Increasing the Fee for Certain Aliens Ordered Removed in Absentia as Established by the HR–1 Reconciliation Bill

Jessica Jeremiah opposes the proposed increase of the in absentia removal fee to $18,000, arguing that it is a punitive sanction rather than a cost-recovery tool. She contends that the fee unfairly penalizes individuals for systemic failures like language barriers and lack of transportation, and urges the agency to reduce the fee and include hardship waivers.

Roots Reborn opposes the fee increase for individuals ordered in absentia, arguing that it places an unfair financial burden on struggling immigrants and does not promote public safety. The organization contends that the government should instead focus on restructuring DHS strategies to provide better guidance, transparency, and support for the immigrant community.

The National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC), a legal service provider and advocacy organization, opposes the proposed fee increase for aliens ordered removed in absentia. They argue the fee is an unlawful, punitive financial burden that exceeds statutory authority, ignores systemic barriers to court attendance, and misrepresents the abundant resources available to ICE.

MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund) urges DHS to rescind the proposed rule to increase the fee for certain aliens ordered removed in absentia from $5,130 to $18,000. They argue that DHS lacks the statutory authority to assess such a fee because it exceeds "partial reimbursement" for the cost of arrest and that the proposal is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Public Justice, an advocacy organization, strongly opposes the proposed fee increase for noncitizens ordered removed in absentia. They argue that the proposal relies on inaccurate data, exceeds the authority granted by Congress, and likely violates the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause by imposing disproportionate financial burdens on low-income individuals.

The National Immigration Project, a national nonprofit membership organization, opposes the proposed rule to increase the fee for noncitizens ordered removed in absentia. They argue the rule is unlawful because it exceeds the statutory authority for inflation adjustments and misinterprets the "partial reimbursement" language of the statute. Additionally, they contend the rule unfairly punishes noncitizens for increased in absentia orders caused by specific DHS and EOIR policies.

The commenter argues that the proposed rule is arbitrary and capricious because it fails to consider several key factors, including the actual collectability of the fees, the economic disparities created by a flat fee, and the distinction between willful and no-fault absences. They suggest that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should instead implement a hybrid fee structure and conduct a more thorough economic analysis to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act.

The Community Legal Aid Society, Inc. (CLASI) opposes the proposed fee increase, arguing that it is overbroad, unfairly targets vulnerable populations with legal permissions to remain in the U.S., and lacks a transparent cost justification. They also contend that the increase is unnecessary given recent federal funding and that it may penalize individuals who receive in absentia orders due to procedural failures or lack of due process.

Pangea Legal Services, a non-profit immigration defense organization, opposes the proposed rule to increase the fee for certain aliens ordered removed in absentia from $5,130 to $18,000. They argue the fee exceeds statutory authority, lacks a reasoned cost-recovery basis, imposes an undue burden on vulnerable individuals, and fails to account for systemic procedural errors that lead to in absentia orders.

The Immigrant Legal Resource Center (ILRC), a national non-profit organization, opposes the proposed fee increase for individuals ordered removed in absentia. They argue the fee is arbitrary, exceeds statutory authority, violates due process and the Eighth Amendment, and unfairly penalizes vulnerable populations.