Home/Federal/Federal Register/2026-20956

Rule2026-20956

Removing 30-Day Refugee Termination Notice

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

October 14, 2026

Effective

October 14, 2026

Issuing agencies

Homeland Security Department

Abstract

This interim final rule (IFR) amends Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations to expedite termination of refugee status when DHS determines an alien was not a refugee within the meaning of section 101(a)(42) of the Immigration and Nationality Act at the time of admission to the United States. The response period to a Notice of Intent to Terminate (NOIT) is reduced from thirty to ten days. These changes aim to restore integrity to the immigration system, mitigate risks to national security and public safety, and prevent fraud and exploitation.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 197 (Wednesday, October 14, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 197 (Wednesday, October 14, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65077-65091]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-20956]

========================================================================
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.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 91, No. 197 / Wednesday, October 14, 2026 /
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 65077]]

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

8 CFR Part 207

[CIS No. 2856-26; DHS Docket No. USCIS-2026-0397]
RIN 1615-AD23

Removing 30-Day Refugee Termination Notice

AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of
Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Interim final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This interim final rule (IFR) amends Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) regulations to expedite termination of refugee status
when DHS determines an alien was not a refugee within the meaning of
section 101(a)(42) of the Immigration and Nationality Act at the time
of admission to the United States. The response period to a Notice of
Intent to Terminate (NOIT) is reduced from thirty to ten days. These
changes aim to restore integrity to the immigration system, mitigate
risks to national security and public safety, and prevent fraud and
exploitation.

DATES: This IFR is effective on October 14, 2026. Written comments and
related materials must be submitted on or before November 13, 2026. The
electronic Federal Docket Management System will accept comments prior
to midnight Eastern Time at the end of that day.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments on the entirety of this rulemaking
package, identified by DHS Docket No. USCIS-2026-0397, through the
Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>. Follow the
website instructions for submitting comments.
Comments must be submitted in English, or an English translation
must be provided. Comments that will provide the most assistance to
USCIS in implementing these changes will reference a specific portion
of the Interim Final Rule, explain the reason for any recommended
change, and include data, information, or authority that support such
recommended change. Comments submitted in a manner other than the one
listed above, including emails or letters sent to DHS or USCIS
officials, will not be considered comments on the Interim Final Rule
and may not receive a response from DHS. Please note that DHS and USCIS
cannot accept any comments that are hand-delivered or couriered. In
addition, USCIS cannot accept comments contained on any form of digital
media storage devices, such as CDs/DVDs and USB drives. USCIS is also
not accepting mailed comments at this time. If you cannot submit your
comment by using <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, please contact the
Regulatory Coordination Division, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security,
by telephone at (240) 721-3000 for alternate instructions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Security, Public Safety, and Global
Vetting Division (SPSG), Office of Policy & Strategy, U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services (USCIS), DHS, 5900 Capital Gateway Drive, Camp
Springs, MD 20746; telephone (240) 721-3000. Individuals with hearing
or speech impairments may access the telephone number above via TTY by
calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 711.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Public Participation
II. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
B. Legal Authority
C. Summary of the Regulatory Action
D. Related Rulemakings
III. Background and Purpose
A. Initial Refugee Processing
B. Termination of Refugee Status
C. Actions by the Prior Administration That Increased the Risk
of Errant Refugee Admissions
D. Recent Actions by President Trump and DHS To Reinvigorate
Refugee Screening and Integrity of the Refugee Program
IV. Discussion of Interim Final Rule
V. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
A. Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
a. Good Cause
b. Foreign Affairs Exception
c. Reliance Interests
B. Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review),
13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and 14192
(``Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation'')
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
E. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
F. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
G. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
H. Family Assessment
I. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments)
J. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
K. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

Table of Abbreviations

APA--Administrative Procedure Act
CBP--U.S. Customs and Border Protection
CDAO--Chief Data and Analytics Office
CFR--Code of Federal Regulations
COI--Country-of-Origin Information
CPI-U--Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers
CRA--Congressional Review Act
DHS--Department of Homeland Security
E.O.--Executive Order
FR--Federal Register
FY--Fiscal Year
HSA--Homeland Security Act
ICE--U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
IFR--Interim Final Rule
INA--Immigration and Nationality Act
LPR--Lawful Permanent Residence/Resident
NEPA--National Environmental Policy Act
NOIT--Notice of Intent to Terminate
OIRA--Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
OMB--Office of Management and Budget
OPLA--Office of the Principal Legal Advisor
OPQ--Office of Performance and Quality
PARRIS--Post-Admission Refugee Reverification and Integrity
Strengthening
PRA--Paperwork Reduction Act
RFA--Regulatory Flexibility Act
SBREFA--Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
Secretary--Secretary of Homeland Security
State--Department of State
UMRA--Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
UNHCR--United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
U.S.C.--United States Code
USCIS--U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
USRAP--United States Refugee Admissions Program

I. Public Participation

DHS invites all interested parties to participate in this
rulemaking by submitting written data, views, comments and arguments on
all aspects

[[Page 65078]]

of this IFR. DHS also invites comments that relate to the economic,
environmental, or federalism effects that might result from this IFR.
Comments must be submitted in English, or an English translation must
be provided. Comments that will provide the most assistance to USCIS in
implementing these changes 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.
Comments submitted in a manner other than the one listed above,
including emails or letters sent to DHS or USCIS officials, will not be
considered comments on the IFR and may not receive a response from DHS.
Instructions: If you submit a comment, you must include the agency
name (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) and the DHS Docket No.
USCIS-2026-0397 for this rulemaking. Regardless of the method used for
submitting comments or material, all submissions will be posted,
without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, and will include any personal information you
provide. Therefore, submitting this information makes it public. You
may wish to consider limiting the amount of personal information that
you provide in any voluntary public comment submission you make to DHS.
DHS may withhold information provided in comments from public viewing
that it determines may impact the privacy of an individual or is
offensive. For additional information, please read the Privacy and
Security Notice available at <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>.
Docket: For access to the docket and to read background documents
or comments received, go to <a href="https://www.regulations.gov">https://www.regulations.gov</a>, referencing
DHS Docket No. USCIS-2026-0397. You may also sign up for email alerts
on the online docket to be notified when comments are posted or a final
rule is published.

II. Executive Summary

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

The purpose of this rulemaking is to shorten the termination notice
period in order to mitigate potential risks posed by aliens admitted to
the United States as refugees when, in fact, they were not eligible for
refugee classification at the time of admission. Those who are
improperly admitted may not have their identity fully confirmed and
vetted due to an incomplete record, and as such pose a risk to program
integrity and may pose a risk to national security and public safety. A
review of refugee processing policies and procedures implemented under
the Biden administration indicates an alarming erosion of integrity
leading to aliens being admitted to the United States as refugees when
their identities, eligibility for refugee classification, and
admissibility were determined based on incomplete records.\1\
Operational guidance implemented during this period allowed officers to
forgo typical lines of inquiry, sacrificing the caliber and efficacy of
the refugee interview, a critical screening component of the refugee
adjudication process.\2\ The priority of expediency over quality
encouraged a lack of robust interviews. Certain questions to ensure
that aliens were eligible for refugee status prior to admission to the
United States were omitted and this increased the risk of ineligible
aliens being approved for refugee classification and subsequently
admitted to the United States. This is supported by a recent
preliminary review of admitted refugees residing in Minnesota who were
interviewed, approved, and admitted during the Biden administration.
For the majority of these reviewed cases, the evidence was insufficient
to establish that the principal applicant met all of the required
elements of the refugee definition.\3\ The goal was to have as many
refugees as practicable enter the United States to meet President
Biden's ceiling for refugee admissions and in order to accomplish this,
a number of requirements for ensuring a thorough examination and
assessment of eligibility were reduced or removed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ Refugee applicants have the burden to establish their
identity for purposes of immigration benefits. Identity is a
critical element in refugee adjudications because it helps verify
that the applicant is who they say they are. Identity can be
established through the collection of biometrics, documentary
evidence, and testimony. In the refugee context, testimony is a
primary source of evidence. It provides valuable information about
the applicant's background, familial relations, past experiences,
and associations which provide context in establishing who the
applicant is as a person and whether they are eligible for the
benefit sought. An applicant's capacity to demonstrate their
identity to the satisfaction of the U.S. Government, ensuring that
officials are confident in the applicant's identity, is a necessary
step in determining eligibility for the immigration benefit
requested.
\2\ Cases of resettled refugees residing in Minnesota were
reviewed as part of an initial pilot operation cohort to reinforce
recent joint antifraud enforcement actions, such as Operation Twin
Shield, conducted with other law enforcement partners including ICE
and the FBI.
\3\ See USCIS Announces Results of Operation Twin Shield, a
Large-Scale Immigration Fraud Investigation (Sept. 30, 2025),
<a href="https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/news-releases/uscis-announces-results-of-operation-twin-shield-a-large-scale-immigration-fraud-investigation">https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/news-releases/uscis-announces-results-of-operation-twin-shield-a-large-scale-immigration-fraud-investigation</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This raises concerns about the integrity of the refugee program and
calls into question the eligibility for refugee status of aliens
admitted to the United States during this time. As detailed below in
this preamble, several policy decisions were implemented that
significantly reduced the integrity measures within the refugee
program. These changes resulted in an increase in the number of refugee
interviews conducted per officer each day, with less comprehensive
elicitation of testimony from applicants. These adjustments limited the
ability of refugee officers, and the U.S. government to accurately
determine whether an applicant's identity was properly established,
assess potential national security or public safety concerns, and
verify whether the applicant met the definition of a refugee.
To protect U.S. interests and public safety, USCIS must act swiftly
when DHS determines that an alien did not meet the refugee definition
and was not entitled to refugee status at the time of admission.
Shortening the NOIT response period enables DHS to respond rapidly to
such findings. Allowing a longer notice period could provide
opportunities for aliens to evade enforcement or engage in harmful
activities. For example, the Fraud Detection and National Security
(FDNS) Directorate investigated cases where refugees were later
identified as members of armed groups or had concealed extremist
affiliations. In one case, a refugee was found to have participated in
human rights abuses with the Liberian Armed Forces during the Liberian
Civil War. In another case, a refugee was found to have misrepresented
his involvement with the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF), an armed group
in Ethiopia. Social media checks indicated numerous pro-OLF activities
and pro-OLF and radical violent rhetoric posted prior to his admission
to the United States as a refugee. These cases demonstrate that when
credible evidence of national security or public safety concerns arises
after a refugee's admission, USCIS may be unable to initiate removal
proceedings until the termination process is complete. Therefore,
reducing the response period to ten days after issuance of a NOIT
allows USCIS to address such threats more quickly and effectively,
restoring integrity to the immigration system.
To be eligible for admission to the United States as a refugee, an
alien must establish, among other things, that they meet the definition
of ``refugee'' as defined in section 101(a)(42)(A) and (B)

[[Page 65079]]

of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42)(A) and (B), which includes the
requirement that they are not a persecutor. When USCIS discovers after
an alien's admission to the United States that they should not have
been admitted because they did not meet the refugee definition and
therefore the eligibility requirements for refugee classification at
the time of admission, it is important to protect the integrity of the
American immigration system by taking whatever steps are legally
available, including ensuring that the alien is removed from the United
States as quickly as possible where there is a legal basis to do so.
There is an inherent risk to national security and public safety when
an alien's identity has not been fully established. Therefore, the
ability to streamline refugee status termination, where appropriate,
contributes immediately to the safety of the American people and the
integrity of the lawful U.S. immigration system.
The current notice and response process for terminating refugee
status upon determination that the alien was not a refugee at the time
of their admission is inefficient and compromises the security and
safety of the United States. Providing 30 days to respond to a NOIT,
instead of a 10-day response period, allows ineligible aliens more time
to retain immigration benefits to which they are not entitled,
undermining the integrity of the U.S. immigration system and national
interests of the United States. Moreover, when an alien retains a
status he or she is not entitled to, while also being inadequately
vetted with insufficient information as to their true identity, there
is a risk to American society's safety and security.

B. Legal Authority

The Secretary of Homeland Security's (Secretary) authority for the
regulatory amendment made in this IFR is found in various provisions of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., and
the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA), Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat.
2135 (codified in part at 6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.). Under the INA, the
Secretary has authority over the admission, termination of status,
removal, and adjustment of status of refugees. See, e.g., INA 207, 209,
8 U.S.C. 1157, 1159.\4\ Most importantly, section 207(c)(4) of the INA,
8 U.S.C. 1157(c)(4), allows the Secretary to terminate the refugee
status of any alien and the alien's spouse or children if the Secretary
determines that the alien ``was not in fact a refugee . . . at the time
of the alien's admission'' and expressly authorizes the Secretary to
issue regulations governing the procedures for such terminations. The
Secretary has delegated the authority to grant refugee status and to
adjust or terminate such status to USCIS.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ See also HSA 451(b)(3), (5), 6 U.S.C. 271(b)(3), (5)
(transferring the authority to adjudicate refugee applications and
other adjudications performed before the enactment of the HSA from
the Immigration and Naturalization Service (``INS'') to DHS).
\5\ See DHS, Delegation to the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services, No. 0150.1 (June 5, 2003), <a href="https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=234775">https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=234775</a>; see also 8 CFR 207.4, 207.9; 8
CFR 209.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

General authority for issuing this IFR is found in section 103(a)
of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1103(a), which authorizes the Secretary to
administer and enforce the immigration and nationality laws and
establish such regulations as the Secretary deems necessary for
carrying out such authority, as well as section 102 of the HSA, 6
U.S.C. 112, which vests all of the functions of DHS in the Secretary
and authorizes the Secretary to issue regulations.\6\ Additional
authority for this rule is found in:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ Although several provisions of the INA discussed in this IFR
refer exclusively to the ``Attorney General,'' such provisions are
now to be read as referring to the Secretary by operation of the
HSA. See 6 U.S.C. 202(3), 251, 271(b), 542 note, and 557; 8 U.S.C.
1103(a)(1) and (g), 1551 note; Nielsen v. Preap, 586 U.S. 392, 397
n.2 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

<bullet> Section 101(b)(1)(F) of the HSA, 6 U.S.C. 111(b)(1)(F),
which establishes as a primary mission of DHS the duty to, ``ensure
that the overall economic security of the United States is not
diminished by efforts, activities, and programs aimed at securing the
homeland;''
<bullet> Section 101(a)(42) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42), which
defines a refugee; and
<bullet> Section 451(a)(3) of the HSA, 6 U.S.C. 271(a)(3), which
confers authority on the USCIS Director to establish ``policies for
performing [immigration adjudication] functions.''

C. Summary of the Regulatory Action

Through this IFR, DHS is amending 8 CFR 207.9 to change the 30-day
notice-and-response period for aliens whose refugee status is
terminated by USCIS to a 10-day notice-and-response period.

D. Related Rulemakings

DHS is engaging in multiple rulemaking actions that are in various
stages of development.\7\ DHS has considered and analyzed each of these
rules for peripheral, overlapping, and interrelated effects on this
rule and has found none, as this IFR is narrowly focused on refugee
termination procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ See Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, ``2026
Regulatory Plan and the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and
Deregulatory Actions,'' <a href="https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain">https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaMain</a> (last visited July 15, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DHS has also, to the extent possible, considered the effects, if
any, of possible policy changes of which USCIS is aware. For example, a
memorandum issued jointly by ICE and USCIS on February 18, 2026,
impacting individuals with refugee status states, ``the policy of USCIS
and ICE regarding when, and under what circumstances, immigration
officers may detain refugees who have failed to adjust to lawful
permanent resident status.'' \8\ The policy changes announced in the
memo relate to the statutory requirement at INA 209, 8 U.S.C. 1159,
governing the conditional admission of refugees and their adjustment of
status, and provide that DHS may arrest and detain a refugee who has
lived in the United States for at least one year and has not yet
acquired LPR status under INA 209(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1159(a)(1), to
inspect and examine the refugee for admission as an LPR.\9\ While the
policy changes are similarly aimed at protecting the public interest
through vetting of aliens admitted as refugees, including vetting for
national security, public safety, and fraud-related issues, the focus
of this rule is on procedures in terminations cases, not the custody,
arrest or detention of a refugee who has failed to adjust status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ Memorandum from Joseph B. Edlow, Director, U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services, and Todd M. Lyons, Senior Official
Performing the Duties of the Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, ``Detention of Refugees Who Have Failed to Adjust to
Lawful Permanent Resident Status,'' (Feb. 18, 2026).
\9\ On March 23, 2026, a U.S. District Court in the District of
Massachusetts stayed DHS's adoption and implementation of the
policies outlined in the February 18, 2026, Memo related to the
arrest and detention of refugees who have lived in the United States
for more than one year and have not acquired LPR status. See Jean A.
v. Noem, 2026 WL 805207, at * 1 (D. Mass. Mar. 23, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DHS invites the public to submit comments during the 30-day comment
period regarding anticipated interaction with related rules and policy
changes.

III. Background and Purpose

A. Initial Refugee Processing

Refugee status in the United States is a highly sought after
immigration benefit for displaced persons throughout the world due in
part to the benefits it bestows as well as a pathway to permanent
status. Resettlement to the United States through the United States
Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) is a multi-step process involving
several agency partners. The U.S. Department of State (State) leads the
annual

[[Page 65080]]

consultations process, funds and oversees refugee resettlement
activities, contracts with the non-governmental organizations that
provide pre- and post-USCIS interview support, and facilitates the
Priority 1 referrals to the USRAP process. After an alien is determined
to have access to the USRAP, they may file a Form I-590, Registration
for Classification as Refugee.\10\ Applications for refugee
classification are primarily processed overseas and adjudicated by
USCIS Refugee Officers who determine whether an alien meets the refugee
definition and is otherwise eligible for resettlement to the United
States. Under United States law, to be eligible for refugee
classification an applicant must establish that he or she:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ Form I-590, Registration for Classification as Refugee, OMB
No. 1615-0068 (Nov. 3, 2025), available at <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/forms/i-590.pdf">https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/forms/i-590.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

<bullet> is located outside the country of his or her nationality;
\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ The Refugee Act of 1980 amended this requirement and
allowed for in-country processing for certain refugees that the
President specifies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

<bullet> is of special humanitarian concern to the United States;
<bullet> was persecuted or fears persecution due to race, religion,
nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social
group;
<bullet> is not firmly resettled in another country; and
<bullet> is admissible as an immigrant to the United States.
See INA 101(a)(42), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42); INA 207(c)(1), 8 U.S.C.
1157(c)(1).
A refugee does not include anyone who ordered, incited, assisted,
or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account
of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social
group, or political opinion. Id. USCIS officers make a determination of
eligibility for refugee classification based on the above elements of
eligibility.
USCIS approval of an application for refugee classification
authorizes U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to admit the alien
``conditionally'' as a refugee upon arrival at a U.S. port of entry
within four months of the date of such approval.\12\ U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, the Office of Refugee Resettlement provides
resettlement assistance, that includes employment training, English
language training, cash assistance (in a manner that promotes early
self-sufficiency), and job placement, to the aliens admitted as
refugees to the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ 8 CFR 207.4 (authority for CBP to admit aliens approved for
refugee classification).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Derivatives of the principal refugee applicant may include the
spouse of a principal refugee and their unmarried children under the
age of 21.\13\ Derivative family members may be included in the initial
application for refugee status or petitioned for after the principal
refugee's arrival to the United States. Id. For derivatives to be
admitted to the United States as refugees, they must establish that
they are admissible and not subject to the persecutor bar but are not
required to prove that they meet the refugee definition or any of its
elements, such as past persecution or a well-founded fear of future
persecution.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ INA 207(c)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1157(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition to resettlement in the United States, refugees receive
employment authorization as soon as they arrive in the United
States.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ 8 CFR 274a.12(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Termination of Refugee Status

The sole basis for USCIS to terminate the status of an alien
conditionally admitted to the United States as a refugee is if USCIS
determines that the alien did not meet the definition of a refugee at
the time of admission to the United States.\15\ No other ground of
termination is specified under the law. An alien who did not, in fact,
meet the refugee definition at the time of admission would have been
inadmissible, and once that status is terminated, will generally lack
legal grounds to remain in the United States.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\15\ INA 207(c)(4), 8 U.S.C. 1157(c)(4).
\16\ See 8 CFR. 207.9 (permitting termination of refugee status
only if USCIS determines the alien ``was not a refugee'' within the
meaning of INA section 101(a)(42) at the time of admission); INA
section 237(a)(1)(A), 8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(1)(A) (making deportable any
noncitizen who was inadmissible ``at the time of entry''),
incorporating, inter alia, INA section 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), 8 U.S.C.
1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I) (inadmissibility for lack of valid immigrant
entry document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The determination to terminate refugee status because the alien did
not meet the definition of a refugee at the time of his or her
admission to the United States applies solely to principal refugees and
not to derivative refugees. In order to be eligible for refugee status,
principal applicants must meet the requirements of the refugee
definition in INA 101(a)(42), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42), must be admissible
to the United States, and must qualify under one of the designated
USRAP processing priorities.\17\ USCIS may in turn terminate a
derivative refugee's status if the principal's status is
terminated.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ INA 291, 207(c)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1361, 1157(c)(1).
\18\ See 8 CFR 207.7(d) and 207.9, see also INA 207(c)(4), 8
U.S.C. 1157(c)(4) providing that the ``refugee status of any alien
(and of the spouse or child of the alien), may be terminated''
(emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Refugee status can only be terminated while the alien remains in
refugee status and has not yet adjusted to lawful permanent resident
(LPR) status or naturalized.\19\ However, if USCIS has rescinded an
alien's LPR status under INA 246, 8 U.S.C. 1156, an alien admitted as a
refugee reverts to the prior refugee status and his or her refugee
status can be terminated if the basis for termination meets the
statutory requirements.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ Matter of D-K-, 25 I&N Dec. 761 (BIA 2012); Matter of
Smriko, 23 I&N Dec. 836 (BIA 2005).
\20\ USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 7, Part Q, Rescission of Lawful
Permanent Residence, <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-7-part-q">https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-7-part-q</a> (last visited Jan. 22, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

When USCIS determines that a principal refugee was not a refugee as
defined in INA 101(a)(42), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42), at the time of
admission, USCIS initiates termination of refugee status. The former
Immigration and Naturalization Service first implemented regulations
governing the termination of refugee status following the enactment of
the Refugee Act of 1980, and the process has remained substantively
unchanged in the 45 years since then.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ 45 FR 37392 (June 2, 1980) (interim final rule); 46 FR
45116 (Sept. 10, 1981) (final rule). INS and DHS have made only
minimal changes to 8 CFR 207.9 since it was first published.
Following the enactment of IIRIRA, INS updated the references to the
types of removal proceedings that may apply following a termination
of refugee status. See also, Inspection and Expedited Removal of
Aliens; Detention and Removal of Aliens; Conduct of Removal
Proceedings; Asylum Procedures, 62 FR 10312, 10337 (Mar. 6, 1997).
Other minor changes included renumbering from 207.8 to 207.9 and
including updated DHS service procedures. Procedures for Filing a
Derivative Petition (Form I-730) for a Spouse and Unmarried Children
of a Refugee/Asylee, 63 FR 3792 (Jan. 27, 1998); Immigration
Benefits Business Transformation, Increment I, 76 FR 53764, 53784
(Aug. 29, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

USCIS issues a Notice of Intent to Terminate (NOIT) prior to
termination.\22\ In the NOIT, USCIS outlines the specific basis or
bases for the termination, such as a determination by USCIS that the
harm the alien experienced or feared was not on account of a protected
ground or, for example, that the alien had another nationality or legal
status in another country such that they did not qualify as a refugee
from the claimed country. The NOIT further informs the alien of his or
her right to offer written or oral evidence in support of his or her
refugee claim and in opposition to the proposed termination. Prior to
this IFR, 8 CFR 207.9 provided that the alien has a 30-day period to
respond to a NOIT. The preamble implementing this process did

[[Page 65081]]

not explain the Immigration and Nationality Service's (INS) reasoning
for the 30-day response period (as opposed to some other shorter or
longer period).\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22 \ 8 CFR 207.9.
\23 \ 45 FR 37392; 46 FR 45116.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the alien chooses to provide oral testimony, he or she must
notify USCIS of his or her request for an additional interview so that
USCIS may schedule the interview within 30 days of the date of the
notice. The alien may also submit documentary evidence within 30 days
from the date of the notice to the return address that is listed at the
top of the notice.\24\ The NOIT makes clear that lack of a response to
the notice within the time allotted results in termination of the
alien's refugee status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ USCIS Policy Manual, Volume 7, Part L, Chapter 6,
Termination of Status and Notice to Appear Considerations, <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-7-part-l-chapter-6">https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-7-part-l-chapter-6</a> (last visited
April 1, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, the NOIT states that if USCIS determines that the alien
was not a refugee within the meaning of section 101(a)(42) of the INA,
8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42), at the time of admission, his or her refugee
status and employment authorization will be terminated, and he or she
will be subject to removal from the United States.
DHS typically reviews an alien's underlying refugee determination
prior to the final adjudication of his or her adjustment of status to
permanent residence and initiates termination when warranted. However,
termination may be initiated at any time prior to adjustment if DHS
determines the alien was not eligible for refugee status at the time he
or she was admitted as a refugee.
There is no appeal from the termination of refugee status by
USCIS.\25\ Upon termination USCIS processes the alien for removal under
sections 235, 240, and 241 of the INA.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ Id.
\26\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

USCIS may also place a person who was admitted as a refugee
directly in removal proceedings, without termination of refugee status,
on the basis of any applicable removal charge without the adjudication
of an adjustment application.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ See Matter of Smriko, 23 I&N Dec. 836, 838 (BIA 2005)
(explaining that ``Congress did not consider termination of refugee
status to be a prerequisite to initiating removal proceedings
against aliens admitted as refugees.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Actions by the Prior Administration That Increased the Risk of
Errant Refugee Admissions

Each year, the president sets the refugee ceiling, created by the
Refugee Act of 1980. INA 207(a)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1157(a)(2). During
President Trump's first term he reduced the number each fiscal year
(FY) (and additionally COVID-19 drastically reduced actual admissions)
in order to review the program's integrity and make sure proper
screening and vetting measures were in place and in order to shift
resources to deal with the crisis at the U.S. southern border.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ Presidential Determination on Refugee Admissions for Fiscal
Year 2018, 82 FR 49083 (Oct. 23, 2017); Presidential Determination
on Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2019, 83 FR 55091 (Nov. 1,
2018); Presidential Determination on Refugee Admissions for Fiscal
Year 2020, 84 FR 65903 (Nov. 29, 2019); Presidential Determination
on Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2021, 85 FR 71219 (Nov. 6,
2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

During the following Biden administration; however, the
Presidential Determination increased to a high not seen since the late
80s and early 90s.\29\ The refugee admission cap was repeatedly set at
125,000 from FY 2022 through FY 2025.\30\ Refugee actual admissions
under the Biden administration reached its peak in FY 2024, which was
100,034 admissions--the highest in three decades.\31\ In order to reach
this historically high level of refugee admissions, as evidenced by a
number of updated policies and procedures, USCIS prioritized speed of
processing over properly screening aliens. These changes to processing
included, but were not limited to:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\29\ See, e.g., Migration Policy Institute, U.S. Annual Refugee
Resettlement Ceilings and Number of Refugees Admitted, 1980-Present
(last updated Feb. 28, 2026), <a href="https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/us-refugee-resettlement">https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/us-refugee-resettlement</a>.
\30\ Presidential Determination on Refugee Admissions for Fiscal
Year 2022, 86 FR 57527 (Oct. 18, 2021); Presidential Determination
on Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2023, 87 FR 60547 (Oct. 6,
2022); Presidential Determination on Refugee Admissions for Fiscal
Year 2024, 88 FR 73521 (Oct. 25, 2023); Presidential Determination
on Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2025, 89 FR 83767 (Oct. 18,
2024).
\31\ For comparison, during President Trump's first term, the
refugee ceiling was set at 45,000, 30,000, and 18,000 for FY 2018,
2019, and 2020, respectively. Presidential Determination No. 2018-
02, 82 FR 49083 (Sep. 29, 2017); Presidential Determination No.
2019-13, 83 FR 50239 (Oct. 4, 2018); Presidential Determination No.
2020-02, 84 FR 65535 (Nov. 1, 2019). See also DHS, U.S. Citizenship
and Immigration Services, Office of Performance and Quality Refugee
Arrival and I-485 Applications to Register Permanent Residence or
Adjust Status (data queried Feb. 2026). Department of State, Bureau
of Population, Refugees, and Migration, Summary of Refugee
Admissions (Dec. 31, 2025), <a href="https://www.rpc.state.gov/admissions-and-arrivals">https://www.rpc.state.gov/admissions-and-arrivals</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

<bullet> discouraging officers from asking additional questions to
identify potential areas of concern, particularly related to
inadmissibility grounds, including security-related grounds, absent a
clear indication that such a concern exists;
<bullet> allowing officers to use standardized country-of-origin
information (COI) profiles for certain populations when making refugee
determinations instead of eliciting testimony about the individual
applicant's past harm or fears;
<bullet> rescinding the requirement to explore both past harm and a
fear of future harm so long as the alien established one or the other
when processing a refugee claim
<bullet> rescinding guidance on mandatory separate interviews for
derivative applicants;
<bullet> for certain populations/processing locations, increasing
the number of cases adjudicators were expected to interview and
complete in a day to meet productivity expectations;
<bullet> decreasing the expected level of supervisory review of a
refugee case file following adjudication; and
<bullet> rescinding guidance that prevented an alien from including
their spouse as a derivative refugee where the marriage was informal
and not valid under the law of the jurisdiction where it was
celebrated.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ Revised Guidance on Informal (``Camp'') Marriage, Memo,
RAIO Acting Associate Director T. Kim (Feb. 14, 2022)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The majority of these changes impacted the quality of the refugee
interview required under regulation.\33\ The main reasons officers
elicit information during an interview are to: verify the identity of
those present at the interview; determine whether to proceed with the
interview; determine eligibility for a benefit being sought (if the
interview relates to an application for a benefit); determine whether
the individual being interviewed is subject to any bars or grounds of
inadmissibility; evaluate the credibility; and identify whether fraud
may be involved.\34\ Accordingly, the refugee interview is an
instrumental component of robustly screening a refugee applicant. More
truncated, less thorough interviews under the Biden administration
damaged the integrity of refugee processing by hindering the officers'
ability to appropriately gather sufficient information related to the
aforementioned purposes of the refugee interview and to make an
appropriate and legally sufficient decision. Consequently, these
changes enabled ineligible aliens to exploit the refugee program to
resettle in the United States,

[[Page 65082]]

where they then have a path to permanent status, including citizenship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\33\ 8 CFR 207.2 (requiring that ``[e]ach applicant 14 years old
or older shall appear in person before an immigration officer for
inquiry under oath to determine their eligibility for admission as a
refugee'').
\34\ USCIS RAIO Lesson Plan, Interviewing-Introduction to the
Non-Adversarial Interview (Dec. 13, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

USCIS further instructed its adjudicators that it was no longer
necessary to ask additional detailed questions to identify and explore
inadmissibility grounds, including security-related inadmissibility
grounds, absent a clear indication of a concern. For example, per
internal guidance, if an alien was transported across a border by
smugglers, or an alien's home was attacked by an armed group, absent
additional information in the record or in country conditions
information indicating possible security-related concerns with respect
to these incidents (e.g., material support to a terrorist
organization), officers were not required to follow up or explore if
the individual was potentially inadmissible, or if these interactions
raised other concerns. Officers were discouraged from investigating
potential concerns or delving into an applicant's background or past
experiences unless referral documents, such as the U.N. High
Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Resettlement Registration Form (RRF),
explicitly noted concerns. In other words, officers were discouraged
from seeking or obtaining additional information beyond what was
provided in the record, already provided by non-U.S. government
entities, such as UNHCR or the Resettlement Support Center.
With respect to country of origin information (COI), rather than
using COI to inform their interviews and adjudications, USCIS, under
the Biden administration, trained refugee officers that for certain
populations, they could rely on COI ``profiles'' (e.g., ``Venezuelans
who oppose the government of Venezuela'') to establish various elements
of refugee eligibility once an alien indicated they were part of a
group of individuals for which COI supported a finding of well-founded
fear. Officers shifted from individualized, more detailed assessments
of refugee eligibility to confining interviews to review of the Form I-
590 and an alien's affirmation of belonging to a designated group
(e.g., Rohingya), rather than exploring and evaluating an alien's
unique experiences of past persecution or fears. In doing so, they
bypassed in-depth interviews exploring an alien's background,
experiences of past persecution in their home country, affiliations and
relationships, if the alien in fact had a well-founded fear of future
persecution in their home country, and other relevant details.
In 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order 13769, Protecting
the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,
restricting entry to the U.S. by certain foreign nationals and
temporarily suspending the USRAP.\35\ During this suspension of refugee
processing agencies were directed to review and strengthen vetting
procedures. As a result of the review, USCIS clarified and confirmed
that as a matter of policy, officers interviewing refugee applicants
were required to elicit sufficient information to make a determination
on both the past persecution and well-founded fear of future
persecution claims. Gathering testimony on both past persecution and
well-founded fear ensures a thorough and accurate evaluation of the
applicant's eligibility and prevents overlooking critical facts that
could substantiate, or call into question, their claim. For example,
thorough elicitation of testimony regarding past and future harm may
help identify inconsistencies and potential fraud by allowing
adjudicators to probe the alien's narrative for credibility by ensuring
it is internally consistent and consistent with statements the alien
may have provided to processing partners prior to interview. Most
importantly, it requires officers to probe more thoroughly into an
applicant's background and experiences, helping to establish his or her
identity, and further ensure that the correct decision is made in his
or her case. Although eliciting testimony about both past persecution
and well-founded fear helps develop a fuller picture of the alien and
better assess eligibility--ensuring that protection is granted to those
who genuinely qualify under the law--during the Biden administration
this policy was rescinded. Refugee officers were no longer required to
elicit testimony on both past persecution and well-founded fear claims,
and were instead instructed to only pursue one or the other, once one
had been established, precluding opportunities to identify critical
information and concerns related to an alien's eligibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\35 \ Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into
the United States, 82 FR 8977 (Feb. 1, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition to the relaxed requirements for principal refugee
applicants, USCIS changed policies regarding derivative applicants. The
first Trump administration issued guidance emphasizing the importance
of eliciting testimony from derivative I-590 applicants apart from the
principal refugee applicant to further explore potential national
security, identity, inadmissibility, and credibility issues. However,
USCIS subsequently rescinded this guidance under the Biden
administration and provided refugee officers the sole discretion on
when to interview derivative applicants separately. The purpose of this
change was to reduce the amount of questions and time spent with
derivatives in an interview, thus not thoroughly vetting and
identifying potential issues of all members of a case who, upon case
approval, were eligible to travel to the United States as refugees
along with the principal applicant.
Compounding the issue, marriage guidance under the previous
administration relaxed the criteria for adding a derivative spouse to a
case. Although intended to accommodate couples who genuinely acted as
spouses but could not formalize their union due to local restrictions,
the standards were misapplied, allowing individuals with minimal or
short-term connections to be classified as spouses and included on
cases. This practice, combined with lowered interview standards and
increasingly brief, less detailed case reviews in the name of
streamlining, increased the risk of approving applicants with only
tenuous relationships with the principal applicant.
In parallel with this minimized focus on eliciting substantive
information to comprehensively understand an alien's background and
identify potential issues of concern, the increased interview quotas
made it more difficult for officers to explore important issues, fully
probe the alien's credibility, and still meet their productivity
expectations. During the first Trump administration, USCIS reduced the
number of refugee interviews conducted per day per officer for certain
cases to allow for further exploration of potential national security,
inadmissibility, and credibility issues at interviews for refugee
adjudications. Notwithstanding, USCIS under the Biden administration,
in their effort to streamline interviews and increase the volume of
refugee cases that could be processed, increased the number of cases an
officer was expected to interview and adjudicate in a day for certain
cases, again pressuring officers to at times scale back interviews to
comply with the expectations.
This shift away from in-depth, thorough interviews in order to
streamline and expedite admission of aliens to the United States as
refugees shut down important lines of questioning to identify potential
national security, public safety, and other concerns to accurately
assess eligibility, illustrating the program's emphasis on the volume
of refugee case completions rather than the quality of interviews or
the integrity of

[[Page 65083]]

adjudications. Refugee officers potentially missed vital information
that could impact an applicant's eligibility, including issues related
to fraud, public safety, and national security, and discretionary
factors. USCIS, under the Biden administration, failed to fulfill its
responsibility to ensure that its officers thoroughly assessed
applicants, potentially resulting in an influx of ineligible aliens
into the country that may pose a risk to the national interests of the
United States.
Moreover, USCIS under the Biden administration decreased
requirements for supervisory review of refugee cases by only requiring
review of the assessment in lieu of reviewing the entire case contents.
This limited supervisor oversight to ensure cases were thoroughly and
accurately adjudicated, increased the risk that important information
about an alien was overlooked.
An overarching desire to approve as many refugee cases as possible
to meet the refugee ceiling set by the Biden administration contributed
to a culture in which the expectation appeared to be to approve cases,
even where egregious concerns may have existed. For instance, in one
processing location, a number of aliens identified as having defrauded
the U.S. government or submitting fraudulent documentation were found
inadmissible pursuant to the INA provisions related to fraud and
misrepresentation. Despite clear evidence of misrepresentation,
including falsification of identity and key information relevant to
their access to the USRAP, USCIS almost universally approved waivers of
the misrepresentation or fraud. This pattern demonstrates a troubling
disregard for the integrity of the refugee program, as individuals who
had already demonstrated a willingness to engage in fraud and
misrepresentation of their identities to U.S. government officials,
were nonetheless permitted to proceed with resettlement to the United
States, undermining both the security and credibility of the admissions
process.
The persistent presence of individuals, both in the United States
and overseas, attempting to exploit and defraud the U.S. humanitarian
programs, poses risks to national security, public safety, and the
integrity of the U.S. immigration system. Historically, DHS and State
have identified, through investigations, fraud concerns among the
special humanitarian access categories. For example, in January 2021,
DHS and State suspended the Iraqi Direct Access P-2 Program, following
an extensive investigation carried out by the State Diplomatic Security
Service and the DHS Office of the Inspector General, which uncovered a
fraud scheme related to the program.\36\ According to the indictment
and statement of facts agreed to by one of the three defendants in the
criminal case against the individuals:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\36\ See DHS Office of Inspector General, ``Iraqi National
Pleads Guilty to Conspiracy To Defraud U.S. Refugee Program,'' (Jan.
26, 2022), <a href="https://www.oig.dhs.gov/news/press-releases/2022/01262022/iraqi-national-pleads-guilty-conspiracy-defraud-us-refugee-program">https://www.oig.dhs.gov/news/press-releases/2022/01262022/iraqi-national-pleads-guilty-conspiracy-defraud-us-refugee-program</a>.

from approximately February 2016 until at least April 2019, the
three defendants, led by Abduljabbar, conspired to steal U.S.
government records related to hundreds of USRAP applications . . .
As part of their duties, both defendants had access to . . . a
database containing sensitive, non-public information about refugee
applicants and their family members, as well as the results of
security checks and internal assessments by U.S. officials regarding
applications.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\37\ United States v. Abduljabbar, 1:20-cr-00063, (D.D.C.).

With regard to properly establishing familial relationships in the
refugee P-3 family reunification program, this program was also
temporarily suspended when evidence revealed widespread fraud.\38\
State previously indicated ``[w]e were . . .only able to confirm all
claimed biological relationships in fewer than 20% of cases (family
units). In the remaining cases, at least one negative result
(fraudulent relationship) was identified, or the individuals refused to
be tested.'' \39\ Combined with recent policies that have lowered
standards across the refugee program, these factors have created
significant challenges and highlight the urgent need for this
regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\38\ U.S. Department of State, ``Fraud in the Refugee Family
Reunification (Priority Three) Program'' (Dec. 4, 2008), <a href="https://2001-2009.state.gov/g/prm/refadm/rls/fs/2008/112760.htm">https://2001-2009.state.gov/g/prm/refadm/rls/fs/2008/112760.htm</a>.
\39\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

An alarming illustration of the potentially dangerous impact of
relaxed screening of the refugee population under the Biden
administration occurred in the fall of 2024. CBP officers determined
that several Venezuelan nationals who USCIS interviewed and approved
for refugee classification were inadmissible and denied the aliens
refugee status and entry at the border after the officers discovered
tattoos associated with the deadly Tren de Aragua gang, a group
designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization in 2025.\40 \In some of
these cases, refugee officers did not inquire about tattoos during
their adjudications while the officers in others did not recognize that
the tattoos the officers asked about were suggestive of gang
membership, association, or affiliation.\41\ Following this incident,
USCIS completed a review of records of over 14,500 cases (over 31,000
aliens) from Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Venezuela
who were admitted to the United States as refugees between 2021 and
2024. The review identified over 1,500 cases (over 3,700 aliens) with
indicators of potential public safety concerns. These cases included
applicants with possible indicia of gang membership, association, or
affiliation, including but not limited to tattoos associated with
gangs, applicants romantically linked to gang members, medical records
contradicting testimony from applicants regarding tattoos or drug use,
prior criminal convictions, and/or evidence of a relationship with a
suspected or confirmed gang member (e.g., platonic, familial,
household, linked cases). Each case presenting such indicia should have
been appropriately evaluated on a case-by-case basis to ensure that
cases presenting a public safety or national security risk would be
found inadmissible, denied entry at the border, and thus denied refugee
status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\40\ Stephen Dinan, The Washington Times, `Stunning security
failure': U.S. agents miss Venezuelan gang tattoos in scan for
refugee approvals (Oct. 23, 2024), <a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/oct/23/dhs-approved-tren-de-aragua-gang-members-refugees/">https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/oct/23/dhs-approved-tren-de-aragua-gang-members-refugees/</a>;
Foreign Terrorist Organization Designations of Tren de Aragua, Mara
Salvatrucha, Cartel de Sinaloa, Cartel de Jalisco Nueva Generacion,
Carteles Unidos, Cartel del Noreste, Cartel del Golfo, and La Nueva
Familia Michoacana, 90 FR 10030 (Feb. 20, 2025). See also U.S.
Department of State, Fact Sheet: Designation of International
Cartels (Feb. 20, 2025), <a href="https://www.state.gov/designation-of-international-cartels">https://www.state.gov/designation-of-international-cartels</a> (``TdA is a transnational organization that
originated in Venezuela with cells in Colombia, Peru, and Chile,
with further reports of sporadic presence in Ecuador, Bolivia, and
Brazil. This brutal criminal group has conducted kidnappings,
extorted businesses, bribed public officials, authorized its members
to attack and kill U.S. law enforcement, and assassinated a
Venezuelan opposition figure.'').
\41\ Stephen Dinan, The Washington Times, ```Stunning security
failure': U.S. agents miss Venezuelan gang tattoos in scan for
refugee approvals'' (Oct. 23, 2024), <a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/oct/23/dhs-approved-tren-de-aragua-gang-members-refugees/">https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/oct/23/dhs-approved-tren-de-aragua-gang-members-refugees/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Recent Actions by President Trump and DHS To Reinvigorate Refugee
Screening and Integrity of the Refugee Program

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order (E.O.)
14161, Protecting the United States From Foreign Terrorists and Other
National Security and Public Safety Threats.\42\ This order is intended
to safeguard U.S. citizens from aliens who may seek to commit terrorist
acts, pose threats to

[[Page 65084]]

national security, promote hateful ideologies, or exploit immigration
laws for malicious purposes. E.O. 14161 underscores the importance of
vigilance during the visa issuance process to ensure that individuals
approved for admission into the United States do not intend to harm
Americans or compromise U.S. national interests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\42\ 90 FR 8451 (Jan. 30, 2025) (originally published Jan. 20,
2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 3(B) of E.O. 14161 further mandates that ``sufficient
safeguards are in place to prevent any refugee or stateless individual
from being admitted to the United States without undergoing stringent
identification beyond that required of any other alien seeking
admission or entry to the United States[.]'' \43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\43\ See Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists
and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats, 90 FR 8451
(Jan. 20, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the E.O. 14163, Realigning the United States Refugee Admissions
Program,\44\ President Trump also stated that suspended entry into the
United States of refugees under the USRAP was due to the United States
being inundated with record levels of migration that are detrimental to
the interests of the United States.\45\ The President explained that
the United States was unable to absorb large numbers of refugees into
its communities without compromising resources for Americans,
protecting safety and security, and ensuring appropriate assimilation
of refugees. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\44\ E.O. 14163, Realigning the United States Refugee Admissions
Program, 90 FR 8459 (Jan. 20, 2025).
\45\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consistent with the E.O., prioritizing public safety and national
security is of the utmost importance to DHS. Pursuant to the
President's direction in E.O. 14163, Realigning the United States
Refugee Admissions Program, DHS suspended decisions on applications for
refugee classification as well as entry into the United States of
refugees under the USRAP on January 20, 2025, to protect the safety and
security of the American people and uphold a lawful and orderly U.S.
immigration system. The USRAP is currently suspended because the Biden
Administration prioritized expediency and admissions over quality
screening and evaluation of refugee applicants' eligibility. During
this suspension, the USRAP is only admitting refugees on a case-by-case
basis, in the discretion of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of
Homeland Security, and since the start of the FY 2026, in accordance
with the Presidential Determination on Refugee Admissions for FY
2026,'' but only so long as [the Secretaries] determine that the entry
of such aliens as refugees is in the national interest and does not
pose a threat to the security or welfare of the United States.'' \46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\46\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To address and combat potential fallout from the lax refugee
processing during the Biden administration, USCIS launched Operation
Post-Admission Refugee Reverification and Integrity Strengthening
(Operation PARRIS), to review background checks, conduct reinterviews,
and review refugee claims based on the available record.\47 \Upon
review and scrutiny of underlying refugee claims for aliens admitted to
the United States as refugees, USCIS determined the record for a number
of these aliens did not support the finding that the alien met the
refugee definition at the time of admission and he or she required
follow-up questioning. USCIS began issuing NOITs to those under this
review who were found to not have met the definition of a refugee at
the time of admission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\47 \ See DHS Launches Landmark USCIS Fraud Investigation in
Minnesota (Jan. 9, 2026), <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/news-releases/dhs-launches-landmark-uscis-fraud-investigation-in-minnesota">https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/news-releases/dhs-launches-landmark-uscis-fraud-investigation-in-minnesota</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As noted above, on January 9, 2026, DHS announced the launch of
Operation PARRIS, a sweeping initiative first centered in Minnesota to
reexamine thousands of refugee cases through new background checks and
intensive verification of refugee claims.\48\ In this announcement, DHS
asserted it will ``not stand idly by as the U.S. immigration system is
weaponized by those seeking to defraud the American people. American
citizens and the rule of law come first, always.'' \49\ Operation
PARRIS is part of a broader strategy to implement enhanced screening
standards under E.O. 14161. These directives require federal agencies
to identify and implement new vetting enhancements to safeguard the
nation from terrorists and other public safety threats.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\48\ See DHS Launches Landmark USCIS Fraud Investigation in
Minnesota, Jan. 9, 2026, <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/news-releases/dhs-launches-landmark-uscis-fraud-investigation-in-minnesota">https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/news-releases/dhs-launches-landmark-uscis-fraud-investigation-in-minnesota</a> (last visited Jan. 30, 2026).
\49 \ Id.
\50\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Operation PARRIS, DHS is identifying and referring cases of
fraud, national security and public safety concerns, and other criminal
activity to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). An initial
review of a select subset of cases revealed a persistent issue of
inconsistency in interview quality. While some interviews were thorough
and well-conducted, others were lacking. These interviews are
characterized by minimal questioning, little to no appropriate follow-
up questioning, and insufficient inquiry into critical matters such as
grounds of inadmissibility, including terrorism-related grounds leading
to refugee admissions of aliens whose identities and backgrounds were
not properly confirmed. Aliens with unknown identity and background
pose risks to U.S. national security.
On December 5, 2025, USCIS established the USCIS Vetting Center, a
specialized unit designed to screen out terrorists, criminal aliens,
and other foreign nationals who pose potential threats to public
safety, have committed fraud, or committed other crimes.\51\ Since its
creation, the USCIS Vetting Center has dedicated a task force to
conduct review of certain refugee cases previously approved under the
Biden administration. The findings of this task force underscore the
deficiencies and risks to public safety and national security
associated with the prior administration's approach to the refugee
program, including insufficient vetting and inadequate assessment of
applicants' identities, backgrounds, associations, and eligibility for
refugee status. For instance, a review of a resettled Ethiopian refugee
case revealed inconsistencies and other credibility issues regarding
the applicant's involvement with and financial support for the Oromo
Liberation Front (OLF), a group that met the definition of a Tier III
terrorist group at the time of the applicant's involvement, as well as
his father's affiliation with the OLF. The refugee status was
subsequently terminated. Additional cases reviewed by the task force
involved resettled refugees who misrepresented material facts about
their identities and family members, such as providing inconsistent
marriage information between their I-590 and I-485 forms, and failing
to disclose spouses or children during the I-590 interview while later
reporting them on the I-485. Through enhanced vetting procedures
implemented under the current administration, the task force also
identified cases of refugees promoting hateful and violent rhetoric or
supporting terrorist organizations on their social media profiles.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\51\ U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Establishes New
Center to Strengthen Immigration Screening and Target Bad Actors,
Dec. 5, 2025, <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/news-releases/us-citizenship-and-immigration-services-establishes-new-center-to-strengthen-immigration-screening">https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/news-releases/us-citizenship-and-immigration-services-establishes-new-center-to-strengthen-immigration-screening</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Discussion of Interim Final Rule

Previous administrations' prioritization of the admissions of large
numbers of refugees over homeland

[[Page 65085]]

security blatantly overlooked essential components of eligibility and
put at risk the national security, public safety and other interests of
the U.S. citizenry. Safeguarding national security and public safety
remains the foremost priority of the country's immigration programs,
taking precedence over numerical admission targets. The agency stands
committed to conducting rigorous vetting of all aliens and to the
detection and prevention of fraud and other serious threats, ensuring
the safety of all Americans prior to admission of an alien to the
United States.
Accordingly, this IFR shortens the amount of time that refugees are
provided to respond to a NOIT in order to ensure that terminations of
refugee status can occur as expeditiously as possible to protect
national security and public safety, given the risks created by the
deficient vetting described above in Section III.C. Under this IFR,
refugees will continue to receive a NOIT, which will specify DHS's
intent to terminate their refugee status based on a determination that
they did not meet the refugee definition at the time of admission. DHS
will provide the specific reason or reasons why USCIS found the refugee
failed to meet the refugee definition at the time of admission (e.g.,
failure to establish that past harm experienced was serious enough to
rise to the level of persecution, a determination that the alien's harm
was not on account of a protected ground, failure to provide credible
testimony as to any or all of the elements of the refugee definition,
etc.). However, this rule will provide such aliens with ten days
(rather than 30 days) to respond (provide documentary evidence or
indicate a desire to provide oral evidence) if they choose. If the
deadline to reply to the NOIT passes without a response, the refugee is
considered to have forfeited his or her right to rebut the allegations
in the NOIT, and DHS will terminate his or her refugee status.
By regulation, the response period begins either upon personal
service of the NOIT directly to the alien or, if sent by mail, upon
mailing of the NOIT.\52\ When calculating the response deadline, all
days, including Saturdays, Sundays, and federal holidays, are
counted.\53\ However, if the final day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or
federal holiday, the deadline is extended to the next business day.\54\
Per 8 CFR 103.8(b), if the notice is served by mail, three days are
added to the response period, with service considered complete on the
date the notice is mailed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\52\ 8 CFR 103.8.
\53\ See 8 CFR 1.2 (definition of ``day'').
\54\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DHS's foremost priority is the safety and security of American
citizens and residents. At the same time, DHS is committed to ensuring
that refugees who receive a NOIT are afforded a meaningful opportunity
to respond or provide a rebuttal. To enhance mail service reliability
and afford refugees the full response period, DHS will utilize express
delivery service providers, which guarantee a three-day delivery window
and offer tracking and confirmation of both the NOIT's departure from
DHS custody and its delivery to the recipient.\55\ This approach
ensures that refugees receive their NOIT promptly and can exercise
their right to respond. The NOIT will be dated on the day it is mailed,
and the 10-day response period for the refugee will begin from that
date. If the refugee wishes to request an opportunity to provide oral
testimony in lieu of responding to each point or points in the NOIT,
such a request would be considered a timely response by DHS. As
explained above, in accordance with 8 CFR 103.8(b), when a notice is
served by mail, three additional days are added to the response period,
with service considered complete on the date the notice is mailed.
Therefore, applicants who are mailed notices are afforded a total of 13
days to respond, accounting for this regulatory provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\55\ See, e.g., <a href="https://www.fedex.com/en-us/shipping/3-day-express-saver-shipping.html">https://www.fedex.com/en-us/shipping/3-day-express-saver-shipping.html</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reducing the 30-day response timeframe for NOITs issued in refugee
terminations to a 10-day response timeframe allows DHS to take swifter
action in cases where aliens did not meet the definition of a refugee
when admitted to the United States. USCIS needs the ability to
terminate refugee status in such cases in order to more quickly begin
the removal process for aliens who should never have been admitted to
the United States as refugees in the first place, including aliens
similarly situated to those discussed above in Section III.C, who also
pose a national security or public safety risk. While termination of
refugee status is not a precondition for initiation of removal
proceedings, the termination of refugee status gives DHS a statutory
basis for removal, and in some cases, no other removal grounds apply,
so this termination is needed.\56\ Accordingly, promptly terminating
refugee status in cases where the alien was clearly ineligible at the
time of admission facilitates DHS's ability to process the alien for
removal under sections 235, 240, and 241 of the INA, and to remove the
alien if they do not qualify for relief from removal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\56\ In Matter of Smriko, 23 I&N Dec. 836 (BIA 2005), the Board
of Immigration Appeals held that termination of an alien's refugee
status under section 207 of the INA is not a precondition to the
initiation of section 240 removal proceedings, but only because the
alien in that case was removable on the basis of certain criminal
conduct that independently qualified him for removal irrespective of
refugee status. See id. at 837-838; compare Matter of D-K-, 25 I&N
Dec. 761 (BIA 2012) (affirming that DHS need not terminate refugee
status prior to commencing section 240 removal proceedings but
determining that the alien was not removable under the grounds
charged by DHS). On January 21, 2026, the DHS Secretary formally
referred the BIA's decision in Matter of D-K- to the Attorney
General for review. In that referral, DHS asked the Attorney General
to vacate the BIA's decision insofar as it erroneously holds that
aliens admitted as refugees may not be taken back into DHS custody
under section 209(a)(l) of the INA, charged with inadmissibility
under section 212(a) of the INA, and promptly removed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

More broadly, timely termination of their refugee status is
critical to the integrity of the country's immigration programs,
considering the risks they may pose to the United States. As USCIS
continues to encounter aliens admitted as refugees who did not meet the
definition of refugee at the time of admission, termination of refugee
status in as prompt and efficient manner as possible ensures USCIS can
best protect the safety and security of Americans and continue
complying with E.O.s 14161 and 14163. By shortening the 30-day period
for an alien to respond to a NOIT to 10 days, USCIS is exercising its
authority to expeditiously terminate the status of refugees who did not
meet the refugee definition at the time of their admission to the
United States. Streamlining the termination process additionally
ensures that ineligible aliens who were erroneously allowed to enter
the United States as refugees lose their authorization to work in as
timely a manner as possible since termination of refugee status also
results in termination of employment authorization.
DHS believes that reducing the NOIT response period from 30 days to
10 days maintains adequate procedural safeguards for aliens by
affording them an opportunity to respond to the NOIT while also
balancing the government's interests in national security and public
safety and in protecting the integrity of the refugee program. The NOIT
will inform the alien the basis for termination and explain that they
may submit evidence to contest termination, and/or request an
interview. An alien does not need to submit evidence or a full response
within the 10 days, and may instead opt for an interview, but must make
the interview request to USCIS within the response period.

[[Page 65086]]

Aliens who receive a NOIT under the proposed process therefore will
continue to receive a meaningful opportunity to respond to the
allegations in the notice--the alien can submit a written response to
the NOIT within the deadline and/or request an interview with USCIS
where their refugee claim can be heard. The abbreviated time period to
respond to the NOIT will in turn allow the government to more
efficiently process cases where aliens did not meet the refugee
definition at the time of admission to the United States, and who were
from the outset, never eligible for the benefit they received. Instead
of waiting 30 days for an alien to respond to a NOIT before scheduling
an interview if requested by the alien or taking other action, this
rule will allow USCIS to act as soon as 10 days after service of the
NOIT. For aliens who do not respond timely, the 10-day response period
will allow USCIS to finalize termination much more quickly.
Furthermore, each alien whose refugee status is terminated will be
processed under INA sections 235, 240, or 241 and may seek other forms
of relief or protection from removal as permitted in those proceedings.
For example, aliens in section 240 removal proceedings may seek other
forms of relief in a hearing before an immigration judge where the
interests of the U.S. Government are properly represented by an
attorney from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Office
of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA).
The regulatory amendment being made in this IFR is clearly
authorized by INA 207(c)(4), 8 U.S.C. 1157(c)(4), which gives
discretion to the Secretary to ``prescribe'' regulations governing
termination of aliens who were ``not in fact a refugee within the
meaning of section 101(a)(42) . . . at the time of the alien's
admission.''

V. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

A. Administrative Procedures Act (APA)

DHS is issuing this IFR without prior notice or public procedure
because DHS is invoking the ``good cause'' and foreign affairs
exceptions of the APA. See 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), (b)(B). For the same
reasons, a delayed effective date of no less than 30 days is not
required under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). DHS has also considered potential
reliance interests and discusses them below.
a. Good Cause
An agency may forgo notice-and-comment rulemaking and a delayed
effective date when the agency ``for good cause finds . . . that notice
and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or
contrary to the public interest.'' See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Likewise,
section 553(d)'s requirement of 30-day advance publication may be
waived by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.
See 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
The ``impracticable'' prong of the good cause exception excuses
notice and comment in emergency situations, or where the delay caused
by the APA's notice-and-comment procedures would result in serious harm
to life, property, or an immediate threat to public safety.\57\
Although the good cause exception is ``narrowly construed and only
reluctantly countenanced,'' \58\ it is an important safety valve to be
used where delay caused by notice and comment would do real harm (even
absent an emergency situation).\59\ An agency may find that advance
notice and comment or a delayed effective date is ``impracticable''
when undertaking such procedure would impede due and timely execution
of an important agency function.\60\ For example, courts have explained
that notice-and-comment rulemaking may be impracticable where, for
instance, air travel security would be unable to address threats posing
a ``possible imminent hazard to aircraft, persons and property within
the United States;'' \61\ if a rule was of life-saving importance to
mine workers in the event of a mine explosion; \62\ if public safety is
jeopardized; \63\ or in case of an urgency related to an international
crisis and national security.\64\ Impracticability is inevitably a
fact-or-context dependent inquiry.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\57\ See Nat. Res. Def. Council v. Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety
Admin, 894 F.3d 95, 114 (2d Cir. 2018); see Jifry v. FAA, 370 F.3d
1174, 1179 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (finding good cause for the promulgation
of security rules in the aftermath of 9/11 terrorist attacks); see
also Util. Solid Waste Activities Grp. v. EPA, 236 F.3d 749 (D.C.
Cir. 2001).
\58\ See State of New Jersey v. EPA, 626 F.2d 1038, 1045 (D.C.
Cir. 1980); see also Am. Fed. Gov't Emps. v. Block, 655 F.2d 1153,
1156 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (``As the legislative history of the APA makes
clear, moreover, the exceptions at issue here are not `escape
clauses' that may be arbitrarily utilized at the agency's whim.
Rather, use of these exceptions by administrative agencies should be
limited to emergency situations . . .'').
\59\ See U.S. v. Dean, 604 F.3d 1275, 1379 (11th Cir. 2010);
United States Steel Corp. v. United States Environmental Protection
Agency, 595 F.2d 207, 214 (5th Cir. 1979).
\60\ See, e.g., Jifry v. FAA, 370 F.3d 1174, 1179-90 (D.C. Cir.
2004) (excusing APA 553 procedures for a regulation governing the
suspension and revocation of airman certificates of aliens for
security reasons, finding that the agency had legitimate concerns
over the threat of further terrorist acts involving aircrafts, and
that notice and comment would have delayed the ability of TSA and
the FAA to take effective action); see also Tri-Cty. Tel. Ass'n,
Inc. v. FCC, 999 F.3d 714, 719-20 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (per curiam)
(sustaining a finding of good cause because the damage from
hurricanes and upcoming hurricanes created an emergency sufficient
to make notice and comment impracticable to issue funds).
\61\ See Jifry v. FAA, 370 F.3d 1174, 1179 (D.C. Cir. 2004).
\62\ Council of the S. Mountains, Inc. v. Donovan, 653 F.2d 573,
581 (D.C. Cir. 1981).
\63\ See United States v. Dean, 604 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2010)
(finding that the Attorney General's public safety justification was
good cause for bypassing the notice and comment requirements of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in promulgating interim rule
making the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA)
registration retroactive to all sex offenders convicted prior to
SORNA's enactment).
\64\ See Malek-Marzban v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 653
F.2d 113, 116 (4th Cir. 1981) (Upholding the agency's finding that
notice and comment procedures were impracticable, unnecessary, and
contrary to the public interest when swift action was needed to
regulate the presence of aliens in light of the urgency of the
international crisis.'').
\65\ Mid-Tex Elec. Co-op., Inc. v. FERC, 822 F.2d 1123, 1132
(D.C. Cir. 1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The good cause exception may also apply when affording prior notice
and comment would be contrary to the public interest. See 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B). The question is not whether dispensing with notice and
comment would be contrary to the public interest, but whether providing
notice and comment would be contrary to the public interest.\66\ This
prong is met when the ordinary procedures under the APA--generally
presumed to serve in the public interest--would in fact harm the
interest of the public.\67\ The exception is appropriately invoked when
the timing and the disclosure requirement of the usual procedures would
defeat the purpose of the proposal and harm the public interest.\68\
This prong of the good cause exception is closely related to the
impracticable prong.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\66\ Mack Trucks, Inc. v. EPA, 682 F.3d 87, 95 (D.C. Cir. 2012).
\67\ Id.
\68\ Nat. Res. Def. Council v. Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety
Admin., 894 F.3d 95, 114 (2d Cir. 2018) (``Of course, since notice
and comment are regarded as beneficial to the public interest, for
the exception to apply, the use of notice and comment must actually
harm the public interest'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the reasons explained below, DHS believes that, based on the
totality of the circumstances, it has good cause to bypass ordinary
notice-and-comment procedures because following these public procedures
is impracticable and moving expeditiously is in the best interest of
the public. As discussed in the preamble, streamlining the process to
terminate refugee status in cases where the alien is determined to not
have met the refugee definition at the time of admission to the United
States is consistent with DHS's mission and responsibilities to ensure
national security and public safety, and to

[[Page 65087]]

protect the immigration system from fraud and exploitation. DHS is
immediately taking measures to implement a process that changes the 30-
day response timeframe in refugee termination cases to 10 days, thereby
expediting terminations in a manner that averts harm to the public.
Engaging in the APA's notice-and-comment requirement under 5 U.S.C.
553(b) would impede DHS's duties as outlined in E.O. 14161, requiring
that sufficient safeguards are in place to prevent any refugee from
being admitted to the United States without undergoing stringent
vetting, and E.O. 14163, permitting admission of refugees on a case-by-
case basis only so long as it is determined to be in the national
interest and the alien does not pose a threat to the security and
welfare of the United States.
Thus, in accordance with President Trump's policy determinations
related to foreign nationals, DHS is taking, without delay, immediate
action to ensure that aliens who did not meet the refugee definition at
the time of admission to the United States are vetted and screened to
the maximum degree possible to ensure they do not receive significant
benefits, including employment authorization, permanent legal status,
and other federal, state, and local benefits. Furthermore, unless DHS
acts immediately, there is a risk that aliens who were not eligible for
admission as refugees could present harm to the public interest.
As explained in detail in Section IV of this preamble, DHS
reasonably believes, based on a review of prior refugee approvals and
internal procedures, policies, and directives, that the lack of
detailed refugee interviews and insufficient inquiry into critical
matters such as inadmissibilities or terrorism-related grounds, coupled
with the prioritization of admission numbers over legally sufficient
decisions and other programmatic issues like over-reliance on COI, have
resulted in aliens receiving refugee status when they were not
eligible. These practices have compromised the integrity of the refugee
program.
In Operation PARRIS, DHS has further identified similar issues
regarding the quality of refugee interviews after reviewing a subset of
cases, where in some instances populations from specific countries were
processed and approved with minimal lines of questioning. This rule
amends the 30-day period to 10 days for aliens to respond to a NOIT so
that the agency can expeditiously issue terminations in cases where,
after a thorough review of the case and comprehensive vetting, USCIS
determines that the alien did not meet the refugee definition at the
time of admission. In such cases, an alien will not maintain valid
refugee status a day longer than legally required. This IFR would
accordingly more quickly eliminate a pathway to permanent status used
by aliens with falsified claims or malevolent intent, including those
who may pose an ongoing and imminent threat to public safety and
national security such as the refugee cases reviewed and terminated by
the USCIS Vetting Center outlined above.
Therefore, if DHS had to engage in advance notice-and-comment
procedures, it would continue to allow aliens who should have never
been admitted to the United States as refugees to remain present longer
than necessary, potentially putting at risk the safety and security of
the United States and compromising the integrity of the U.S.
immigration system. For example, in one case, after admission to the
U.S. it was later discovered that the refugee was a war criminal who
should have been subject to the persecutor bar and not allowed into the
country. In another case listed above, the refugee was not admissible
due to a lack of credibility with regard to both participation in and
sending money to the OLF (a Tier III terrorist organization at the time
of the alien's involvement) as well as his father's status as a well-
known OLF member. In these circumstances, providing advance notice-and-
comment procedures is impracticable and not in the public interest.
Finally, DHS finds that it is unnecessary to delay this final
rule's effective date under 5 U.S.C. 553(d). There is no need to give
affected parties additional time to adjust their behavior before this
final rule takes effect because DHS believes there are likely no
behavioral adjustments to make. The aliens who would be affected by
this rule have already entered the United States.\69\ In other words, a
delay in the rule's effective date would be unlikely to have an impact
on an alien's choice to seek to enter the United States as a refugee or
not and would not impact whether or not they were eligible for such
status at the time of admission. A delayed effective date would serve
no purpose but create further harm to the public, as exemplified by the
cases that, upon review and additional vetting, have resulted in the
issuance of NOITs because the record indicated the alien was not a
refugee at the time of admission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\69\ DHS recognizes that there are some ongoing case-by-case
admissions of refugees and that, as a result, there may be a small
number of aliens admitted as refugees during what would have been
the 30-day delayed effective date period. DHS does not believe,
however, that these aliens would likely be subject to a later
termination of their refugee status and subject to this rule given
the actions taken as discussed above to strengthen refugee vetting
and processing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the reasons outlined above, DHS believes that bypassing the
ordinary notice-and-comment procedures and the delayed effective date
requirement is justified, under the totality of circumstances, and
given that immediate action is necessary, is consistent with DHS's
statutory mission to take regulatory action to administer the refugee
program effectively, as well as the President's directives in E.O.
14161 and E.O. 14163. Nevertheless, recognizing the value of public
comments, DHS is publishing this rule as an IFR with a request for
public comment.
b. Foreign Affairs Exception
Agencies may forgo notice-and-comment rulemaking and a delayed
effective date when the rulemaking involves a ``military or foreign
affairs function of the United States.'' 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1). The
Secretary of State, on February 21, 2025, determined that:

all efforts, conducted by any agency of the federal government,
to control the status, entry, and exit of people and the transfer of
goods, services, data, technology, and any other items across the
borders of the United States, constitutes a foreign affairs function
of the United States under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5
U.S.C. 553, 554.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\70\ Determination: Foreign Affairs Functions of the United
States, 90 FR 12200 (Mar. 14, 2025).

This rulemaking is connected to an alien's status as a refugee
admitted into the United States, which directly stems from the conduct
of international relations of the United States. Therefore, it
constitutes a foreign affairs function. U.S. refugee law is rooted in
international law. In 1968, the United States acceded to the 1967
United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (Refugee
Protocol) \71\, which incorporates the 1951 United Nations Convention
Relating to the Status of Refugees (Refugee Convention). The Refugee
Convention sets out the rights of refugees and establishes the
standards for their treatment in the countries that receive them,
providing the most comprehensive codification of refugee rights at the
international level. State

[[Page 65088]]

signatories to the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol are bound by
international obligations to provide for the protection of refugees
whether such States are countries of first asylum or of resettlement.
Refugee status is a product of statutorily mandated foreign affairs
considerations and U.S. foreign policy commitments. With respect to
refugee admissions, the relevant Departments must consider conditions
within the specific countries, ``the extent to which other countries
will admit and assist'' in resettlement, and ``the impact of the
participation of the United States in the resettlement of such refugees
on the foreign policy interests of the United States''. INA sec. 207; 8
U.S.C. 1157(e). Refugee determinations require diplomatic relationships
with countries of origin, transit, and habituation as well as ongoing
assessments of foreign governments' conduct, stability, and human
rights practices.\72\ The United States' management of its refugee
program and immigration enforcement strategies is predicated on the
belief that migration is a shared responsibility among all countries
with which the United States has ongoing diplomatic relations and
negotiations. The common thread in these engagements is the United
States' commitment to provide protection to refugees who clearly
qualify, while enforcing national immigration laws, and that addressing
this challenge requires a multinational response. As such, this is a
function of foreign affairs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\71\ United Nations General Assembly, Protocol Relating to the
Status of Refugees, 31 January 1967, United Nation Treaty Series,
vol. 606, p. 267, also found in the United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees, Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining
Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol
relating to the Status of Refugees, (Geneva 1979, re-issued 1992 and
2019), Annex III.
\72\ USCIS, ``The United States Refugee Admissions Program
(USRAP) Consultation and Worldwide Processing Priorities'' (last
updated Sept. 17, 2025), <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-and-asylum/usrap">https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-and-asylum/usrap</a>.; see also U.S. Department of State,
``About Refugee Admissions'' (last accessed Jan. 23, 2026), <a href="https://2017-2021.state.gov/refugee-admissions/about/">https://2017-2021.state.gov/refugee-admissions/about/</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under this IFR, changing the 30-day response period to NOITs to 10
days in refugee termination cases allows DHS to expeditiously terminate
cases where applicable, and process aliens for removal as soon as
possible. Thus, this rulemaking is also related to the control of the
entry and exit of aliens across the borders of the United States and
falls within the Secretary's foreign affairs determination.\73\ Because
this rule implicates the foreign affairs policy of the United States,
DHS is issuing this rule without pre-publication notice and comment
procedures and with an immediate effective date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\73\ The Secretary of State's determination references and
implements numerous Presidential actions reflecting the President's
top foreign policy priorities, including E.O. 14161. See
Determination: Foreign Affairs Functions of the United States, 90 FR
12200 (Mar. 14, 2025). See, e.g., Yassini v. Crosland, 618 F.2d.
1356, 1361 (9th Cir. 1980) (because an immigration directive ``was
implementing the President's foreign policy,'' the action ``fell
within the foreign affairs function and good cause exceptions to the
notice and comment requirements of the APA'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Reliance Interests
DHS has considered potential reliance interests regarding this IFR.
DHS recognizes the difficulty aliens may face if their refugee status
is terminated, but DHS believes the significant public safety, national
security, and integrity benefits described in detail above heavily
outweigh any potential reliance interest and adverse impacts. DHS
notes, however, that aliens will continue to receive an opportunity to
respond to the NOIT and overcome the reasons for termination, if
merited. With this IFR, DHS is merely ensuring that aliens who were
never eligible for refugee status do not receive the attendant benefits
of being a refugee admitted into the United States for as long as they
could have without this rule. This IFR does not remove the ability of
aliens who legitimately qualify for refugee status to obtain employment
authorization, permanent residency, and any other available benefits.
Aliens whose refugee status is terminated may be able to seek
protection or other relief in proceedings under sections 235, 240, or
241 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1225, 1229a, or 1231, which would mitigate any
potential reliance interests.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\74\ See, e.g., Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 274
(1994) (``Application of a new jurisdictional rule usually takes
away no substantive right but simply changes the tribunal that is to
hear the case.'' (cleaned up)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Executive Orders 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and 14192 (``Unleashing
Prosperity Through Deregulation'')

E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and
benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if a regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits.
E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. E.O. 14192 directs agencies to significantly reduce the
private expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations and
provides that ``any new incremental costs associated with the new
regulations shall, to the extent permitted by law be offset by the
elimination of existing costs associated with at least 10 prior
regulations.''
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has designated this IFR a
``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866,
although not economically significant under section 3(f)(1), because
its annual effects on the economy do not exceed $100 million in any
year of the analysis. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget.
This rule is not an E.O. 14192 regulatory action because it is
being issued with respect to an immigration-related function of the
United States. The rule's primary direct purpose is to implement or
interpret the immigration laws of the United States (as described in
INA101(a)(17), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(17), or any other function performed by
the U.S. Federal Government with respect to aliens. See OMB Memorandum
M-25-20, ``Guidance Implementing Section 3 of Executive Order 14192,
titled ``Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation'' (Mar. 26, 2025).
In this section, DHS discusses several types of impacts that could
accrue from this IFR. They are described qualitatively as DHS cannot
make quantitative or monetized estimates of potential impacts. DHS
welcomes public comment on the cost and benefit impacts described
herein.
DHS typically reviews an alien's underlying refugee determination
prior to the final adjudication of their adjustment of status to
permanent residence and initiates termination when warranted.\75\
Therefore, the impacted population are aliens with refugee status who
entered the U.S. and have not yet adjusted status or had their
determination reviewed. DHS has identified about 186,000 cases of
refugees that entered the U.S. from Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 through FY
2025 that have not adjusted status.\76\ This figure could represent the
maximum population that could be subject to the IFR, as USCIS and ICE
are currently working to identify particular subsets and aliens for
requisite vetting. As it relates to potential impacts, foremost, there
will be a change in the earnings (labor compensation) to the applicable
aliens when their refugee status is terminated, as their work
authorization would also be terminated immediately, which is at least
20 days sooner than without this rule.\77\ Refugees are granted

[[Page 65089]]

work authorization incident to status but can file a Form I-765,
``Application for Employment Authorization,'' under primarily the (A3)
category, with a small number under the (A4) category applicable to
paroled refugees. In FY 2024, for example, USCIS approved approximately
125,000 (A3) initial employment authorization documents, which was a
sharp increase from about 49,000 in FY 2023.\78\ This IFR shortens the
time for a refugee to respond to a NOIT from 30 days to 10 days.
Accordingly, this rule would shorten the amount of time that an alien
has refugee status prior to termination, and the gap (duration, in
working days) in earnings time due to earlier employment termination
under the IFR would pose a change in earnings ability to the
aliens.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\75\ U.S. immigration law requires refugees to apply for lawful
permanent resident status after they have been physically present in
the United States for at least one year. See Green Card for Refugees
at <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-eligibility/green-card-for-refugees">https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-eligibility/green-card-for-refugees</a>.
\76\ Source, USCIS, Chief Data and Analytics Office (CDAO)
formerly Office of Performance and Quality (OPQ), CLAIMS, ELIS,
CIS2, PAER0019303 (Jan. 21, 2026).
\77\ USCIS is unable to provide analysis on past cases in which
NOITs have been issued but the alien's refugee status was not
subsequently terminated because USCIS terminated so few cases.
\78\ Source: USCIS CDAO, CLAIMS, ELIS, PAER0020264 (Feb. 13,
2026). A small number of approximately 190 refugees received a (C9)
employment authorization document when they adjusted status, from FY
2021 through FY 2025. There are currently about 113,000 refugees
with approved (A3) initial work authorizations who have an I-485
pending with USCIS. Since refugees are authorized to work via
status, those filing for an (A3) authorization probably do so for
documentation and identification purposes, or other reasons.
\79\ Since refugees do not have to file an employment
authorization request with USCIS, we do not attribute sunk costs to
the opportunity costs of time if their status is terminated, for
which the current public reporting burden is 4.38 hours. If,
however, under another category of relief, the aliens would need to
file for employment authorization, they would incur costs applicable
to the burden, as well as, if applicable, direct filing fees and
biometrics submission charges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For those aliens in the labor force and employed at the time of
their employment authorization termination, the earnings impact could
create both potential distributional effects (which are transfers) and
costs. The extent depends on labor market factors and the individual
characteristics of aliens and potential substitute workers. The
distributional impacts (transfers) would be in the form of forgone
compensation (wages and benefits). However, a portion or all of this
forgone compensation to aliens might comprise beneficial transfers to
U.S. citizens and others lawfully allowed to work in the United States.
In addition, if employers are able to hire American workers to fill
the jobs that refugees held, with relatively little labor market
friction, the beneficial wage and benefit transfers to American workers
would potentially pose no productivity loss or costs to employers.
While it is possible that aliens without work authorization could
require assistance from their social and support networks, which could
include public entities, there could be a counterbalance; if the IFR
process results in, or contributes to, faster removal of aliens who
were ineligible for refugee status, there could be less of an economic
strain on states, local government, and non-governmental organizations,
in terms of any public assistance and resources that are currently
provided to refugees.
As it relates to earnings impacts, there could be tax impacts.
Aliens who sustain earnings changes because their employment
authorization is terminated under the IFR may generate forgone federal
and state taxes. However, any tax losses could be partially or fully
recovered if employers are able to easily substitute others into the
positions the alien held. In addition, aliens can pose fiscal strains
that could be mitigated due to the effects of this rule as a
counterbalance of some or all of the tax losses, if there are any.
DHS assesses that there could be labor turnover costs incurred by
businesses employing aliens who would lose employment authorization
under the IFR whom would not otherwise lose the authorization (i.e., if
currently they could reaffirm their status in 30 days but not in 10
days under this rule). Employment separations can comprise direct or
``hard'' costs applicable to separation and replacement charges.\80\
The separation costs include exit interviews, severance pay, and costs
of temporarily covering the employee's duties and functions with other
employees, which may require overtime or temporary staffing. The
replacement costs typically include expenses of advertising positions,
search and agency fees, screening applicants, interviews, background
verification, employment testing, hiring bonuses, and possible travel
and relocation costs. Once hired, employers face additional training,
orientation, and assessment costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\80\ For a description of these costs, see ``Employee Retention:
The Real Cost of Losing an Employee,'' by Holly Bengfort, PeopleKeep
(updated Dec. 15, 2025), at: <a href="https://www.peoplekeep.com/blog/Employee-Retention-The-Real-Cost-of-Losing-an-Employee">https://www.peoplekeep.com/blog/Employee-Retention-The-Real-Cost-of-Losing-an-Employee</a>. See also,
``This Fixable Problem Costs U.S. Businesses $1 Trillion,'' by Shane
McFeely and Ben Wigert, Gallup Workplace (Mar. 13, 2019) at: <a href="https://www.gallup.com/workplace/247391/fixable-problem-costs-businesses-trillion.aspx">https://www.gallup.com/workplace/247391/fixable-problem-costs-businesses-trillion.aspx</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second, there can be costs for productivity and possibly
profitability due to operational and production disruptions, which can
include errors from other employees that may temporally fill the
position. A third cost segment, which is a type of indirect cost, can
encompass loss of institutional knowledge, networking, and impacts to
work culture, morale, and interpersonal relationships.
DHS is providing a 10-day, as opposed to the current 30-day,
timeframe to contest applicable NOITs. The NOIT will inform the alien
the basis for termination and explain that they may submit evidence to
contest termination, and/or request an interview. Aliens who would
currently respond to a NOIT to attempt to reaffirm their status would
sustain some direct costs and also opportunity costs of time applicable
to generating and preparing responses, organizing documents and
evidence, and participating in interviews. Under the 10-day timeframe,
such resourcing and expenditure would likely still be incurred, but the
timeframe would be contracted. There could be impacts and costs to
aliens applicable to having less time to collect evidence, prepare
documentation, and prepare their response.
As is pertinent to the public sector, planned extensive vetting,
case review, and reinterviews, as well as enforcement operations for
the Federal Bureau of Investigation and ICE, in support directly or
indirectly of this IFR, could require an increase in public resources.
As is applicable to mailing the NOITs, DHS will utilize express
delivery service providers, which guarantee delivery within the IFR
timeframe, and offers tracking and confirmation of both the package's
departure from DHS custody and its delivery to the recipient. This is
not a significant change from current practice and DHS does not expect
that this IFR will generate additional costs applicable to mailing the
NOITs. USCIS will continue to expend resources on processing and review
of the responses. However, the revised timeline may generate
efficiencies as USCIS will be able to schedule interviews or take
action more quickly. DHS cannot predict in advance the net effect to
public resources and welcomes public input concerning public sector
resources.
DHS, however, does not and cannot assert that it knows and has
considered every policy change that may occur at all levels and
agencies of the U.S. government that may directly or indirectly affect
this IFR. Therefore, there could be other impacts not currently
described in this discussion.
DHS cannot quantify the benefits of this IFR but believes that
increased national security, public safety, credibility, and reduced
fraud or misrepresentation by applicable aliens, among other concerns,
will contribute to the safety of the American people and integrity of
the lawful United States immigration system to the extent that the
benefits will outweigh any costs.

[[Page 65090]]

Streamlining the process to terminate refugee status in cases where the
alien is determined to not have been a refugee at the time of admission
to the United States is consistent with the DHS mission and
responsibilities to ensure national security and public safety and
beneficially protects the immigration system from fraud and
exploitation.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and
small organizations during the development of their rules. The term
``small entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit
organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000. The RFA's regulatory flexibility
analysis requirements apply only to those rules for which an agency is
required to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 553 or any other law.\81\ DHS did not issue a notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\81\ See 5 U.S.C. 604(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) is intended, among
other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded federal
mandates on State, local, and Tribal governments.\82\ Title II of UMRA
requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing
the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed rule, or final rule
for which USCIS published a proposed rule, which includes any Federal
mandate that may result in a $100 million or more expenditure (adjusted
annually for inflation) in any one year by State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. See 2 U.S.C.
1532(a). This rule is exempt from the written-statement requirement,
because DHS did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\82\ The term ``Federal mandate'' means a Federal
intergovernmental mandate or a Federal private sector mandate. See 2
U.S.C. 1502(1) and 658(5) and (6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition, this rule does not exceed the $100 million expenditure
in any one year when adjusted for inflation ($211 million in 2025 based
on the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) \83\), and
this rulemaking does not contain such a federal mandate as the term is
defined under UMRA. The requirements of title II of UMRA therefore do
not apply, thus DHS has not prepared a statement under UMRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\83\ See BLS, ``Historical Consumer Price Index for All Urban
Consumers (CPI-U): U.S. city average, allitems, by month,'' <a href="https://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables/supplemental-files/historical-cpi-u-202512.pdf">https://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables/supplemental-files/historical-cpi-u-202512.pdf</a> (last visited Aug. 18, 2026). Calculation of inflation:
(1) calculate the average monthly CPI-U for the reference year
(1995) and the current year (2025); (2) subtract reference year CPI-
U from current year CPI-U; (3) divide the difference of the
reference year CPI-U and current year CPI-U by the reference year
CPI-U; (4) multiply by 100 = [(average monthly CPI-U for 2025-
average monthly CPI-U for 1995) / (average monthly CPI-U for 1995)]
x 100 = [(321.943-152.383) / 152.383] = (169.560/152.383) = 1.113 x
100 = 111.3 percent = 111 percent (rounded). Calculation of
inflation-adjusted value: $100 million in 1995 dollars x 2.11 = $211
million in 2025 dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

The Congressional Review Act (CRA) was included as Subtitle E of
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(SBREFA), Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (Mar. 29, 1996). Based on
DHS's assessment, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has
determined that this IFR is not a major rule as defined under the CRA
in 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 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 an ability of the United
States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in
domestic and export markets. See 5 U.S.C. 804(2). However, even if this
IFR did meet the criteria at 5 U.S.C. 804(2), as stated in the
preamble, DHS has good cause to forgo the APA's requirements for notice
and public comment (and delayed effective date) pursuant to 5 U.S.C.
553. Therefore, DHS also has good cause to forgo the CRA's 60-day
delayed effective date requirement, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 808(2). This
rule is effective upon publication. DHS has complied with the CRA's
reporting requirements and has sent this rule to Congress and to the
Comptroller General as required by 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1).

F. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

This IFR does 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 E. O. 13132,
64 FR 43255 (Aug. 4, 1999), 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)

DHS drafted and reviewed this IFR in accordance with E.O. 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. DHS wrote this IFR to provide a clear legal
standard for affected conduct and reviewed it carefully to eliminate
drafting errors and ambiguities, so as to minimize litigation and undue
burden on the Federal Court system. DHS determined that this rule meets
the applicable standards provided in section 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of E.O.
12988, 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 5, 1996).

H. Family Assessment

DHS reviewed this rule in line with the requirements of section 654
of the Treasury General Appropriations Act, 1999, Public Law 105-277,
112 Stat. 2681 (1998). DHS systematically reviewed the criteria
specified in section 654(c)(1), by evaluating whether this regulatory
action: (1) impacts the stability or safety of the family, particularly
in terms of marital commitment; (2) impacts the authority of parents in
the education, nurture, and supervision of their children; (3) helps
the family perform its functions; (4) affects disposable income or
poverty of families and children; (5) only financially impacts
families, if at all, to the extent such impacts are justified; (6) may
be carried out by State or local government or by the family; or (7)
establishes a policy concerning the relationship between the behavior
and personal responsibility of youth and the norms of society. If the
agency determines a regulation may negatively affect family well-being,
then the agency must provide an adequate rationale for its
implementation.
DHS has no data that indicates this rule will have any impact on
family well-being. DHS has determined that the implementation of this
regulation will not negatively affect family well-being and will not
have any impact on the autonomy and integrity of the family as an
institution.

I. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments)

This IFR will not have Tribal implications under E.O. 13175,
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because
it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
Tribes, or on

[[Page 65091]]

the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian Tribes.

J. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

DHS and its components analyze final actions to determine whether
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.,
applies and, if so, what degree of analysis is required. DHS Directive
023-01, Rev. 01``Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act''
(Directive 023-01) and Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01 Revision 01,
``Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act''
(Instruction Manual) \84\ established the policies and procedures that
DHS and its components use to comply with NEPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\84\ The Instruction Manual contains DHS' procedures for
implementing NEPA and was issued Nov. 6, 2014. See DHS, Office of
the Chief Readiness Support Officer, National Environmental Policy
Act Compliance, <a href="https://www.dhs.gov/ocrso/eed/epb/nepa">https://www.dhs.gov/ocrso/eed/epb/nepa</a> (last updated
Apr. 14, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

NEPA allows Federal agencies to establish, in their NEPA
implementing procedures, categories of actions (``categorical
exclusions'') that experience has shown do not, individually or
cumulatively, have a significant effect on the human environment and,
therefore, do not require an environmental assessment or environmental
impact statement.\85\ The Instruction Manual, Appendix A lists the DHS
Categorical Exclusions.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\85\ See 42 U.S.C. 4336(a)(2), 4336e(1).
\86\ See Instruction Manual, Appendix A, Table 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Under DHS NEPA implementing procedures, for an action to be
categorically excluded, it must satisfy each of the following three
conditions: (1) the entire action clearly fits within one or more of
the categorical exclusions; (2) the action is not a piece of a larger
action; and (3) no extraordinary circumstances exist that create the
potential for a significant environmental effect.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\87\ Instruction Manual 023-01 at V.B(2)(a)-(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This IFR is strictly administrative and procedural because it is
only amending an existing DHS regulation governing the termination of
refugee status. DHS has reviewed this IFR and finds that no significant
impact on the environment, or any change in environmental effect will
result from the amendments being promulgated in this rule.
Accordingly, DHS finds that the promulgation of this IFR's
amendments to a current regulation clearly fits within the categorical
exclusion A3 established in DHS's NEPA implementing procedures as an
administrative change with no change in environmental effect, is not
part of a larger Federal action, and does not present extraordinary
circumstances that create the potential for a significant environmental
effect. Therefore, these regulatory amendments are categorically
excluded from further NEPA review.

K. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, all
agencies are required to submit to OMB, for review and approval, any
reporting requirements inherent in a rule. This rule does not impose
any reporting or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork
Reduction Act.

List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 207

Administrative practice and procedure, Refugees, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, DHS amends
8 CFR part 207 as follows:

PART 207--ADMISSION OF REFUGEES

0
1. The authority citation for part 207 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1151, 1157, 1159, 1182; 8 CFR
part 2.

0
2. Revise Sec. 207.9 to read as follows:

Sec. 207.9 Termination of refugee status.

The refugee status of any alien (and of the spouse or child of the
alien) admitted to the United States under section 207 of the Act will
be terminated by USCIS if the alien was not a refugee within the
meaning of section 101(a)(42) of the Act at the time of admission.
USCIS will notify the alien in writing of its intent to terminate the
alien's refugee status. The alien will have 10 days from the date
notice is served upon him or her in accordance with 8 CFR 103.8 to
present written or oral evidence to show why the alien's refugee status
should not be terminated. There is no appeal under this chapter from
the termination of refugee status by USCIS. Upon termination of refugee
status, USCIS will process the alien under sections 235, 240, and 241
of the Act.

Markwayne Mullin,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2026-20956 Filed 10-13-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-97-P

</pre></body>
</html>

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on October 14, 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.