FR 2025-01964

The document from the Federal Register outlines a proposal by the Department of Justice (DOJ), specifically through its Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), to renew a previously approved collection of information related to the application for the suspension of deportation. This involves updating the EOIR-40 form used by noncitizens seeking suspension of their deportation from the United States.

General Summary

In essence, the DOJ is looking to sustain its ability to collect information from individuals applying for deportation suspension, a process facilitated by the EOIR. The proposed updates to the EOIR-40 form are mostly minor, including changes such as replacing the term "alien" with "noncitizen" and updating instructions to clarify information requirements like contact details and passport photo guidelines. The collection of public comments on these changes is open for a 30-day period, ending on March 3, 2025.

Significant Issues and Concerns

Several issues arise from the document. Firstly, the estimated annual cost burden of $73,935.12 does not have a clear breakdown, leaving its calculation ambiguous to the readers. Additionally, the document proposes changes in terminology and form presentation, like replacing "alien" with "noncitizen" and removing "unnecessary spacing," but lacks detailed justification or examples, potentially leading to confusion.

Moreover, the document mentions that each respondent would spend an average of 5 hours and 45 minutes to complete the form, a notable time commitment that would seem excessive without further context. Lastly, the obligation to respond section relies on legal citations without adequate explanation, which could be challenging for individuals who are not familiar with legal references.

Impact on the Public

For the general public, particularly individuals applying for deportation suspension, understanding and completing the form could prove challenging due to the lack of detailed explanation regarding changes and time commitments. The intention to transition from "alien" to "noncitizen" may reflect positively on public perception by using language seen as more respectful and current.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For stakeholders such as immigration attorneys, advocates, and noncitizens facing deportation, these changes could imply both positive and negative impacts. The reframing of terminologies may foster a more respectful discourse. However, without clear explanations or rationales, stakeholders might encounter difficulties in preparing applicants adequately, leading to potential challenges in legal proceedings.

Overall, while the document aims to streamline and update the immigration review process, it highlights the necessity for clearer communication and detailed explanatory content to effectively serve those navigating the complexities of immigration policy.

In the Federal Register document regarding the proposed extension of the "Application for Suspension of Deportation" form (EOIR-40) by the Department of Justice, several financial references and issues arise:

Summary of Financial References

The document states that the total estimated annual cost burden associated with this information collection process is $73,935.12. This cost is likely attributed to expenses incurred during the process of collecting, processing, and managing the information provided by respondents who are applying for suspension of deportation.

Analysis of Financial References and Related Issues

While the document provides a specific estimated annual cost burden, it lacks a detailed breakdown of how this figure of $73,935.12 was calculated. This omission is significant, as a generalized figure without an accompanying explanation or breakdown leaves readers without a clear understanding of what specific expenses contribute to this total cost. Readers might question whether this amount covers administrative fees, personnel costs, technological infrastructure, or other overheads associated with the form's processing.

This absence of detail in the financial explanation ties into one of the identified issues: the estimated per-respondent time burden of 5 hours and 45 minutes. Understanding why this process is estimated to take a significant amount of time could provide insight into any personnel or processing costs factored into the overall cost burden. Clarification here would enhance transparency and justify the cost, offering assurance that the allocation of funds correlates directly with necessary administrative efforts.

Moreover, given that the document proposes several changes to the form, including the modification of terminologies like replacing "alien" with "noncitizen," it would be beneficial to know if these changes impact the financial burden. Are there costs associated with redesigning or reprinting documents, or reconfiguring electronic systems to accommodate these changes? Such considerations, if included, could further justify the financial estimate provided.

In conclusion, while the financial reference is precise in terms of the stated total amount, the lack of elaboration on how the $73,935.12 cost burden was determined leaves room for speculation and warrants further transparency. Providing a more detailed cost analysis alongside proposed changes could enhance understanding and acceptance of these financial allocations by the public and other stakeholders.