Publications

In relation to the IFR, the Advocates for Human Rights (AHR) previously filed a Comment on February 20, 2026, focused principally on the deprivation of notice-and-comment procedures required by the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") and the consequent deprivation of due process rights caused by the IFR. As explained in that Comment, it focused on the procedural aspects of the IFR and why dispensing with giving the public the opportunity for prior notice and comment was unlawful. In light of the district court's decision vacating the IFR, AHR treats the IFR as a proposed rule and provides the instant comment; though, the IFR has not yet been issued as a proposed rule or published in the Federal Register as a proposed rule.

As explained in more detail in the attached, the changes proposed by the IFR are arbitrary and capricious and thus do not meet the requisite standards for agency action. Indeed, many of the same reasons the district court found that the IFR was in fact a substantive rule requiring prior notice and comment, as well as its findings on standing for the plaintiffs in the case, support the conclusion that the IFR was also arbitrary and capricious. See, e.g., Amica Center Decision at *2 (finding that IFR would "fundamentally curtail[] . . . meaningful administrative review of adverse immigration decisions"); at *15-19 (finding that the IFR would effectively deprive noncitizens of their right to counsel and deprive counsel of their right to take on representations of noncitizens in appeals). AHR also notes that the IFR will violate U.S. obligations under international and domestic law related to human rights to due process and protections against return to persecution.