Rule2026-04136
Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer Electronic Filing
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
March 2, 2026
Effective
March 2, 2026
Issuing agencies
Justice DepartmentExecutive Office for Immigration Review
Abstract
The Executive Office for Immigration Review ("EOIR") is implementing electronic filing and records applications for all cases before the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer ("OCAHO"). This interim final rule ("IFR") updates the relevant regulations necessary to implement these electronic filing and records applications, including by requiring certain users to file documents electronically and changing service of process methods. This IFR also includes several additional minor changes to OCAHO's rules of practice and procedure to clarify and improve upon the existing regulatory language.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 40 (Monday, March 2, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 40 (Monday, March 2, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9989-9997]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-04136]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Executive Office for Immigration Review
28 CFR Part 68
[Docket No. EOIR-26-AB23; Dir. Order No. 04-2026]
RIN 1125-AB23
Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer Electronic
Filing
AGENCY: Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice.
ACTION: Interim final rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Executive Office for Immigration Review (``EOIR'') is
implementing electronic filing and records applications for all cases
before the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer
(``OCAHO''). This interim final rule (``IFR'') updates the relevant
regulations necessary to implement these electronic filing and records
applications, including by requiring certain users to file documents
electronically and changing service of process methods. This IFR also
includes several additional minor changes to OCAHO's rules of practice
and procedure to clarify and improve upon the existing regulatory
language.
DATES:
Effective date: This IFR is effective March 2, 2026.
Comments due date: Electronic comments must be submitted and
written comments must be postmarked or otherwise indicate a shipping
date on or before April 1, 2026. The electronic Federal Docket
Management System (``FDMS'') at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a> will accept
electronic comments until 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on that date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on this rulemaking, identified by
the agency name and reference RIN 1125-AB23 or EOIR Docket No. EOIR-26-
AB23, by one of the two methods below.
<bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Follow the website's instructions for submitting comments.
<bullet> Mail: Please direct your correspondence to: Jamee E.
Comans, Acting Assistant Director, Office of Policy, Executive Office
for Immigration Review, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2500, Falls Church,
VA 22041. To ensure proper handling, please reference the agency name
and RIN 1125-AB23 or EOIR Docket No. EOIR-26-AB23 on your
correspondence. Mailed items must be postmarked or otherwise indicate a
shipping date on or before the submission deadline. Paper comments that
duplicate an electronic submission are unnecessary.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jamee E. Comans, Acting Assistant
[[Page 9990]]
Director, Office of Policy, Executive Office for Immigration Review,
5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2500, Falls Church, VA 22041, telephone (703)
305-0289 (not a toll-free call).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Public Participation
Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by
submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of this IFR
via one of the methods and by the deadline stated above. All comments
must be submitted in English, or accompanied by an English translation.
The Department of Justice (``DOJ'' or the ``Department'') also invites
comments that relate to the economic, environmental, or federalism
effects that might result from this IFR. Comments that will provide the
most assistance to the Department will reference a specific portion of
the IFR; explain the reason for any recommended change; and include
data, information, or authority that support such recommended change.
Please note that all comments received are considered part of the
public record and made available for public inspection at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Such information includes personally identifying
information (such as your name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by
the commenter.
If you want to submit personally identifying information (such as
your name, address, etc.) as part of your comment, but do not want it
to be posted online, you must include the phrase ``PERSONALLY
IDENTIFYING INFORMATION'' in the first paragraph of your comment and
identify what information you want redacted.
If you want to submit confidential business information as part of
your comment but do not want it to be posted online, you must include
the phrase ``CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION'' in the first paragraph
of your comment. You also must prominently identify confidential
business information to be redacted within the comment. If a comment
has so much confidential business information that it cannot be
effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be posted on
<a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Personally identifying information located as set forth above will
be placed in the agency's public docket file, but not posted online.
Confidential business information identified and located as set forth
above will not be placed in the public docket file. The Department may
withhold from public viewing information provided in comments that they
determine may impact the privacy of an individual or is offensive. For
additional information, please read the Privacy Act notice that is
available via the link in the footer of <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. To
inspect the agency's public docket file in person, you must make an
appointment with the agency. Please see the For Further Information
Contact paragraph above for agency contact information.
II. Background
A. Introduction
In May 2014, OCAHO began piloting a voluntary program in which
parties may file and serve case-related documents by email in cases
before OCAHO. See Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer
Electronic Filing Pilot Program, 79 FR 31143 (May 30, 2014). That
successful pilot was extended indefinitely while EOIR developed a
complete electronic filing application. See EOIR, OCAHO Filing (June 4,
2021), <a href="https://www.justice.gov/eoir/ocaho-filing">https://www.justice.gov/eoir/ocaho-filing</a> [<a href="https://perma.cc/8HPG-QFR2">https://perma.cc/8HPG-QFR2</a>].
EOIR has now developed an electronic filing application, known as
the OCAHO Portal, through which parties can file and receive service of
case documents electronically and view all documents in their OCAHO
cases online. See EOIR, OCAHO Portal, <a href="https://ocaho.eoir.justice.gov/">https://ocaho.eoir.justice.gov/</a>.
With its release, EOIR is amending the regulatory sections necessary to
effectively implement this electronic filing application, including by
mandating electronic filing for most users. This IFR also includes
several additional minor changes to OCAHO's rules of practice and
procedure to clarify and improve upon the existing regulatory language.
B. History
OCAHO is one of three EOIR adjudicatory components, along with the
Immigration Courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals (``Board'').
Beginning in 2003, EOIR engaged in a long-term effort to develop and
implement electronic case access and filing applications for the
Immigration Courts and the Board, which was completed with the full
implementation of the EOIR Courts & Appeals System (``ECAS''). See
generally Executive Office for Immigration Review Electronic Case
Access and Filing, 85 FR 78240, 78241 (Dec. 4, 2020) (detailing the
history of EOIR's efforts in this area). In addition to and in concert
with this broader effort, EOIR has been working to implement a fully
electronic case access and filing system for cases before OCAHO.
First, as previously noted, in May 2014, OCAHO began operating a
voluntary email-based electronic filing pilot program. See 79 FR 31143-
44. Under this pilot program, parties in enrolled cases could file case
documents with OCAHO by email, and would similarly receive service by
email of orders and decisions issued by OCAHO's Administrative Law
Judges (``ALJs'') and the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer
(``CAHO''). 79 FR 31144. This email-based pilot program was intended to
be temporary in nature, with a goal of using the experience gained to
develop a ``more comprehensive and permanent electronic filing
system.'' 79 FR 31143.
Next, EOIR successfully implemented ECAS before the Immigration
Courts and the Board, which allowed the agency to gain significant
experience in developing and implementing electronic filing and records
applications. See generally EOIR, ECAS: Attorneys and Accredited
Representatives, <a href="https://www.justice.gov/eoir/ecas-attorneys-and-accredited-representatives">https://www.justice.gov/eoir/ecas-attorneys-and-accredited-representatives</a> [<a href="https://perma.cc/5E6X-GGEL">https://perma.cc/5E6X-GGEL</a>] (program
overview and FAQs).
With the benefit of the experience gained from these projects, EOIR
has developed the OCAHO Portal, a secure public application with case
access and electronic filing capabilities for OCAHO, to integrate with
OCAHO's internal case management system. EOIR has deployed the OCAHO
Portal for all cases before OCAHO. The OCAHO Portal will take the place
of OCAHO's email filing pilot program.
III. Explanation of IFR Changes
This IFR provides for implementation of the OCAHO Portal for
electronic case access and filing in OCAHO cases. Under this IFR,
electronic filing through the OCAHO Portal is mandatory for all
attorneys and other authorized representatives in OCAHO cases. See 28
CFR 68.6(b)(1). This includes, for example, mandatory electronic filing
of new complaints by the Department of Homeland Security (``DHS'') in
cases under sections 274A and 274C of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (``INA''), 8 U.S.C. 1324a and 1324c, or by the Department's
Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (``IER'') or private attorneys or
authorized representatives, when applicable, in cases under section
274B of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1324b. In order to complete implementation of
this electronic filing application, EOIR is making the following
changes to OCAHO's regulations.
[[Page 9991]]
A. Eligibility, Registration, and Other Requirements for Electronic
Filing
1. Who May File Electronically
This IFR makes electronic filing through the OCAHO Portal mandatory
for DHS, IER, and attorneys and other authorized representatives who
represent complainants or respondents in OCAHO cases, and applies to
both new cases and cases currently pending before OCAHO. See 28 CFR
68.6(b)(1).
By mandating electronic filing for attorneys and authorized
representatives, OCAHO will eventually be able to maintain a complete
electronic record for many cases from beginning to end. Similar to
EOIR's experience with electronic filings and records through ECAS,
OCAHO anticipates that this will create significant efficiencies for
the parties and OCAHO. For example, registered parties will be able to
file documents electronically from any location with internet access,
and will be able to view all of the documents filed in their case
online and on-demand. Furthermore, electronic filing will allow for
near-instantaneous delivery and receipt of case filings, without the
delays associated with delivery times for filings sent by physical
mail. Similarly, OCAHO will be able to quickly process electronic
filings and maintain case records through an electronic system.
OCAHO is also making electronic filing available on a voluntary
basis to unrepresented (``pro se'') complainants and respondents
because all of the efficiencies listed above may also flow to those
individuals if they choose to use electronic filing. See 28 CFR
68.6(b)(2). Although opting in to electronic filing is voluntary for
pro se complainants and respondents, individuals who choose to opt in
will do so for the life of their case and may not opt out without leave
from the presiding ALJ or the CAHO. Id.
Voluntary electronic filing for pro se complainants and respondents
is subject to one exception. See 28 CFR 68.6(b)(1). Specifically, ALJs
or the CAHO may require pro se complainants and respondents to
electronically file documents where paper filing is infeasible or
impracticable. This authority only applies to individual cases and in
limited scenarios, such as where there are issues with mail delivery or
there is a need for the expedited exchange of documents, particularly
where parties reside outside the continental United States.
2. Registration Process
In order to file electronically with OCAHO, an attorney, authorized
representative, or pro se complainant or respondent must register with
OCAHO using a DOJ authentication application--currently DOJ Login--
similar to the process for ECAS registration. See, e.g., EOIR, ECAS:
Attorneys and Accredited Representatives, <a href="https://www.justice.gov/eoir/ecas-attorneys-and-accredited-representatives">https://www.justice.gov/eoir/ecas-attorneys-and-accredited-representatives</a> [<a href="https://perma.cc/5E6X-GGEL">https://perma.cc/5E6X-GGEL</a>] (under the heading ``Frequently Asked Questions'' and the
subheading ``DOJ Login and ECAS Account Creation,'' answering the
question ``What is DOJ Login?'' by stating that ``DOJ Login is a cloud-
based identity management and authentication service. The Department of
Justice authenticates the identity of end users for access to DOJ
applications and networks, including remote access.''). The
registration process requires each individual to provide basic
identifying and contact information, including the user's name, email
address, phone number, and user type (DHS, IER, or private individual).
The registration system then uses a multi-factor authentication tool to
validate the user's identity and allow the user to log in to the
application. Users with existing DOJ Login accounts for ECAS may also
use those accounts.
3. Cases Eligible for Electronic Filing
All OCAHO cases will be eligible for electronic filing, regardless
of whether the case is filed by DHS, IER, or by a private complainant.
See 28 CFR 68.6(a). Electronic filing will be available for users
regardless of whether the opposing party or parties in the case have
elected to participate in electronic filing. However, for those cases
in which one or more parties to the case have chosen not to participate
in electronic filing, those parties who are enrolled in electronic
filing will be required to serve electronically filed documents on
parties not enrolled in electronic filing by another approved method of
service, as discussed further in Section III.B of this preamble. See 28
CFR 68.6(c)(2).
4. Electronic Filing Application Availability
This IFR provides guidance for how a party subject to electronic
filing requirements should proceed if OCAHO's electronic filing
application is unavailable. See 28 CFR 68.6(b)(3). If OCAHO's
electronic filing application is unavailable due to an unplanned system
outage on the last day for filing in a specific case, OCAHO will
evaluate the overall impact and make appropriate filing deadline
adjustments (e.g., extension of filing deadlines to the next business
day that the electronic filing application becomes accessible). Id.
OCAHO will determine whether the electronic filing application is
unavailable due to a system outage sufficient to trigger the extended
filing deadline, and OCAHO will communicate such outages to external
users through email, EOIR's website, or other methods of communication,
as available. Id.
Parties will maintain the ability to request an extension of
deadlines from the ALJ or the CAHO, as appropriate, or to submit a
motion to accept an untimely filing. See, e.g., Tingling v. City of
Richmond, Va., 13 OCAHO no. 1324c (2021) (discussing standards for
granting extensions of time in OCAHO cases). Both the ALJs and the CAHO
have the discretion to accept untimely filings. See, e.g., United
States v. Bhattacharya, 14 OCAHO no. 1380b, 3 n.3, 5-6, 6 n.8 (2021)
(discussing the authority of OCAHO adjudicators to accept filings that
were untimely or improperly filed or served). Additionally, in the
event that OCAHO's electronic filing application is unavailable,
parties are permitted to file paper or email motions or requests for
extension of time.
This unplanned unavailability policy tracks the policy of the
Immigration Courts and the Board for ECAS, see 85 FR 78244-45, and is
similar to the Federal courts' policy for their electronic filing
system, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(3)(A); Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(3)(A).
On the other hand, if OCAHO's electronic filing application is
unavailable due to a planned, previously announced system outage on the
last day for filing in a specific case, this IFR provides that the user
must plan accordingly to electronically file their documents during
system availability or be prepared to file the documents in paper or
email form with OCAHO in order to meet any applicable filing deadlines.
See 28 CFR 68.6(b)(3). OCAHO will communicate these planned outages to
external users through email, EOIR's website, or other methods of
communication, as available. Id. This IFR will not change the authority
of the ALJs or the CAHO to determine how to treat an untimely filing,
nor will it prevent parties from making a motion to accept an untimely
filing.
Lastly, in all cases, the IFR also provides ALJs and the CAHO with
the authority to accept paper or email filings at their discretion.
5. Filing Classified Information
OCAHO's electronic filing application is not rated for classified
information.
[[Page 9992]]
See 28 CFR 68.6(b)(6). Users should not file classified information
through OCAHO's electronic filing application, and the application does
not change the users' or the agency's responsibilities related to
classified information. Id. Users will need to file any classified
information by paper and follow existing procedures for the filing of
classified information. See 28 CFR 68.42(b) (detailing procedures for
filing classified or sensitive information in OCAHO cases). OCAHO staff
will maintain a paper record for any case that contains classified
information.
6. Misuse
This IFR includes language allowing OCAHO to suspend a user's
access to the OCAHO electronic filing application for repeated misuse
or abuse of the system. See 28 CFR 68.6(b)(8). This will ensure that
OCAHO has the ability to address repeated violations of the system,
such as inappropriate or harassing filings, ``spamming'' large numbers
of filings, or fraudulent activity, among others. See, e.g., Ravines de
Schur v. Easter Seals-Goodwill Northern Rocky Mountain, Inc., 15 OCAHO
no. 1388a (2021) (detailing a party's inability or unwillingness to
comply with the terms of the OCAHO email filing pilot); United States
v. Pasquel Hermanos, Inc., 18 OCAHO no. 1506a (2024) (same). In lieu of
electronic filings through the OCAHO electronic filing application,
suspended users may, for example, paper file documents with OCAHO. See
28 CFR 68.6(b)(4).
B. Filing and Service
This IFR also changes and clarifies how filing and service of
process is accomplished in cases before OCAHO. See generally 28 CFR
68.6. In this IFR, EOIR is updating OCAHO's regulations to expressly
allow for electronic filing and service of all pleadings by adding
electronic filing to the list of permissible methods of filing and
service in OCAHO cases. See 28 CFR 68.6(a)(2). Moreover, as explained
in Section III.A.1 of this preamble, EOIR is amending OCAHO's
regulations to require all represented parties to file all case
documents (including complaints) electronically. See 28 CFR 68.6(b)(1).
In order to simplify the filing and service process, OCAHO will
also complete service electronically on behalf of the parties for all
cases in which all parties are using electronic filing. See 28 CFR
68.6(c)(1). When a party successfully uploads a document to OCAHO's
electronic filing application and all parties are using electronic
filing, OCAHO's electronic filing application will send the parties an
electronic notification of the new filing. Id. This will simplify the
filing process for electronic filers by only requiring them to file
their documents with OCAHO in eligible cases rather than needing to
execute multiple mailings to complete service requirements.
However, if one or more parties to an OCAHO case are not
participating in electronic filing for that particular case, the
electronic filer will have to complete service of process on the
opposing party by another authorized means of service. See 28 CFR
68.6(c)(2). Similarly, in circumstances where the filer is otherwise
allowed to file outside of OCAHO's electronic filing application,
either due to system unavailability or pursuant to OCAHO's discretion,
the filer will need to complete service on the opposing party. See 28
CFR 68.6(b)(3)-(4).
In all cases, consistent with existing practice, all filers must
include a certificate of service with each filing as proof of completed
service on the opposing party or parties. See 28 CFR 68.6(c)(1)-(2).
For example, if all parties are using OCAHO's electronic filing
application, then electronic filers can include a certificate of
service that states: ``This document was electronically filed through
OCAHO's electronic filing application and both parties are
participating in electronic filing. Therefore, no separate service was
completed.''
When parties need to complete service themselves, this IFR will
also provide parties with the option to complete service
electronically. See 28 CFR 68.6(c)(2)(iii). Under this IFR, in
situations where the parties need to complete service outside of the
OCAHO electronic filing application, the parties may complete service
by email, by postal mail, or by personal delivery. 28 CFR 68.6(c)(2).
In doing so, this IFR removes the current, limited ability to file by
facsimile in certain circumstances, which is now unnecessary in light
of the ability to file electronically through OCAHO's electronic filing
application, or by email where allowed.
OCAHO will also serve notices, orders, and decisions issued by
OCAHO ALJs or the CAHO by email notification to parties that are
participating in electronic filing. See 28 CFR 68.3(a)(4). This
notification will constitute completed service and begin the
administrative review or appeal period, if applicable. Id. If a party
is not participating in electronic filing, OCAHO will continue to serve
such notices, orders, and decisions on that party by mail or other
personal delivery. See 28 CFR 68.3(a)(1)-(3). In cases where one party
is participating in electronic filing and another party is not, OCAHO
will serve the participating party electronically and the non-
participating party by mail or other personal delivery.
In order for OCAHO to effectuate electronic service, the parties
must maintain a valid email address within the OCAHO electronic filing
application. 28 CFR 68.6(c)(3). If a user's email address changes, the
user must immediately contact EOIR to update their account. Id.
OCAHO considers service completed when the electronic notification
is delivered to the last email address on file provided by the user.
Id.
C. Signatures
This IFR also provides standards for signatures on pleadings and
other documents submitted in OCAHO cases. See 28 CFR 68.6(b)(7),
68.7(a)(2). Under this IFR, OCAHO will allow four different types of
signatures, depending on the type of document being filed and the
method by which the document is being filed: (1) original, handwritten
ink signatures; (2) encrypted, digital signatures; (3) electronic
signatures; and (4) conformed signatures.\1\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As explained in EOIR's notice of proposed rulemaking
regarding ECAS: ``Digital signatures are defined as signatures
performed via a recognized system that provides Personal Key
Infrastructure (PKI) from the signer at the time of signing . . . .
Electronic signatures are defined as signatures performed using a
device that does not provide PKI at the time of signing (e.g.,
stylus and touchpad).'' 85 FR 78246 n.15 (citing EOIR Policy
Memorandum 20-11, Filings and Signatures (Apr. 3, 2020), <a href="https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1266411/dl?inline=">https://www.justice.gov/eoir/page/file/1266411/dl?inline=</a> [<a href="https://perma.cc/W3DA-4PVL">https://perma.cc/W3DA-4PVL</a>]).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, whether filing electronically or on paper, OCAHO will accept
documents with original, handwritten ink signatures; encrypted, digital
signatures; or electronic signatures. Id. If filed electronically, the
document may be signed with an encrypted, digital signature; an
electronic signature; or an original, handwritten ink signature which
is then scanned for upload to the OCAHO electronic filing application.
28 CFR 68.6(b)(7). If a user signs a document using an encrypted
digital signature but the OCAHO electronic filing application is
unavailable, the user may print the document with the digital signature
and paper file the document with OCAHO. Paper documents filed by OCAHO
may also be signed by electronic signature or original, handwritten ink
signature.
Second, for documents filed through the OCAHO electronic filing
application, this IFR will allow users to
[[Page 9993]]
sign their own name with a conformed signature. 28 CFR 68.6(b)(7).
Conformed signatures will not be accepted for anyone other than the
user who is submitting the document. Conformed signatures typically
consist of the user typing ``/s/'' followed by the user's name into the
signature block. By signing into the electronic filing application, the
user has demonstrated that they have completed the registration and
identity verification process for the electronic filing application,
thereby allowing the use of a conformed signature.
These signature rules are subject to any specific form,
application, or document signature requirements. 28 CFR 68.6(b)(7),
68.7(a)(2). For example, if an application's instructions require an
original, handwritten ink signature, then the user must follow the
application instructions instead of the signature allowances provided
for in this IFR. In practice, if the user was electronically filing,
the user would sign the application in ink and then scan and
electronically file the application with EOIR. The user is also
required to make the original available upon request.
D. Duplicate Copies
This IFR updates OCAHO's regulations to clarify that parties are
not required to submit extra copies of pleadings (including the
complaint) if they are filing electronically. See 28 CFR 68.6(a).
However, parties are required to file the requisite number of copies of
each pleading if filing by paper. Id.
E. Other Amendments
This IFR also makes a number of other minor amendments to OCAHO's
regulations.
First, the IFR adds a definition of ``notice of hearing'' to 28 CFR
68.2 to reflect the document's current name in OCAHO's practice as well
as to provide flexibility to OCAHO in the event the document changes
title in the future.
Second, the IFR revises 28 CFR 68.5 (regarding notices of hearings)
to allow ALJs increased flexibility in the scheduling of hearings and
prehearing conferences, and to expressly allow for OCAHO hearings to be
conducted by video teleconference in appropriate circumstances. In
particular, the IFR removes the requirement that an ALJ schedule a
hearing, a pre-hearing conference, or both within 30 days of receiving
a respondent's answer to a complaint. With rare exceptions, nearly all
OCAHO cases are decided through dispositive motions or settlements,
making the setting of a hearing date at such an early stage of the
case--and typically before discovery has commenced--inefficient for
case processing. Further, OCAHO's usual practice is to issue a general
scheduling order and seek prehearing statements from the parties, see
28 CFR 68.12, before scheduling a prehearing conference, making the
setting of a prehearing conference at the stage contemplated by 28 CFR
68.5 similarly inefficient. The revision to 28 CFR 68.5 simply removes
the 30-day requirement to provide full flexibility for OCAHO ALJs to
manage their cases in the most efficient manner based on the particular
circumstances of each case.
Third, the IFR revises 28 CFR 68.13 (regarding conferences) to
expressly include the authority for ALJs to refer appropriate cases to
a settlement officer, in accordance with OCAHO's Settlement Officer
Program. See OCAHO Practice Manual, Chapter 4.7 (Apr. 3, 2025), <a href="https://www.justice.gov/eoir/reference-materials/ocaho/chapter-4/7">https://www.justice.gov/eoir/reference-materials/ocaho/chapter-4/7</a> [<a href="https://perma.cc/44ZU-UTRK">https://perma.cc/44ZU-UTRK</a>].
Fourth, the IFR clarifies that discovery requests, answers, or
responses should not be filed with the ALJ. Rather, upon motion of a
party or on the ALJ's own initiative, the ALJ may order that such
requests for discovery, answers, or responses thereto be filed. 28 CFR
68.18(a).
Fifth, the IFR replaces the outdated reference to providing a copy
of a proposed final order to the ALJ ``on a 3.5'' microdisk'' in 28 CFR
68.52.
Finally, the IFR clarifies the requirements in 28 CFR 68.54 for
filing a request for administrative review and related documents by
adding an electronic filing option and removing a cross-reference to 28
CFR 68.6(c) in favor of simply stating the filing and service
requirements for documents related to administrative review in that
section.
IV. Regulatory Requirements
A. Administrative Procedure Act
The Administrative Procedure Act (``APA'') generally requires
agencies to publish notice of a proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register and, after such notice, ``give interested persons an
opportunity to participate in the rulemaking through submission of
written data, views, or arguments.'' 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and (c). The APA
further provides that the required publication or service of a
substantive rule shall be made not less than 30 days before its
effective date, except in certain circumstances. Id. 553(d). However,
the APA provides exceptions to these general requirements, as explained
in more detail below.
Consistent with the APA and for the reasons explained below, this
IFR is exempt from notice-and-comment procedures and the delayed-
effective-date requirement, because it is a rule of agency procedure
and practice. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A), (d)(3). At the same time, the
Department seeks and welcomes post-promulgation comments on this IFR.
The APA's notice-and-comment requirements do not apply to ``rules
of agency organization, procedure, or practice.'' 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A).
Courts ``have used the term `procedural exception' as shorthand for
that exemption.'' AFL-CIO v. NLRB, 57 F.4th 1023, 1034 (D.C. Cir. 2023)
(cleaned up). ``[T]he critical feature of a rule that satisfies the . .
. procedural exception is that it covers agency actions that do not
themselves alter the rights or interests of parties, although it may
alter the manner in which the parties present themselves or their
viewpoints to the agency.'' Id. (cleaned up); cf. Texas v. United
States, 809 F.3d 134, 176 (5th Cir. 2015) (holding that a rule is not
procedural when it ``modifies substantive rights and interests''
(quoting U.S. Dep't of Lab. v. Kast Metals Corp., 744 F.2d 1145, 1153
(5th Cir. 1984))).
The Department has determined that this rule regulates agency
procedure and is therefore exempt from notice-and-comment procedures
under the APA. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). The changes in this IFR do not
affect the substantive legal requirements for OCAHO cases; rather, the
IFR merely makes procedural changes to provide for electronic filing,
and thus focuses on ``the manner in which the parties present
themselves or their viewpoints to the agency.'' See AFL-CIO, 57 F.4th
at 1034. This IFR is also consistent with prior OCAHO procedural
rulemakings pertaining solely to agency procedures and practices
regarding the processing of cases before OCAHO. See, e.g., Rules of
Practice and Procedure for Administrative Hearings Before
Administrative Law Judges in Cases Involving Allegations of Unlawful
Employment of Aliens and Unfair Immigration-related Employment
Practices, 56 FR 50049, 50052 (Oct. 3, 1991); Rules of Practice and
Procedure for Administrative Hearings Before Administrative Law Judges
in Cases Involving Allegations of Unlawful Employment of Aliens, Unfair
Immigration-Related Employment Practices, and Document Fraud, 64 FR
7066, 7072 (Feb. 12, 1999).
Furthermore, the Department has determined that, this rule relates
solely to agency procedure and practice and thus is not subject to the
30-day-
[[Page 9994]]
delayed-effective-date requirement for ``substantive rules'' under 5
U.S.C. 553(d). See 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) (providing that ``[t]he required
publication or service of a substantive rule shall be made not less
than 30 days before its effective date . . . except as otherwise
provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the
rule'') (emphasis added).
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department has reviewed this IFR in accordance with the
Regulatory Flexibility Act and has determined that this IFR does not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). This rulemaking regulates attorneys and
other authorized representatives, most of whom qualify as ``small
entities'' under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. See 5 U.S.C. 601(3)-
(4), (6).
However, the Department anticipates that the adoption of electronic
filing in OCAHO cases will lead to net cost savings for these attorneys
and authorized representatives because they will no longer be required
to bear the burdens and expenses of mailing or serving paper copies in
each of their cases for filings submitted to OCAHO or for service of
process on opposing counsel. Therefore, this IFR will not have an
adverse economic effect on attorneys or authorized representatives, but
instead is expected to result in cost savings. A more detailed analysis
of the costs and benefits of this IFR is provided in Section IV.E of
this preamble.
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This IFR 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.
D. Congressional Review Act
This IFR is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the
Congressional Review Act. 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This IFR 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.
E. Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and 14192 (Unleashing
Prosperity Through Deregulation)
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health, and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity).
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of using the best
available methods to quantify costs and benefits, reducing costs,
harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility.
The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of
Management and Budget (``OMB'') has determined that this IFR is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866. It will neither result in an annual effect on the economy
greater than $100 million nor adversely affect the economy or sectors
of the economy. It does not pertain to entitlements, grants, user fees,
or loan programs, nor does it raise novel legal or policy issues. It
does not create inconsistencies or interfere with actions taken by
other agencies. Accordingly, this IFR is not a significant regulatory
action subject to review by OMB pursuant to Executive Order 12866.
Moreover, the Department certifies that this IFR has been drafted in
accordance with the principles of Executive Order 13563.
This rule is separately exempt from the requirements of Executive
Order 14192 beccause it relates to the immigration-related functions of
the United States. See Exec. Order 14192, Sec. 5(a).
1. Costs and Savings Associated With Electronic Filing
Although a cost-benefit analysis is not required under Executive
Order 12866, the Department has nevertheless weighed the costs and
benefits of this IFR and believes that the rule will provide
significant efficiency-related savings, which outweigh any potential
costs. The main costs of the rule are expected to be de minimis, and
largely focused on any familiarization costs by users of OCAHO's
electronic filing application. Additionally, any costs associated with
developing or maintaining the OCAHO electronic filing application are
already being borne by the agency and are separate from this
rulemaking, which focuses on providing standards for, and in most cases
mandating use of, the application.
In contrast, the Department anticipates that this IFR will result
in significant efficiency gains for OCAHO through the usage of
electronic filing, records, and service of process. Under this IFR,
OCAHO will be able to efficiently: (1) intake electronic documents,
which will be automatically added to an electronic record of
proceeding; (2) maintain and review fully electronic records of
proceeding; \2\ and (3) issue electronic orders and decisions that will
be electronically served on participating parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In parallel and separate from this rulemaking, EOIR is
working with the National Archives and Records Administration to
schedule OCAHO case files as media neutral, allowing for electronic
maintenance, retention, and disposition of such records.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EOIR similarly realized all of these efficiency gains at the
Immigration Courts and the Board through the full implementation of
ECAS. See, e.g., 86 FR 70714 (explaining for example that, in the
initial ECAS pilot program, the agency processed charging documents
``nearly 10 times faster'' and non-charging documents ``approximately
25 percent faster'' than paper filings).
In addition to ECAS's resounding success, OCAHO has also piloted
electronic filing through an email-based pilot program. Although that
pilot was more limited--for instance, by not having automatic service
of process--OCAHO has reported noticeable efficiency gains from the
email pilot, which will only further increase with the implementation
of OCAHO's electronic filing application. Now that the OCAHO electronic
filing application has been implemented and this IFR has been issued,
OCAHO will be able to move towards electronically intaking documents
and maintaining the record of proceeding fully electronically, which
will save significant labor costs associated with printing, scanning,
storing, and otherwise using paper case files.
Replacing paper mail filing with electronic filing will also
address a number of issues currently faced by OCAHO. For instance,
instantaneous electronic filing will eliminate most mail delays,
including those involving parties located outside of the continental
United States. See, e.g., Zajradhara v. Kang Corp., 19 OCAHO no. 1555
(2024) (describing the ``significant delays inherent with mail filing''
for case based out of Saipan). Case deadlines can also be set quickly,
as deadlines in cases with electronic
[[Page 9995]]
filing do not require additional time to account for paper mail
delivery. See 28 CFR 68.8(c)(3) (requiring the addition of five days to
relevant response deadlines whenever documents are sent by ordinary
mail). Electronic filing will also resolve ambiguities and confusion
surrounding filing dates and deadlines. See, e.g., Y.Y. v. Zuora, Inc.,
15 OCAHO no. 1402 (2021) (discussing uncertainty and delay in a party's
receipt of a copy of the complaint when it was sent by mail); United
States v. Terrapower, LLC, 19 OCAHO no. 1548e (2025) (``It is possible,
or perhaps even likely, that registration in e-filing would minimize
instances of motions arriving after a matter has already been
adjudicated.''); United States v. Silverado Stages, Inc., 10 OCAHO no.
1185 (2013) (CAHO order finding that ``[t]he date on the certificate of
service is contradicted by the actual date on which filing and service
was made''); In re Investigation of Space Expl. Techs. Corp., 14 OCAHO
no. 1378 (2020) (finding a petition to modify or revoke a subpoena
untimely where it was emailed to the other party by the deadline but
mailed to OCAHO and thus not received and considered filed until after
the deadline).
As such, based on the significant experience gained from these
projects, the Department anticipates similar benefits to OCAHO with the
implementation of OCAHO's electronic filing application.
The Department similarly anticipates costs savings for the public,
mainly for attorneys and authorized representatives--including DHS and
IER--who will be required to electronically file with OCAHO under this
rule. Primarily, these parties will be able to forgo paper filings and
any attendant mailing or courier costs. Pro se parties will similarly
benefit from the availability of electronic filing. See Zajradhara v.
Costa World Corp., 19 OCAHO no. 1546c (2024) (ALJ order allowing a pro
se complainant to electronically file a document because ``he was
experiencing financial difficulty, which could impact his ability to
mail a filing'').
Additionally, the Department anticipates that any costs related to
familiarization with OCAHO's electronic filing application will be de
minimis, as the application is straightforward and most users should be
generally familiar with electronically uploading documents online.
Moreover, EOIR has published step-by-step guidance on its website
explaining the online registration and electronic filing process. See
EOIR, OCAHO Portal for E-Filing User Guide (June 13, 2025), <a href="https://ocaho.eoir.justice.gov/Content/OCAHOPortalUserGuide.pdf">https://ocaho.eoir.justice.gov/Content/OCAHOPortalUserGuide.pdf</a> [<a href="https://perma.cc/63PD-RVN7">https://perma.cc/63PD-RVN7</a>].
2. Costs and Savings Related to Other Changes
Finally, the Department believes any costs related to the IFR's
minor changes contained in Section III.E of this preamble to be de
minimis, and are outweighed by the benefits described in that section.
Perhaps most significantly, the IFR codifies procedures for the use of
settlement conferences in cases before OCAHO. However, such settlement
conferences are voluntary and require the consent of all parties.
Therefore, the Department does not anticipate any additional costs on
the parties but, rather, potential efficiency savings by engaging in
the settlement process rather than proceeding through a full
adjudication before OCAHO.
F. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
This IFR will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on
the relationship between the Federal 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 IFR does not have sufficient
federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism
summary impact statement.
G. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
This IFR meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a)
and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
This IFR does not include new or revisions to existing
``collection[s] of information'' as that term is defined in the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter
35, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320. As most relevant
here, the OCAHO electronic filing application is a previously approved
collection of information under OMB Control No. 1125-0019.
List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 68
Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Citizenship and
naturalization, Civil rights, Employment, Equal employment opportunity,
Immigration.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, and by the
authority vested in the Director, Executive Office for Immigration
Review, by the Attorney General Order Number 6260-2025, the Department
amends part 68 of title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations as
follows:
PART 68--RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
HEARINGS BEFORE ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES IN CASES INVOLVING
ALLEGATIONS OF UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT OF ALIENS, UNFAIR IMMIGRATION-
RELATED EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES, AND DOCUMENT FRAUD
0
1. The authority citation for part 68 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 554, 557(b); 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1324a,
1324b, and 1324c; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, and 2461 note.
0
2. Amend Sec. 68.2 by adding a definition for ``Notice of hearing'' in
alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 68.2 Definitions
* * * * *
Notice of hearing means the Notice of Case Assignment or other,
similar document served by the Office of the Chief Administrative
Hearing Officer on the parties to a case.
* * * * *
0
3. Revise Sec. 68.3 to read as follows:
Sec. 68.3 Service of complaints, notices, written orders, and
decisions.
(a) Service of complaints, notices, written orders, and decisions
shall be made by the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer
or the Administrative Law Judge to whom the case is assigned either:
(1) By delivering a copy to the individual, party, partner of a
party, officer of a corporate party, registered agent for service of
process of a corporate party, or attorney or representative of record
of a party;
(2) By leaving a copy at the principal office, place of business,
or residence of a party;
(3) By mailing to the last known address of such individual,
partner, officer, or attorney or representative of record; or
(4) By delivering a copy or providing notification by email to such
individual, party, partner of a party, officer, registered agent for
service of process, or attorney or representative of record of a party.
(b) Service of the complaint and notice of hearing is complete upon
receipt by the addressee.
(c) In circumstances where the Office of the Chief Administrative
Hearing Officer or the Administrative Law Judge encounters difficulty
with perfecting service, the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer or
the Administrative
[[Page 9996]]
Law Judge may direct that a party execute service of process.
0
4. Amend Sec. 68.5 by:
0
a. Removing the words ``within thirty (30) days of receipt of
respondent's answer to the complaint'' in paragraph (a); and
0
b. Revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 68.5 Notice of date, time, and place of hearing.
* * * * *
(b) Place of hearing. In cases under sections 274A and 274C of the
INA, pursuant to sections 274A(e)(3)(B) and 274C(d)(2)(B) of the INA,
hearings shall be held at the nearest practicable place to the place
where the person or entity resides or to the place where the alleged
violation occurred. In cases under section 274B of the INA, pursuant to
section 554 of title 5, United States Code, due regard shall be given
to the convenience of the parties and the witnesses in selecting a
place for a hearing. Hearings under sections 274A, 274B, and 274C of
the INA may be conducted by video teleconference.
0
5. Revise Sec. 68.6 to read as follows:
Sec. 68.6 Filing and service of documents.
(a) Filing generally. This section applies to the filing of all
documents in cases before OCAHO.
(1) Filing a complaint. Subject to the electronic filing
requirements of paragraph (b) of this section, a party must file a
complaint either:
(i) Electronically through OCAHO's electronic filing application;
or
(ii) By filing an original and four copies with the Chief
Administrative Hearing Officer.
(2) Filing pleadings and documents other than the complaint.
Subject to the electronic filing requirements of paragraph (b) of this
section, a party must file pleadings and documents, including any
attachments, other than the complaint either:
(i) Electronically through OCAHO's electronic filing application;
or
(ii) By filing an original and two copies with the Administrative
Law Judge assigned to the case.
(b) Electronic filing--(1) Mandatory electronic filing. The
Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and all
attorneys or authorized representatives are required to electronically
file all documents, including complaints, with OCAHO through OCAHO's
electronic filing application. In individual cases, an Administrative
Law Judge or the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer may require
unrepresented complainants and respondents to electronically file
documents where paper filing is infeasible or impracticable.
(2) Voluntary electronic filing. Subject to paragraph (b)(1) of
this section, although not required, unrepresented complainants and
respondents may electronically file documents with OCAHO through
OCAHO's electronic filing application. If an unrepresented complainant
or respondent opts to use OCAHO's electronic filing application for a
case, the individual must electronically file all documents through
OCAHO's electronic filing application for the duration of that case,
unless the presiding Administrative Law Judge or the Chief
Administrative Hearing Officer grants leave to opt out of electronic
filing.
(3) Unavailability of electronic filing application. If OCAHO's
electronic filing application is unavailable due to an unplanned system
outage on the last day for filing in a specific case, the filing
deadline will be extended to the first day that the electronic filing
application becomes accessible that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal
holiday. For planned system outages, parties must electronically file
documents during system availability within the applicable filing
deadline, or paper or email file documents within the applicable filing
deadline. EOIR will issue public communications for planned system
outages ahead of the scheduled outage. Any planned system outage
announced five or fewer business days prior to the start of the outage
will be treated as an unplanned outage.
(4) Discretion to accept paper or email filings. The Administrative
Law Judges and the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer retain
discretion to accept paper or email filings in all cases.
(5) Originals. Parties must make the originals of all filed
documents available to OCAHO or the opposing party for review upon
request.
(6) Classified information. Notwithstanding any other provisions of
this part, classified information is never allowed to be electronically
filed.
(7) Signatures on electronically filed documents. All documents
filed electronically with OCAHO must have an original, handwritten ink
signature; an encrypted, digital signature; an electronic signature; or
a conformed signature. This paragraph (b)(7) is subject to the
signature requirements of the application or document being submitted.
(8) Misuse. OCAHO retains the right to suspend a user's access to
the OCAHO electronic filing application for repeated misuse or abuse of
the system.
(c) Service of filings. The service of filings with OCAHO depends
on whether all parties are using OCAHO's electronic filing application.
(1) When all parties are using the electronic filing application.
If all parties in a specific case are using OCAHO's electronic filing
application, the parties do not need to serve a document that is filed
through OCAHO's electronic filing application on the opposing party.
The OCAHO electronic filing application will effectuate service by
providing a notification of all electronically filed documents on all
parties to a case by email. The filing party must include a certificate
of service stating that all parties are using OCAHO's electronic filing
application and, therefore, no separate service was completed.
(2) When not all parties are using the electronic filing
application. If one or more parties in a specific case are not using
OCAHO's electronic filing application, or when the electronic filing
application is unavailable, parties must serve a copy of all documents
filed with OCAHO--except for the complaint as detailed in Sec. 68.3--
on all parties of record by one of the means specified in this
paragraph (c)(2), regardless of whether the document is filed
electronically or in paper with OCAHO. The filing party must include a
certificate of service that specifies the date and manner of service on
the other party or parties. When a party is represented by an attorney,
service must be made upon the attorney. Service under this paragraph
(b)(2) may be made:
(i) By personal delivery;
(ii) By mailing a copy to the last known address of the party or
representative; or
(iii) By email, if the party being served has consented to receive
electronic service of documents.
(3) Valid email address. Use of OCAHO's electronic filing
application requires a valid email address for electronic service.
OCAHO will use the email address provided by the parties when they
register for the electronic filing application for electronic service
on participating parties. Users must immediately update their
electronic filing application account if their email address changes.
OCAHO will consider service completed when the electronic notification
is delivered to the last email address on file provided by the user.
0
6. Amend Sec. 68.7 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 68.7 Form of pleadings.
(a) Requirements for all pleadings--(1) Caption. Every pleading
must contain a caption setting forth the statutory provision under
which the
[[Page 9997]]
proceeding is instituted, the title of the proceeding, the case number
assigned by the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer, the
names of all parties (or, after the complaint, at least the first party
named as a complainant or respondent), and a designation of the type of
pleading (e.g., complaint, motion to dismiss).
(2) Signatures. Every pleading must be signed by the party or
person representing the party who is submitting the pleading. For
pleadings filed by paper, the pleading must have an original,
handwritten ink signature; an encrypted, digital signature; or an
electronic signature. For pleadings filed through OCAHO's electronic
filing application, the pleading must have an original, handwritten ink
signature; an encrypted, digital signature; an electronic signature; or
a conformed signature. This paragraph (a)(2) is subject to the
requirements of the application or document being submitted.
(3) Date and contact information. All pleadings must contain the
date the pleading is being filed, and must contain the mailing address,
email address (if available), and telephone number of the party or
person representing the party.
(4) Size and format of pleadings. Unless otherwise permitted by the
Administrative Law Judge or the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer,
all pleadings must be submitted on standard size (8\1/2\ x 11) pages,
whether filed electronically or in paper. The Administrative Law Judge
or the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer may require that exhibits
and other written material presented be indexed, paginated, and
accompanied by a table of contents.
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec. 68.8 by revising paragraphs (b) and (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 68.8 Time computations.
* * * * *
(b) Computation of time for filing. Pleadings are not deemed filed
until received by the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing
Officer or the Administrative Law Judge assigned to the case.
(c) Computation of time for service. (1) When service of pleadings
(other than the complaint) is accomplished by mail, service is deemed
effective at the time of mailing.
(2) When service of pleadings is accomplished by electronic filing
through OCAHO's electronic filing application, service is deemed
effective at the time that the electronic filing application provides a
notification to all parties of the electronically filed pleading.
(3) Whenever a party has the right or is required to take some
action within a prescribed period of time after the service upon such
party of a pleading, notice, or other document (other than a complaint
or a subpoena) and the pleading, notice, or other document is served by
ordinary mail, five (5) days will be added to the prescribed period,
unless the compliance date is otherwise specified by the Chief
Administrative Hearing Officer or the Administrative Law Judge.
0
8. In Sec. 68.13, add paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 68.13 Conferences.
* * * * *
(d) Settlement officers and conferences. With the consent of all
parties to a case, the presiding Administrative Law Judge may refer a
case to another Administrative Law Judge--or, in cases under section
274B of the INA, to the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer--to act as
a settlement officer in order to facilitate settlement negotiations
between the parties.
(1) The settlement officer shall convene and preside over
settlement conferences by video teleconference, in person, or by
telephone.
(2) The settlement officer may require that a representative for
each party be present at or participate in settlement conferences, and
may require that the parties or agents of the parties with full
settlement authority be present or available by telephone or video
teleconference.
(3) Settlement proceedings under this paragraph shall be conducted
in accordance with the confidentiality provisions outlined in 5 U.S.C.
574. The settlement officer shall not discuss any aspect of the case
with the presiding Administrative Law Judge. Furthermore, any evidence
regarding statements, conduct, offers of settlement, and concessions of
the parties made in proceedings before the settlement officer shall be
inadmissible in any proceeding before the presiding Administrative Law
Judge, except by stipulation of the parties.
0
10. Amend Sec. 68.18 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 68.18 Discovery--general provisions.
(a) General. The parties shall not file requests for discovery,
answers, or responses thereto with the Administrative Law Judge. The
Administrative Law Judge may, however, upon motion of a party or on his
or her own initiative, order that such requests for discovery, answers,
or responses thereto be filed. Parties may obtain discovery by one or
more of the following methods: depositions upon oral examination or
written questions; written interrogatories; production of documents or
things, or permission to enter upon land or other property, for
inspection and other purposes; physical and mental examinations; and
requests for admissions. The frequency or extent of these methods may
be limited by the Administrative Law Judge upon his or her own
initiative or pursuant to a motion under paragraph (c) of this section.
* * * * *
Sec. 68.52 [Amended]
0
10. Amend Sec. 68.52(a)(2) by removing the text ``on a 3.5''
microdisk'' and adding in its place the text ``in an electronic
format''.
0
11. Amend Sec. 68.54 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 68.54 Administrative review of a final order of an
Administrative Law Judge in cases arising under section 274A or 274C.
* * * * *
(c) Filing and service of documents relating to administrative
review. All requests for administrative review, briefs, and other
filings relating to review by the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer
must be filed and served electronically through OCAHO's electronic
filing application consistent with Sec. 68.6. If electronic filing is
not possible, a request for administrative review, brief, or other
filing relating to administrative review must be filed and served by
email, same-day hand delivery, or overnight delivery. A notification of
administrative review by the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer will
also be served by email, same-day hand delivery, or overnight delivery.
* * * * *
Daren K. Margolin,
Director, Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of
Justice.
[FR Doc. 2026-04136 Filed 2-27-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-30-P
</pre></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on March 2, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.