Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

Implementation of the Emergency Stopgap USCIS Stabilization Act rule (2022)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
New Administrative State Banner.png
What is a significant rule?

Significant regulatory action is a term used to describe an agency rule that has had or might have a large impact on the economy, environment, public health, or state or local governments. These actions may also conflict with other rules or presidential priorities. As part of its role in the regulatory review process, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) determines which rules meet this definition.


Administrative State
Administrative State Icon Gold.png
Five Pillars of the Administrative State
•Agency control
• Executive control
• Judicial control
•Legislative control
• Public Control
Click here for more coverage of the administrative state on Ballotpedia.
Click here to access Ballotpedia's administrative state legislation tracker.


The Implementation of the Emergency Stopgap USCIS Stabilization Act rule is a significant rule issued by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) effective May 31, 2022, that codified fees for immigration benefit requests for premium processing, as well as new fees and processing times for requests, pursuant to the USCIS Stabilization Act.[1]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • Name: Implementation of the Emergency Stopgap USCIS Stabilization Act
  • Action: Final rule
  • Type of significant rule: Economically significant rule

    • Timeline

    The following timeline details key rulemaking activity:

    • May 31, 2022: The comment period closed and the final rule took effect.[1]
    • March 30, 2022: USCIS issued the Implementation of the Emergency Stopgap USCIS Stabilization Act final rule and opened the comment period only for comments on the revised information collection Form I–907 described in the Paperwork Reduction Act section of this rule.[1]
    • January 9, 2021: DHS published notice of two preliminary injuctions on the final rule by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.[1]
    • October 2, 2020: The final rule took effect.[1]
    • October 1, 2020: The USCIS Stabilization Act was signed into law, raising premium processing fees.[1]
    • August 3, 2020: DHS issued the final rule.[1]
    • November 14, 2019: DHS issued the proposed rule “U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Fee Schedule and Changes to Certain Other Immigration Benefit Request Requirements” and opened the comment period.[1]

    Background

    Premium processing allows those who are seeking employment-based immigration benefits to pay a premium fee, as well as all other base or miscellaneous fees, to get a 15-day processing of their benefits request. As of the rule's publishing in the federal register, this expedited processing is available to those filing Form I–129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, or Form I–140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, and seeking certain employment-based classifications, and USCIS announces available dates for premium processing of the previously mentioned requests on its website. In October 2020, USCIS raised the fee per the USCIS Stabilization Act, which also expanded the types of benefits that can be filed for premium processing. This rule codified the fee increase and established new fees and processing times. This rule is not subject to notice and opportunity for public comment under the Administrative Procedure Act, because it restates existing law, according to the rule.[1]

    Summary of the rule

    The following is a summary of the rule from the rule's entry in the Federal Register:

    “ The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is amending DHS premium processing regulations to codify statutory changes made by the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2021 and Other Extensions Act (Continuing Appropriations Act). The Continuing Appropriations Act included the Emergency Stopgap USCIS Stabilization Act (USCIS Stabilization Act), which amended the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) by modifying U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services' (USCIS) authority to provide premium processing services and to establish and collect premium processing fees for those services. This rule amends DHS premium processing regulations by updating the regulations to include the fees established by the USCIS Stabilization Act for immigration benefit requests that were designated for premium processing on August 1, 2020, and establishing new fees and processing timeframes consistent with section 4102(b) of the USCIS Stabilization Act.[1][2] ”

    Summary of provisions

    The following is a summary of the provisions from the rule's entry in the Federal Register:[1]

    “ This rule amends DHS premium processing regulations to codify those fees set by the USCIS Stabilization Act in section 286(u)(3)(A) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1356(u)(3)(A), as well as the preexisting timeframes for those immigration benefit requests that had been designated for premium processing as of August 1, 2020, and to establish new fees and processing timeframes for new immigration benefit requests, consistent with the conditions and eligibility requirements set forth by section 4102(b)(1) of the USCIS Stabilization Act. This rule further amends DHS premium processing regulations to codify the USCIS Stabilization Act's changes to the process for adjusting premium processing fees at section 286(u)(3)(C) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1356(u)(3)(C), according to which such adjustments are permitted on a biennial basis consistent with certain changes to the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI–U). Finally, any additional changes made by this rule to revise DHS regulations at new 8 CFR 106.4 pertaining to premium processing are made to be consistent with amendments made by the USCIS Stabilization Act.[2] ”

    Significant impact

    See also: Significant regulatory action

    Executive Order 12866, issued by President Bill Clinton (D) in 1993, directed the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to determine which agency rules qualify as significant rules and thus are subject to OMB review.

    Significant rules have had or might have a large impact on the economy, environment, public health, or state or local governments. These actions may also conflict with other rules or presidential priorities. Executive Order 12866 further defined an economically significant rule as a significant rule with an associated economic impact of $100 million or more. Executive Order 14094, issued by President Joe Biden (D) on April 6, 2023, made changes to Executive Order 12866, including referring to economically significant rules as section 3(f)(1) significant rules and raising the monetary threshold for economic significance to $200 million or more.[1]


    The text of the Implementation of the Emergency Stopgap USCIS Stabilization Act rule states that OMB deemed this rule economically significant under E.O. 12866:

    “ The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), has designated this final rule an economically significant regulatory action under sec. 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, OIRA has reviewed this regulation.[2] ”

    Text of the rule

    The full text of the rule is available below:[1]

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.12 Federal Register, "Implementation of the Emergency Stopgap USCIS Stabilization Act", November 29, 2023.
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    v • e
    The Administrative State
    MainThe Administrative State Project Badge.png
    Pillars
    Reporting
    Laws
    Administrative Procedure Act • Antiquities Act • Civil Service Reform Act • Clayton Antitrust Act • Communications Act of 1934 • Congressional Review Act • Electronic Freedom of Information Act • Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 • Federal Housekeeping Statute • Federal Reserve Act • Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 • Freedom of Information Act • Government in the Sunshine Act • Independent Offices Appropriations Act of 1952 • Information Quality Act • Interstate Commerce Act • National Labor Relations Act • Paperwork Reduction Act • Pendleton Act • Privacy Act of 1974 • Regulatory Flexibility Act • REINS Act • REINS Act (Wisconsin) • Securities Act of 1933 • Securities Exchange Act of 1934 • Sherman Antitrust Act • Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act • Truth in Regulating Act • Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    Cases
    Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner • A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States • Association of Data Processing Service Organizations v. Camp • Auer v. Robbins • Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe • Federal Trade Commission (FTC) v. Standard Oil Company of California • Field v. Clark • Food and Drug Administration v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation • Humphrey's Executor v. United States • Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) v. Chadha • J.W. Hampton Jr. & Company v. United States • Lucia v. SEC • Marshall v. Barlow's • Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency • Mistretta v. United States • National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) v. Sebelius • National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning Company • National Labor Relations Board v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. • Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan • Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation • Skidmore v. Swift & Co. • United States v. Lopez • United States v. Western Pacific Railroad Co. • Universal Camera Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board • Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council • Wayman v. Southard • Weyerhaeuser Company v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service • Whitman v. American Trucking Associations • Wickard v. Filburn • Wiener v. United States
    Terms
    Adjudication (administrative state) • Administrative judge • Administrative law • Administrative law judge • Administrative state • Arbitrary-or-capricious test • Auer deference • Barrier to entry • Bootleggers and Baptists • Chevron deference (doctrine) • Civil servant • Civil service • Code of Federal Regulations • Codify (administrative state) • Comment period • Compliance costs • Congressional Record • Coordination (administrative state) • Deference (administrative state) • Direct and indirect costs (administrative state) • Enabling statute • Ex parte communication (administrative state) • Executive agency • Federal law • Federal Register • Federalism • Final rule • Formal rulemaking • Formalism (law) • Functionalism (law) • Guidance (administrative state) • Hybrid rulemaking • Incorporation by reference • Independent federal agency • Informal rulemaking • Joint resolution of disapproval (administrative state) • Major rule • Negotiated rulemaking • Nondelegation doctrine • OIRA prompt letter • Organic statute • Pragmatism (law) • Precautionary principle • Promulgate • Proposed rule • Publication rulemaking • Regulatory budget • Regulatory capture • Regulatory dark matter • Regulatory impact analysis • Regulatory policy officer • Regulatory reform officer • Regulatory review • Rent seeking • Retrospective regulatory review • Risk assessment (administrative state) • Rulemaking • Separation of powers • Significant regulatory action • Skidmore deference • Statutory authority • Substantive law and procedural law • Sue and settle • Sunset provision • Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions • United States Code • United States Statutes at Large
    Bibliography
    Agencies
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Implementation_of_the_Emergency_Stopgap_USCIS_Stabilization_Act_rule_(2022)&oldid=10361246"