Immigration Bond

“The Explorers program, a coeducational affiliate of the Boy Scouts of America that began 60 years ago, is training thousands of young people in skills used to confront terrorism, illegal immigration and escalating border violence — an intense ratcheting up of one of the group’s longtime missions to prepare youths for more traditional jobs as police officers and firefighters.”

[Federal Register: April 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 64)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 15367-15369]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06ap09-2]

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
8 CFR Part 208
[CIS No. 2440-08; DHS Docket No. USCIS 2008-0022]

Forwarding of Affirmative Asylum Applications to the Department of State

AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

———————————————————————–

SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is amending its regulations to alter the process by which it forwards Form I-589, Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal, for asylum applications filed affirmatively with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to the Department of State (DOS). The affirmative asylum process allows individuals, who are physically present in the United States, regardless of their manner of arrival and regardless of their current immigration status, to apply for asylum. The current regulation requires USCIS (formerly Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)) to forward to DOS a copy of each completed asylum application it receives. This rule provides that USCIS will no longer forward all affirmative asylum applications to DOS. Instead, USCIS will send affirmative asylum applications to DOS only when USCIS believes DOS may have country conditions information relevant to the case. This change will increase the efficiency of DOS’ review of asylum applications. Additionally, in accordance with the Homeland Security Act, this rule revises references to legacy INS in 8 CFR 208.11.

DATES: Effective date: This final rule is effective April 6, 2009.
COMMENT DATE: Written comments must be submitted on or before June 5, 2009 in order to be assured of consideration.
ADDRESSES: The public may submit comments, identified by DHS Docket No.
USCIS-2008-0022, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Chief, Regulatory Management Division, U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security,111

[[Page 15368]]

Massachusetts Avenue, NW., 3rd Floor, Washington, DC 20529. To ensure proper handling, please reference DHS Docket No. USCIS-2008-0022 on the correspondence. This mailing address may be used for paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions.

HAND DELIVERY/COURIER: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., 3rd Floor, Washington, DC 20529. Contact Telephone Number (202) 272-8377.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jedidah M. Hussey, Deputy Chief,
Asylum Division, Refugee, Asylum, and International Operations Directorate, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Third Floor, Washington, DC 20529; Telephone (202) 272-1614.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of this final rule. USCIS also invites comments that relate to the economic, environmental, or federalism effects that might result from this final rule. Comments that will provide the most assistance to USCIS in developing these procedures will reference a specific portion of the final rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include data, information, or authority that support such recommended change.

Instructions: All submissions received should include the agency name and DHS Docket No. USCIS-2008-0022 for this rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov. Submitted comments may also be inspected at the Regulatory Management Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Suite 3008, Washington, DC 20529.

II. Background

DHS regulations, at 8 CFR 208.11(a), currently state, “The Service shall forward to the Department of State a copy of each completed application it receives. At its option, the department of State may provide detailed country conditions information relevant to eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal.” Under the affirmative asylum application process, USCIS receives asylum applications filed by applicants who are not in removal proceedings at
its service centers. Upon receipt of an asylum application, service center personnel review the asylum application to confirm that the application is properly filed and complete, after which the service center forwards the application to one of the Asylum Division’s eight field asylum offices for adjudication by an asylum officer.

Simultaneously, the service center forwards a copy of the asylum application to DOS’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL). However, when an asylum applicant is permitted to file an asylum application directly with an Asylum Office, the Asylum Office is responsible for forwarding a copy of the application to DRL.

In fiscal year 2007, USCIS received 25,680 affirmative asylum applications and forwarded a copy of each to DOS. DOS and USCIS have determined that the current forwarding process is not an efficient method for the agencies to identify and review cases for which DOS review would yield the most value. To address this problem, this rule permits USCIS, in its discretion, to send affirmative asylum applications to DOS in those cases where USCIS believes DOS would be likely to have information relevant to the applicant’s eligibility for asylum and withholding of removal. Generally, this would be information that is not otherwise available or confirmation of publicly available information, where such validation would be helpful to the adjudication.

Additionally, USCIS and DOS have already implemented an arrangement in which USCIS’s Asylum Division headquarters (HQASM) forwards certain applications to DRL for review and comment. USCIS requires all Asylum Offices to send specific categories of cases to HQASM for further review after the Asylum Office completes its initial interview and preliminary assessment of eligibility. HQASM reviews these cases for quality assurance purposes to ensure that eligibility standards are properly applied. In conducting the quality assurance review, an asylum
officer at HQASM seeks DRL comments if the asylum officer believes that DRL could provide information specific to the applicant or the applicant’s situation. This process has proven to be a productive system by which USCIS obtains country conditions information on specific cases. USCIS and DOS intend to maintain this system, which has been in place for several years.

DRL applies its country conditions expertise to asylum matters in a variety of ways, which as a whole are referred to as DRL’s asylum function. Consistent with the regulation currently at 8 CFR 208.11(c), and as will be retained in the amended regulation, DRL responds to requests for comments on cases specifically brought to its attention by USCIS’s Asylum Division and by the Department of Justice (DOJ), Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) immigration judges.

DRL also produces updated issue papers or “country profiles” for use in asylum adjudications, and it responds to certain DHS, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s requests for document verification in asylum cases before EOIR. Additionally, DRL is required to provide to Congress annually Country Reports on Human Rights Practices and International Religious Freedom Reports which provide country conditions information that will continue to be useful to the adjudication of asylum applications. This rule will not alter these DRL functions. This rule also does not affect how USCIS reviews and considers these DRL published reports in asylum adjudications. USCIS will continue to review the aforementioned reports, which provide country conditions information useful to the adjudication of asylum applications.

Finally, this rule is limited to 8 CFR 208.11. This rule only addresses submissions of affirmative asylum applications from USCIS to DOS. It does not make any amendments to 8 CFR 1208.11, which governs the defensive application procedure for asylum applications filed by individuals in removal proceedings before EOIR.

III. Regulatory Requirements

A. Administrative Procedures Act

This rule addresses requirements that are procedural in nature and does not alter the substantive rights of applicants or petitioners for immigration benefits. Accordingly, this rule is exempt from the notice and comment requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A). This rule does not change the eligibility rules governing any immigration benefit and it will not confer rights or obligations upon any party. Accordingly, USCIS is implementing these amendments effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register. Nonetheless, DHS believes that public comments may be valuable and is providing the public the opportunity to make comments on this change as a matter of discretion. Comments are welcome about
the relationship between the USCIS and DOS, DHS and DOS, and the role of foreign policy considerations in asylum adjudications.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Because USCIS is not required by the APA to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking to make the changes promulgated in this rule, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) is not applicable.

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

This rule will not result in the expenditure by state, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.

This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 251 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. 5 U.S.C. 804. 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 on the ability of the United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets.

E. Executive Order 12866

This rule has been designated as not significant under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review. Thus it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This rule will 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 Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

D. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996

G. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform

This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirement (Form I-589) contained in this rule has been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The OMB control numbers for these collections are contained in 8 CFR 299.5, Display of control numbers. This rule does not contain a new or revised information collection.

List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 208

Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Immigration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements

Accordingly, chapter I of title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 208–PROCEDURES FOR ASYLUM AND WITHHOLDING OF REMOVAL

1. The authority citation for part 208 continues to read:

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1158, 1226, 1252, 1282; 8 CFR part 2.

2. Section 208.11 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.208.11 Comments from the Department of State.

1. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may request, at its discretion, specific comments from the Department of State regarding individual cases or types of claims under consideration, or such other information as USCIS deems appropriate.

2. With respect to any asylum application, the Department of State may provide, at its discretion, to USCIS:

• Detailed country conditions information relevant to eligibility for asylum or withholding of removal;

• An assessment of the accuracy of the applicant’s assertions about conditions in his or her country of nationality or habitual residence and his or her particular situation;

• Information about whether persons who are similarly situated to the applicant are persecuted or tortured in the applicant’s country of nationality or habitual residence and the frequency of such persecution or torture; or

• Such other information as it deems relevant.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials in San Diego are anticipating an increase in applications by Mexican travelers for the required I-94 permit during holy week and the Easter holiday.

Mexican border crossing card (or “laser visa”) holders who plan to make an extended visit to the United States during the upcoming holiday season are urged to obtain the essential document early instead of waiting until the day of travel, CBP officials announced today.

“We urge travelers to obtain the required document as much as a week early to avoid congestion and potential delays, if they apply now they will obtain the essential document faster and more conveniently,” said Oscar Preciado, port director of the San Ysidro and Otay Mesa passenger border stations. “Travelers may obtain the permit 24 hours a day at both the San Ysidro and Otay Mesa ports.”

Permit seekers are reminded that at the San Ysidro facility they must leave their vehicles in Mexico and travel on-foot to the old port building on the pedestrian walkway just across the border. Because the building is located in front of the pedestrian entrance to the port, travelers will not need to make formal entry into the U.S. and can conveniently walk back to Mexico.

At the Otay Mesa border crossing, permit seekers must also travel on foot to obtain the I-94 at the pedestrian facility.

As the busiest land border port in the nation with 35,000 – 40,000 vehicles and 20,000 pedestrians daily entering the U.S. through its gates, the San Ysidro facility is one of the Southwest border stations most affected by heavy holiday I-94 processing.

All traveling family members need to be present during the I-94 application process. Those requesting the permits also must be able to establish financial solvency and proof of residency outside the U.S.

Since 1991, the United States has provided safe haven for Liberians who were forced to flee their country as a result of armed conflict and widespread civil strife, in part through granting Temporary Protected Status (TPS). The armed conflict ended in 2003 and conditions improved such that TPS ended effective October 1, 2007. President Bush then deferred the enforced departure of the Liberians originally granted TPS. That grant of Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) expires on March 31, 2009. I have determined that there are compelling foreign policy reasons to extend DED to those Liberians presently residing in the United States under the existing grant of DED.

Pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct the foreign relations of the United States, I have determined that it is in the foreign policy interest of the United States to defer for 12 months the removal of any Liberian national, or person without nationality who last habitually resided in Liberia, who is present in the United States and who is under a grant of DED as of March 31, 2009. The grant of DED only applies to an individual who has continuously resided in the United States since October 1, 2002, except for Liberian nationals, or persons without nationality who last habitually resided in Liberia:

1. who are ineligible for TPS for the reasons provided in section 244(c)(2)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1254a(c)(2)(B);
2. whose removal you determine is in the interest of the United States;
3. whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States;
4. who have voluntarily returned to Liberia or his or her country of last habitual residence outside the United States;
5. who were deported, excluded, or removed prior to the date of this memorandum; or
6. who are subject to extradition.

Accordingly, I direct you to take the necessary steps to implement for eligible Liberians:

• A deferral of enforced departure from the United States for 12 months from March 31, 2009; and
• Authorization for employment for 12 months from March 31, 2009.

BARACK OBAMA

The US Department of State (DOS) has yesterday released the Visa Bulletin for March 2009.

As per the State Department’s March 2009 Visa Bulletin, there is going to be a six-week advancement in priority date cut-offs for the employment-based second preference category (EB-2) for India and China next month. For the third employment-based preference (EB-3) subcategory for professional and skilled workers, priority dates will advance three weeks for China but will move forward four-and-a-half months for Mexico; cut-off dates will remain unchanged for all other countries. For the EB-3 “other worker” subcategory, priority dates will remain unchanged for most countries, but will advance three weeks for China and 17 months for Mexico.

The table below shows the priority date cut-offs for the first three employment-based categories for March:

In addition, in March, two immigrant programs – the Regional Center Pilot Program for employment-based fifth preference (EB-5) immigrant investors and the special immigrant category for non-minister religious workers – are set to expire.

On December 19, 2008, DHS published in the Federal Register a final rule ‘Changes to Requirements Affecting H-2B Nonimmigrants,’ which provides that the Secretary of Homeland Security will publish a list of designated countries whose nationals can be the beneficiaries of an approved H-2B petition and are eligible for H-2B visas. This initial list will be composed of countries that are important for the operation of the H-2B program and are cooperative in repatriation of its citizens, subjects, nationals or residents who are subject to a final order of removal from the United States. Publication of such notice is made by the Secretary of Homeland Security, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State.

Under the final rule, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will only approve petitions for H-2B nonimmigrant status for nationals of countries designated by means of this list or by means of the special procedure allowing petitioners to request approval for particular beneficiaries if the Secretary of Homeland Security determines that it is in the U.S. interest. Pursuant to the final rule, this notice designates those countries the Secretary of Homeland Security, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, has found to be eligible to participate in the H-2B program.

This notice is effective January 18, 2009, and shall be without effect at the end of one year after January 18, 2009.

Designation of Countries Whose Nationals Are Eligible to Participate in the H-2B Visa Program:

Pursuant to the authority provided to the Secretary of Homeland Security under sections 241, 214(a)(1), and 215(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. 1231, 1184(a)(1), and 1185(a)(1)), I have designated, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, that nationals from the following countries are eligible to participate in the H-2B visa program:

• Argentina;
• Australia;
• Belize;
• Brazil;
• Bulgaria;
• Canada;
• Chile;
• Costa Rica;
• Dominican Republic;
• El Salvador;
• Guatemala;
• Honduras;
• Indonesia;
• Israel;
• Jamaica;
• Japan;
• Mexico;
• Moldova;
• New Zealand;
• Peru;
• Philippines;
• Poland;
• Romania;
• South Africa;
• South Korea;
• Turkey;
• Ukraine;
• United Kingdom.

This notice does not affect the status of aliens who currently hold H-2B nonimmigrant status.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano announced today a wide-ranging action directive on immigration and border security.

The directive requires specific department offices and components to work together and with state and local partners to review and assess the plans and policies to address: criminal and fugitive aliens; legal immigration benefit backlogs; southbound gun smuggling; cooperation with the National Guard; widows and widowers of U.S. citizens; immigration detention centers; and electronic employee verification.

Secretary Napolitano has already issued 11 action directives: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) state and local integration; national planning, cybersecurity; northern border strategy; critical infrastructure protection; risk analysis; state and local intelligence sharing; transportation security; state, local and tribal integration; first responder health surge capacity and Hurricane Katrina.

Today’s directive is the last in an initial series on a wide variety of issues impacting the department’s critical missions: Protection, Preparedness, Response, Recovery and Immigration.

The full action directive is below:

Immigration and border security – America is a nation of immigrants – and it is the Department of Homeland Security’s role to manage America’s borders in a way that furthers this heritage, promoting legal immigration and cross-border commerce, while upholding the rule of law. The department must also enforce the law, targeting border criminals who use violence and fraud to smuggle people and drugs into the United States. But, the department must facilitate international travel and the naturalization of immigrants into our society. Smart, resolute enforcement by the department can keep Americans safe, foster legal immigration to America, protect legitimate commerce, and lay the groundwork for a more comprehensive reform.

To this end, the relevant components and offices of the department are asked to provide the following assessments about current programs, including metrics of success, gaps in service/ resources, partnerships with state and local governments and other federal agencies as well as offer suggestions for reforms, restructuring, and consolidation where needed.

For each assessment, a final report is due Feb. 20.

Criminal and Fugitive Aliens

The Secure Communities Program works with state, local, and tribal law enforcement to identify and remove aliens unlawfully present who are involved in criminal activity. How can we best accelerate its development and expansion?

The Institutional Removal Program facilitates the entry of final removal orders before aliens convicted of crimes are released from criminal custody. What measures are needed, and with what priority, to secure expansion of this resource-saving program? Which state or federal facilities are the main targets of opportunity for efficient expansion? What specific cooperation is needed from the Department of Justice (DOJ) to facilitate expansion?

Fugitive Operation Teams. Please provide the current metrics of fugitive apprehension and removal (clearly differentiate the number of fugitives that are actually removed versus those aliens unlawfully present who are simply encountered by the teams while on assignment). How can fugitives be more effectively prioritized for these purposes and what steps can be taken to expedite removal?

The Electronic Travel Document Program facilitates the travel of persons subject to removal orders. How can the department best secure an expansion of this program to include the consulates of additional countries?

The 287(g) program provides for agreements whereby federally trained and supervised state and local law enforcement officials can participate in the investigation, apprehension, and transport of unauthorized aliens. How many officers have been trained to date? How many agreements have been signed with state and locals to date and how many are ready to be signed? What is the current turnaround time to sign an agreement and what can be done to expedite more agreements? How does this model compare in cost, effectiveness, and administration, to other forms of cooperation with these officials or entities? What are the strengths and challenges with jail model agreements versus task force model agreements?

Legal Immigration Benefit Backlogs – What progress has been made in reducing the significant backlogs that had developed in the adjudication of naturalization petitions and adjustment of status (green card) applications? Which regional offices still lag behind in making progress toward target processing times, and what specific steps are recommended for providing priority resources to those offices?

Please provide an assessment of information-sharing with the Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs on projected adjustment caseloads, to be used by that Bureau in setting each month’s cutoff dates on waiting lists for immigration categories that are limited by a yearly quota. What steps have been taken and what further steps are recommended to make sure that the full quota of permanent immigration spaces is used each fiscal year? What regulatory or legislative changes (including a possible pre-application filing procedure for adjustment cases) are recommended to facilitate caseload planning and make optimum use of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services adjudication capacity?

Southbound Gun Smuggling – A growing wave of criminal violence in Mexico’s border communities and in the interior of the country, fueled by the availability of guns and currency smuggled south from the U.S. poses a serious threat to Mexico’s security and portends deepening problems for our nation’s border regions. How are U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection currently addressing southbound smuggling and how can these efforts be improved? Include an assessment of potential infrastructure needs, investigative and interdiction capabilities, and cooperation with other agencies or offices such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), or the Department of State Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, and with intelligence centers (the DEA El Paso Intelligence Center and DOJ National Drug Intelligence Center). Also assess the prospects for enhanced use of investigations and prosecutions for money laundering or other financial offenses to disrupt the illicit firearms trade. Please explain how these efforts will be enhanced with funding from the Merida Initiative and how this is being coordinated with the states and the Office of National Drug Control Policy.

National Guard. Describe and assess the current deployment of the National Guard at or near the border. What overarching plans exist for coordinating with the Guard at the border? How could the arrangements for the Guard’s presence be made more effective for support of DHS missions?

Widows and Widowers of U.S. Citizens – Recent media accounts have highlighted the cases of widows and widowers of U.S. citizens who had petitioned for the alien spouse’s immigration, but whose petitions were not adjudicated before the citizen spouse’s death. Because of the death of the petitioning spouse, the petitions were denied. What are the regulatory, legislative, and litigation options that could be considered to immediately address the situation of these widows and widowers?

Immigration Detention Facilities – What is the current status of the Performance Based National Detention Standards (Standards), and in what ways do they improve upon previous detention standards? To which facilities do they apply at present, and what are the plans for full application of the standards to all facilities housing ICE detainees? How do the Standards address concerns associated with the treatment of families and unaccompanied children? What are the arrangements for monitoring compliance with the Standards, and what corrective actions or sanctions are applied in the case of violation or shortfall? What steps are taken to segregate ordinary detainees from those with a serious criminal record (either immigration detainees or other inmates of a facility that may also house prisoners in the criminal justice system)? What are the prospects, advantages, and disadvantages of expanding the use of community-based alternatives to detention or of less-restrictive models of detention as have been used in Broward County, Fla.?

Electronic Employment Verification – Reducing unauthorized employment is crucial for controlling the problem of illicit migration. E-Verify has been a key component in proposals for comprehensive immigration reform and holds real promise as a central element in effective immigration enforcement that combines border efforts with interior measures. But E-Verify has encountered criticism both for false negatives (persons who are authorized to work but who nonetheless receive a tentative non-confirmation from the system) and for false positives (unauthorized aliens who receive a confirmation because they have borrowed or stolen the identity of an authorized worker).

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano announced two action directives, on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) integration with state and local partners and national planning.

These directives instruct specific offices to gather information, review existing strategies and programs, and provide oral and written reports back to her in February. Secretary Napolitano has already issued seven action directives: cyber security; northern border strategy; critical infrastructure protection; risk analysis; state and local intelligence sharing; transportation security; and state, local and tribal integration. She will continue to issue additional action directives in the coming days focused on the missions critical to the department: Protection, Preparedness, Response, Recovery and Immigration.

The full action directives are below:

FEMA state and local integration – Ensuring the nation’s preparedness for all events and all hazards is vital to economic and homeland security and a responsibility of all levels of government. To that end, FEMA shall work with state and local emergency management to:

Immediately review plans and activities underway to strengthen and coordinate preparedness activities and assess any overlaps and inconsistencies in these plans and activities. These assessments should include, but not be limited to, the following:

• Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act
• Target Capabilities List; the Integrated Planning System
• State Preparedness Reports
• Federal Preparedness Reports
• Nationwide Plan Reviews
• Planning requirements for emergency management grants
• National Response Framework

Immediately submit any possible restructuring or consolidations for these plans and activities that are necessary and identify areas where state and local emergency management agencies can provide input.

An oral report is due Feb. 9, with a final report due Feb. 23.

National planning – The department is leading an interagency effort to develop plans at multiple levels to address eight scenario sets, which are based on the 15 National Planning Scenarios crafted by the Homeland Security Council. DHS and the federal interagency are utilizing the Integrated Planning System to develop and adjudicate interagency plans for each scenario. What is the status of each of these plans and the anticipated timeframe and actions needed to complete the process? Are there any recommendations for restructuring or consolidation? Where can state and local emergency management agencies provide input and assistance? An oral report is due Feb. 9, with a final report due Feb. 23.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced today that upgraded biometric technology is in place at major U.S. ports of entry, and most international visitors should expect to use the new technology when they enter the United States. DHS’s US-VISIT program began upgrading its biometric technology from a two- to a 10-fingerprint collection standard in 2007 to make the entry process faster and more accurate, enabling DHS officials to focus their attention on people who may pose a risk to the United States.

“Since 2004, biometrics have facilitated legitimate travel for millions of visitors entering the United States,” said US-VISIT Director Robert Mocny. “The 10 fingerprint upgrade makes this proven system even more efficient and enhances the security of our nation.”

For nearly five years, U.S. Department of State (State) consular officers and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers have collected biometric information—digital fingerprints and a photograph—from all non-U.S. citizens between the ages of 14 and 79, with some exceptions, when they apply for visas or arrive at major U.S. ports of entry. State consular officers began collecting 10 fingerprints from visa applicants in 2007.

Collecting 10 fingerprints increases fingerprint matching accuracy and reduces the possibility that the system will misidentify an international visitor. It also strengthens DHS’s capability to check visitors’ fingerprints against the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) criminal data and enables DHS to check visitors’ fingerprints against latent fingerprints collected by Department of Defense (DOD) and the FBI from known and unknown terrorists around the world.

DHS’s US-VISIT program, in cooperation with CBP, is leading the department’s upgrade to 10 fingerprint collection. This upgrade is the result of an interagency partnership among DHS, FBI, DOD and State.

US-VISIT provides biometric identification services to agencies throughout federal, state and local government. The program’s most visible service is the collection of biometrics from international visitors when they apply for visas and enter the United States. Since US-VISIT began in 2004, DHS’s use of biometrics has helped prevent the use of fraudulent documents, protect visitors from identity theft, and stop thousands of criminals and immigration violators from entering the United States.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced today an Interim Final Rule that replaces the current Guam Visa Waiver Program (VWP) with a new Visa Waiver Program for Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). This rule also authorizes the department’s U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to establish as many as six new ports of entry in the region in order to administer and enforce the Guam-CNMI VWP and to allow for immigration inspections under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The revised Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program (VWP) allows visa-free entry for nonimmigrant visitors from eligible countries to Guam and the CNMI for business or leisure travel, as well as extends visiting time from 15 to 45 days. The program is scheduled to be implemented June 1, 2009. The current Guam Visa Waiver Program (VWP) and CNMI immigration laws will continue to apply until the implementation date of this regulation.

Travelers seeking admission to Guam under the new program must possess a valid, unexpired machine-readable passport and present a valid and completed CBP Form I-94 and CBP Form I-736, and must not have previously violated the terms of any prior admission to the U.S.

Section 702(a) of the Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008, signed into law by President Bush on May 8, 2008, extends U.S. immigration laws to the CNMI to ensure uniform adherence to long-standing federal immigration policies and to bring the CNMI in line with other U.S. communities. Section 702(b), which is implemented by the interim final rule, establishes a new Visa Waiver Program for Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

Eligible countries under the new Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program (VWP) include: Australia, Brunei, Japan, Malaysia, Nauru, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Republic of Korea, Singapore, Taiwan and the United Kingdom including Hong Kong.