. Any alien who has been 
released under an order of supervision under this section who violates 
any of the conditions of release may be returned to custody and is 
subject to the penalties described in section 243(b) of the Act. In 
suitable cases, the HQPDU shall refer the case to the appropriate U.S. 
Attorney for criminal prosecution. The alien may be continued in 
detention for an additional six months in order to effect the alien's 
removal, if possible, and to effect the conditions under which the 
alien had been released.
    (2) Revocation for removal. The Service may revoke an alien's 
release under this section and return the alien to custody if, on 
account of changed circumstances, the Service determines that there is 
a significant likelihood that the alien may be removed in the 
reasonably foreseeable future. Thereafter, if the alien is not released 
from custody following the informal interview provided for in paragraph 
(h)(3) of this section, the provisions of Sec. 241.4 shall govern the 
alien's continued detention pending removal.
    (3) Revocation procedures. Upon revocation, the alien will be 
notified of the reasons for revocation of his or her release. The 
Service will conduct an initial informal interview promptly after his 
or her return to Service custody to afford the alien an opportunity to 
respond to the reasons for revocation stated in the notification. The 
alien may submit any evidence or information that he or she believes 
shows there is no significant likelihood he or she be removed in the 
reasonably foreseeable future, or that he or she has not violated the 
order of supervision. The revocation custody review will include an 
evaluation of any contested facts relevant to the revocation and a 
determination whether the facts as determined warrant revocation and 
further denial of release.
    (j) Subsequent requests for review. If the Service has denied an 
alien's request for release under this section, the alien may submit a 
request for review of his or her detention under this section, six 
months after the Service's last denial of release under this section. 
After applying the procedures in this section, the HQPDU shall consider 
any additional evidence provided by the alien or available to the 
Service as well as the evidence in the prior proceedings but the HQPDC 
shall render a de novo decision on the likelihood of removing the alien 
in the reasonably foreseeable future under the circumstances.

    7. Section 241.14 is added to read as follows:


Sec. 241.14  Continued detention of removable aliens on account of 
special circumstances.

    (a) Scope. The Service may invoke the procedures of this section in 
order to continue detention of particular removable aliens on account 
of special circumstances even though there is no significant likelihood 
that the alien will be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future.
    (1) Applicability. This section applies to removable aliens as to 
whom the Service has made a determination under Sec. 241.13 that there 
is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable 
future. This section does not apply to aliens who are not subject to 
the special review provisions under Sec. 241.13.
    (2) Jurisdiction. The immigration judges and the Board have 
jurisdiction with respect to determinations as to whether release of an 
alien would pose a special danger to the public, as provided in 
paragraphs (f) through (k) of this section, but do not have 
jurisdiction with respect to aliens described in paragraphs (b), (c), 
or (d) of this section.
    (b) Aliens with a highly contagious disease that is a threat to 
public safety. If, after a medical examination of the alien, the 
Service determines that a removable alien presents a threat to public 
safety initiate efforts with the Public Health Service or proper State 
and local government officials to secure appropriate arrangements for 
the alien's continued medical care or treatment.
    (1) Recommendation. The Service shall not invoke authority to 
continue detention of an alien under this paragraph except upon the 
express recommendation of the Public Health Service. The Service will 
provide every reasonably available form of treatment while the alien 
remains in the custody of the Service.
    (2) Conditions of release. If the Service, in consultation with the 
Public Health Service and the alien, identifies an appropriate medical 
facility that will treat the alien, then the alien may be released on 
condition that he or she continue with appropriate medical treatment 
until he or she no longer poses a threat to public safety because of a 
highly contagious disease.
    (c) Aliens detained on account of serious adverse foreign policy 
consequences of release. (1) Certification. The Service shall continue 
to detain a removable alien where the Attorney General or Deputy 
Attorney General has certified in writing that:
    (i) Without regard to the grounds upon which the alien has been 
found inadmissible or removable, the alien is a person described in 
section 212(a)(3)(C) or section 237(a)(4)(C) of the Act;
    (ii) The alien's release is likely to have serious adverse foreign 
policy consequences for the United States; and
    (iii) No conditions of release can reasonably be expected to avoid 
those serious adverse foreign policy consequences,
    (2) Foreign policy consequences. A certification by the Attorney 
General or Deputy Attorney General that an alien should not be released 
from custody on account of serious adverse foreign policy consequences 
shall be made only after consultation with the Department of State and 
upon the recommendation of the Secretary of State.
    (3) Ongoing review. The certification is subject to ongoing review 
on a semi-annual basis but is not subject to further administrative 
review.
    (d) Aliens detained on account of security or terrorism concerns. 
(1) Standard for continued detention. Subject to the review procedures 
under this paragraph (d), the Service shall continue to detain a 
removable alien based on a determination in writing that:
    (i) The alien is a person described in section 212(a)(3)(A) or (B) 
or section 237(a)(4)(A) of (B) of the Act or the alien has engaged or 
will likely engage in any other activity that endangers the national 
security;
    (ii) The alien's release presents a significant threat to the 
national security or a significant risk of terrorism; and
    (iii) No conditions of release can reasonably be expected to avoid 
the

[[Page 56980]]

threat to the national security or the risk of terrorism, as the case 
may be.
    (2) Procedure. Prior to the Commissioner's recommendation to the 
Attorney General under paragraph (d)(5) of this section, the alien 
shall be notified of the Service's intention to continue the alien in 
detention and of the alien's right to submit a written statement and 
additional information for consideration by the Commissioner. The 
Service shall continue to detain the alien pending the decision of the 
Attorney General under this paragraph. To the greatest extent 
consistent with protection of the national security and classified 
information:
    (i) The Service shall provide a description of the factual basis 
for the alien's continued detention; and
    (ii) The alien shall have a reasonable opportunity to examine 
evidence against him or her, and to present information on his or her 
own behalf.
    (3) Aliens ordered removed on grounds other than national security 
or terrorism. If the alien's final order of removal was based on 
grounds of inadmissibility other than any of those stated in section 
212(a)(3)(A)(i), (A)(iii), or (B) of the Act, or on grounds of 
deportability other than any of those stated in section 237(a)(4)(A) or 
(B) of the Act:
    (i) An immigration officer shall, if possible, conduct an interview 
in person and take a sworn question-and-answer statement from the 
alien, and the Service shall provide an interpreter for such interview, 
if such assistance is determined to be appropriate; and
    (ii) The alien may be accompanied at the interview by an attorney 
or other representative of his or her choice in accordance with 8 CFR 
part 292, at no expense to the government.
    (4) Factors for consideration. In making a recommendation to the 
Attorney General that an alien should not be released from custody on 
account of security or terrorism concerns, the Commissioner shall take 
into account all relevant information, including but not limited to:
    (i) The recommendations of appropriate enforcement officials of the 
Service, including the director of the Headquarters Post-order 
Detention Unit (HQPDU), and of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or 
other federal law enforcement or national security agencies;
    (ii) The statements and information submitted by the alien, if any;
    (iii) The extent to which the alien's previous conduct (including 
but not limited to the commission of national security or terrorism-
related offenses, engaging in terrorist activity or other activity that 
poses a danger to the national security and any prior convictions in a 
federal, state or foreign court) indicates a likelihood that the 
alien's release would present a significant threat to the national 
security or a significant risk of terrorism; and
    (iv) Other special circumstances of the alien's case indicating 
that release from detention would present a significant threat to the 
national security or a significant risk of terrorism.
    (5) Recommendation to the Attorney General. The Commissioner shall 
submit a written recommendation and make the record available to the 
Attorney General. If the continued detention is based on a significant 
risk of terrorism, the recommendation shall state in as much detail as 
practicable the factual basis for this determination.
    (6) Attorney General certification. Based on the record developed 
by the Service, and upon this recommendation of the Commissioner and 
the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Attorney 
General may certify that an alien should continue to be detained on 
account of security or terrorism grounds as provided in this paragraph 
(d). Before making such a certification, the Attorney General shall 
order any further procedures or reviews as may be necessary under the 
circumstances to ensure the development of a complete record, 
consistent with the obligations to protect national security and 
classified information and to comply with the requirements of due 
process.
    (7) Ongoing review. The detention decision under this paragraph (d) 
is subject to ongoing review on a semi-annual basis as provided in this 
paragraph (d), but is not subject to further administrative review. 
After the initial certification by the Attorney General, further 
certifications under paragraph (d)(6) of this section may be made by 
the Deputy Attorney General.
    (e) [Reserved]
    (f) Detention of aliens determined to be specially dangerous. (1) 
Standard for continued detention. Subject to the review procedures 
provided in this section, the Service shall continue to detain an alien 
if the release of the alien would pose a special danger to the public, 
because:
    (i) The alien has previously committed one or more crimes of 
violence as defined in 18 U.S.C. 16;
    (ii) Due to a mental condition or personality disorder and behavior 
associated with that condition or disorder, the alien is likely to 
engage in acts of violence in the future; and
    (iii) No conditions of release can reasonably be expected to ensure 
the safety of the public.
    (2) Determination by the Commissioner. The Service shall promptly 
initiate review proceedings under paragraph (g) of this section if the 
Commissioner has determined in writing that the alien's release would 
pose a special danger to the public, according to the standards of 
paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
    (3) Medical or mental health examination. Before making such a 
determination, the Commissioner shall arrange for a report by a 
physician employed or designated by the Public Health Service based on 
a full medical and psychiatric examination of the alien. The report 
shall include recommendations pertaining to whether, due to a mental 
condition or personality disorder and behavior associated with that 
condition or disorder, the alien is likely to engage in acts of 
violence in the future.
    (4) Detention pending review. After the Commissioner or Deputy 
Commissioner has made a determination under this paragraph, the Service 
shall continue to detain the alien, unless an immigration judge or the 
Board issues an administratively final decision dismissing the review 
proceedings under this section.
    (g) Referral to Immigration Judge. Jurisdiction for an immigration 
judge to review a determination by the Service pursuant to paragraph 
(f) of this section that an alien is specially dangerous shall commence 
with the filing by the Service of a Notice of Referral to the 
Immigration Judge (Form I-863) with the Immigration Court having 
jurisdiction over the place of the alien's custody. The Service shall 
promptly provide to the alien by personal service a copy of the Notice 
of Referral to the Immigration Judge and all accompanying documents.
    (1) Factual basis. The Service shall attach a written statement 
that contains a summary of the basis for the Commissioner's 
determination to continue to detain the alien, including a description 
of the evidence relied upon to reach the determination regarding the 
alien's special dangerousness. The Service shall attach copies of all 
relevant documents used to reach its decision to continue to detain the 
alien.
    (2) Notice of reasonable cause hearing. The Service shall attach a 
written notice advising the alien that the Service is initiating 
proceedings for the continued detention of the alien and informing the 
alien of the procedures governing the reasonable cause hearing, as set 
forth at paragraph (h) of this section.

[[Page 56981]]

    (3) Notice of alien's rights. The Service shall also provide 
written notice advising the alien of his or her rights during the 
reasonable cause hearing and the merits hearing before the Immigration 
Court, as follows:
    (i) The alien shall be provided with a list of free legal services 
providers, and may be represented by an attorney or other 
representative of his or her choice in accordance with 8 CFR part 292, 
at no expense to the Government;
    (ii) The Immigration Court shall provide an interpreter for the 
alien, if necessary, for the reasonable cause hearing and the merits 
hearing.
    (iii) The alien shall have a reasonable opportunity to examine 
evidence against the alien, to present evidence in the alien's own 
behalf, and to cross-examine witnesses presented by the Service; and
    (iv) The alien shall have the right, at the merits hearing, to 
cross-examine the author of any medical or mental health reports used 
as a basis for the determination under paragraph (f) of this section 
that the alien is specially dangerous.
    (4) Record. All proceedings before the immigration judge under this 
section shall be recorded. The Immigration Court shall create a record 
of proceeding that shall include all testimony and documents related to 
the proceedings.
    (h) Reasonable cause hearing. The immigration judge shall hold a 
preliminary hearing to determine whether the evidence supporting the 
Service's determination is sufficient to establish reasonable cause to 
go forward with a merits hearing under paragraph (i) of this section. A 
finding of reasonable cause under this section will be sufficient to 
warrant the alien's continued detention pending the completion of the 
review proceedings under this section.
    (1) Scheduling of hearing. The reasonable cause hearing shall be 
commenced not later than 10 business days after the filing of the Form 
I-863. The Immigration Court shall provide prompt notice to the alien 
and to the Service of the time and place of the hearing. The hearing 
may be continued at the request of the alien or his or her 
representative.
    (2) Evidence. The Service must show that there is reasonable cause 
to conduct a merits hearing under a merits hearing under paragraph (i) 
of this section. The Service may offer any evidence that is material 
and relevant to the proceeding. Testimony of witnesses, if any, shall 
be under oath or affirmation. The alien may, but is not required to, 
offer evidence on his or her own behalf.
    (3) Decision. The immigration judge shall render a decision, which 
should be in summary form, within 5 business days after the close of 
the record, unless that time is extended by agreement of both parties, 
by a determination from the Chief Immigration Judge that exceptional 
circumstances make it impractical to render the decision on a highly 
expedited basis, or because of delay caused by the alien. If the 
immigration judge determines that the Service has met its burden of 
establishing reasonable cause, the immigration judge shall advise the 
alien and the Service, and shall schedule a merits hearing under 
paragraph (i) of this section to review the Service's determination 
that the alien is specially dangerous. If the immigration judge 
determines that the Service has not met its burden, the immigration 
judge shall order that the review proceedings under this section be 
dismissed. The order and any documents offered shall be included in the 
record of proceedings, and may be relied upon in a subsequent merits 
hearing.
    (4) Appeal. If the immigration judge dismisses the review 
proceedings, the Service may appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals 
in accordance with Sec. 3.38 of this chapter, except that the Service 
must file the Notice of Appeal (Form EOIR-26) with the Board within 2 
business days after the immigration judge's order. The Notice of Appeal 
should state clearly and conspicuously that it is an appeal of a 
reasonable cause decision under this section.
    (i) If the Service reserves appeal of a dismissal of the reasonable 
cause hearing, the immigration judge's order shall be stayed until the 
expiration of the time to appeal. Upon the Service's filing of a timely 
Notice of Appeal, the immigration judge's order shall remain in 
abeyance pending a final decision of the appeal. The stay shall expire 
if the Service fails to file a timely Notice of Appeal.
    (ii) The Board will decide the Service's appeal, by single Board 
Member review, based on the record of proceedings before the 
immigration judge. The Board shall expedite its review as far as 
practicable, as the highest priority among the appeals filed by 
detained aliens, and shall determine the issue within 20 business days 
of the filing of the notice of appeal, unless that time is extended by 
agreement of both parties, by a determination from the Chairman of the 
Board that exceptional circumstances make it impractical to render the 
decision on a highly expedited basis, or because of delay caused by the 
alien.
    (iii) If the Board determines that the Service has met its burden 
of showing reasonable cause under this paragraph (h), the Board shall 
remand the case to the immigration judge for the scheduling of a merits 
hearing under paragraph (i) of this section. If the Board determines 
that the Service has not met its burden, the Board shall dismiss the 
review proceedings under this section.
    (i) Merits hearing. If there is reasonable cause to conduct a 
merits hearing under this section, the immigration judge shall promptly 
schedule the hearing and shall expedite the proceedings as far as 
practicable. The immigration judge shall allow adequate time for the 
parties to prepare for the merits hearing, but, if requested by the 
alien, the hearing shall commence within 30 days. The hearing may be 
continued at the request of the alien or his or her representative, or 
at the request of the Service upon a showing of exceptional 
circumstances by the Service.
    (1) Evidence. The Service shall have the burden of proving, by 
clear and convincing evidence, that the alien should remain in custody 
because the alien's release would pose a special danger to the public, 
under the standards of paragraph (f)(1) of this section. The 
immigration judge may receive into evidence any oral or written 
statement that is material and relevant to this determination. 
Testimony of witnesses shall be under oath or affirmation. The alien 
may, but is not required to, offer evidence on his or her own behalf.
    (2) Factors for consideration. In making any determination in a 
merits hearing under this section, the immigration judge shall consider 
the following non-exclusive list of factors:
    (i) The alien's prior criminal history, particularly the nature and 
seriousness of any prior crimes involving violence or threats of 
violence;
    (ii) The alien's previous history of recidivism, if any, upon 
release from either Service or criminal custody;
    (iii) The substantiality of the Service's evidence regarding the 
alien's current mental condition or personality disorder;
    (iv) The likelihood that the alien will engage in acts of violence 
in the future; and
    (v) The nature and seriousness of the danger to the public posed by 
the alien's release.
    (3) Decision. After the closing of the record, the immigration 
judge shall render a decision as soon as practicable. The decision may 
be oral or written. The decision shall state whether or not the Service 
has met its burden of

[[Page 56982]]

establishing that the alien should remain in custody because the 
alien's release would pose a special danger to the public, under the 
standards of paragraph (f)(1) of this section. The decision shall also 
include the reasons for the decision under each of the standards of 
paragraph (f)(1) of this section, although a formal enumeration of 
findings is not required. Notice of the decision shall be served in 
accordance with Sec. 240.13(a) or (b).
    (i) If the immigration judge determines that the Service has met 
its burden, the immigration judge shall enter an order providing for 
the continued detention of the alien.
    (ii) If the immigration judge determines that the Service has 
failed to meet its burden, the immigration judge shall order that the 
review proceedings under this section be dismissed.
    (4) Appeal. Either party may appeal an adverse decision to the 
Board of Immigration Appeals in accordance with Sec. 3.38 of this 
chapter, except that, if the immigration judge orders dismissal of the 
proceedings, the Service shall have only 5 business days to file a 
Notice of Appeal with the Board. The Notice of Appeal should state 
clearly and conspicuously that this is an appeal of a merits decision 
under this section.
    (i) If the Service reserves appeal of a dismissal, the immigration 
judge's order shall be stayed until the expiration of the time to 
appeal. Upon the Service's filing of a timely Notice of Appeal, the 
immigration judge's order shall remain in abeyance pending a final 
decision of the appeal. The stay shall expire if the Service fails to 
file a timely Notice of Appeal.
    (ii) The Board shall conduct its review of the appeal as provided 
in 8 CFR part 3, but shall expedite its review as far as practicable, 
as the highest priority among the appeals filed by detained aliens. The 
decision of the Board shall be final as provided in Sec. 3.1(d)(3) of 
this chapter.
    (j) Release of alien upon dismissal of proceedings. If there is an 
administratively final decision by the immigration judge or the Board 
dismissing the review proceedings under this section upon conclusion of 
the reasonable cause hearing or the merits hearing, the Service shall 
promptly release the alien on conditions of supervision, as determined 
by the Service, pursuant to Sec. 241.13. The conditions of supervision 
shall not be subject to review by the immigration judge or the Board.
    (k) Subsequent review for aliens whose release would pose a special 
danger to the public. (1) Periodic review. In any case where the 
immigration judge or the Board has entered an order providing for the 
alien to remain in custody after a merits hearing pursuant to paragraph 
(i) of this section, the Service shall continue to provide an ongoing, 
periodic review of the alien's continued detention, according to 
Sec. 241.4 and paragraphs (f)(1)(ii) and (f)(1)(iii) of this section.
    (2) Alien's request for review. The alien may also request a review 
of his or her custody status because of changed circumstances, as 
provided in this paragraph (k). The request shall be in writing and 
directed to the HQPDU.
    (3) Time for review. An alien may only request a review of his or 
her custody status under this paragraph (k) no earlier than six months 
after the last decision of the immigration judge under this section or, 
if the decision was appealed, the decision of the Board.
    (4) Showing of changed circumstances. The alien shall bear the 
initial burden to establish a material change in circumstances such 
that the release of the alien would no longer pose a special danger to 
the public under the standards of paragraph (f)(1) of this section.
    (5) Review by the Service. If the Service determines, upon 
consideration of the evidence submitted by the alien and other relevant 
evidence, that the alien is not likely to commit future acts of 
violence or that the Service will be able to impose adequate conditions 
of release so that the alien will not pose a special danger to the 
public, the Service shall release the alien from custody pursuant to 
the procedures in Sec. 241.13. If the Service determines that continued 
detention is needed in order to protect the public, the Service shall 
provide a written notice to the alien stating the basis for the 
Service's determination, and provide a copy of the evidence relied upon 
by the Service. The notice shall also advise the alien of the right to 
move to set aside the prior review proceedings under this section.
    (6) Motion to set aside determination in prior review proceedings. 
If the Service denies the alien's request for release from custody, the 
alien may file a motion with the Immigration Court that had 
jurisdiction over the merits hearing to set aside the determination in 
the prior review proceedings under this section. The immigration judge 
shall consider any evidence submitted by the alien or relied upon by 
the Service and shall provide an opportunity for the Service to respond 
to the motion.
    (i) If the immigration judge determines that the alien has provided 
good reason to believe that, because of a material change in 
circumstances, releasing the alien would no longer pose a special 
danger to the public under the standards of paragraph (f)(1) of this 
section, the immigration judge shall set aside the determination in the 
prior review proceedings under this section and schedule a new merits 
hearing as provided in paragraph (i) of this section.
    (ii) Unless the immigration judge determines that the alien has 
satisfied the requirements under paragraph (k)(6)(i) of this section, 
the immigration judge shall deny the motion. Neither the immigration 
judge nor the Board may sua sponte set aside a determination in prior 
review proceedings. Notwithstanding 8 CFR 3.23 or 3.2 (motions to 
reopen), the provisions set forth in this paragraph (k) shall be the 
only vehicle for seeking review based on material changed 
circumstances.
    (iii) The alien may appeal an adverse decision to the Board in 
accordance with Sec. 3.38 of this chapter. The Notice of Appeal should 
state clearly and conspicuously that this is an appeal of a denial of a 
motion to set aside a prior determination in review proceedings under 
this section.

    Dated: November 6, 2001.
John Ashcroft,
Attorney General.
[FR Doc. 01-28369 Filed 11-13-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-10-M



Immigration Daily: the news source for
legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers
Enter your email address here: