Comment Submitted by Jessica Jeremiah

To Whom it May Concern, I write to oppose the proposed increase of the in absentia removal fee from $5,130 to $18,000 under Docket No. ICEB-2026-0034.¹ While I recognize that section 100016 of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (P.L. 119-21) authorizes a partial reimbursement fee, DHS retains rulemaking discretion over the fee amount, and the proposed $18,000 figure is neither equitable nor factually justified. The proposed rule assumes that individuals with in absentia removal orders are willful evaders of the legal process. The evidence does not support this. A 2024 GAO report found that language barriers, government notice failures, lack of transportation, and fear of court proceedings are the primary drivers of missed immigration hearings, not intentional flight.² Among Spanish speakers, who represent 77% of all case completions, the in absentia rate reached approximately 37%, a disparity that is not rooted in willful noncompliance.² Consistent with this, the American Immigration Council documented that when noncitizens have legal representation, court appearance rates are 96% or higher.³ Imposing an $18,000 fee, with no waiver mechanism, punishes individuals for systemic failures and is not equitable. This fee increase is a punitive sanction and not a cost recovery tool. ICE’s own regulatory impact analysis concedes that the fee is expected to deter missed hearings and encourage voluntary departure.¹ For low-income immigrants, the vast majority of those affected , an $18,000 liability is a financial barrier that forecloses legal status resolution and coerces outcomes irrespective of the merits of an individual’s immigration case. From a public health standpoint, this fee will further suppress healthcare-seeking among undocumented populations already deterred by enforcement fears, with documented downstream consequences for communicable disease control, maternal health, and emergency department utilization.4 I urge the agency to reduce the proposed fee. I urge Congress to amend section 100016 to permit hardship waivers and to require that individuals be informed of their right to file a motion to reopen under INA § 240(b)(5)(C) before the fee is assessed. Respectfully submitted, Jessica Jeremiah References 1. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, DHS. Increasing the Fee for Certain Aliens Ordered Removed in Absentia as Established by the HR–1 Reconciliation Bill. Federal Register. May 20, 2026;91(97):29380. Docket No. ICEB-2026-0034. 2. U.S. Government Accountability Office. Immigration Courts: Actions Needed to Track and Report Noncitizens’ Hearing Appearances. GAO-25-106867. Washington, DC: GAO; December 2024. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-25-106867. Accessed June 22, 2026. 3. American Immigration Council. Immigrants and Families Appear in Court. Washington, DC: American Immigration Council; April 2025. https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/fact-sheet/immigrants-and-families-appear-court. Accessed June 22, 2026. 4. Ortega AN, Fang H, Perez VH, et al. Health care access, use of services, and experiences among undocumented Mexicans and other Latinos. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(21):2354–2360. doi:10.1001/archinte.167.21.2354.