Imposition and Collection of Civil Penalties for Certain Immigration-Related Violations

The IFR is working as intended. As a result of the IFR, DHS has been able to issue a significantly greater number of civil penalties compared to the pre-IFR process under 8 CFR part 280. From March 26, 2025, through June 26, 2025, ICE issued 12,135 civil penalties under the pre-IFR process.\15\ From June 27, 2025, after the IFR took effect, through September 14, 2026, ICE issued approximately 110,000 failure to depart civil penalties, and CBP issued an additional 66,000 civil penalties for unlawful entry. Thus, DHS increased the number of civil penalties issued from approximately 930 per week under the pre-IFR process to nearly 2,800 per week under the IFR process.\16\ Accordingly, the IFR has allowed DHS to impose more civil penalties more quickly on a greater scale, while retaining procedural safeguards designed to promote accurate penalty assessments without diverting resources away from border security, and the apprehension, detention, and removal of aliens who have violated our immigration laws.

\15\ See Office of Homeland Security Statistics analysis of Alien Departures by Civil Fine, DHS Enforcement, and EOIR Case Outcomes (Oct. 7, 2026).

\16\ Id.

Second, DHS's robust use of civil penalties appears to be shifting incentives for aliens with removal and departure orders who might otherwise remain unlawfully in the United States. DHS data indicates that over 82,000 aliens with removal orders and voluntary departures orders have self-departed from the United States since DHS began issuing civil penalties in March 2025 through September 14, 2026.\17\ In that same period, over 7,700 aliens have self-departed after receiving a civil penalty.\18\ Further, the number of aliens with removal orders or voluntary departure orders who have self-departed since the IFR took effect has increased significantly, as has the number of aliens who have departed after receiving a civil penalty. In the pre-IFR period from March 26, 2025, through June 26, 2025, approximately 8,600 aliens with removal or voluntary departure orders self-departed, and approximately 540 aliens self-departed the United States after receiving a civil penalty during this period.\19\ In the post-IFR period from June 27, 2025, through September 14, 2026, over 74,000 aliens with removal orders or voluntary departure orders self- departed in total, and approximately 7,180 aliens self-departed after receiving a civil penalty during this period. This data indicates that DHS's robust use of civil penalties, as facilitated by the IFR's streamlined procedures, is encouraging illegally present aliens to depart the United States on their own, consistent with the IFR's objectives.

\17\ Id. For the purpose of this analysis, the term self- departure includes the sum of confirmed departures without involvement of DHS enforcement or without DHS expense including ICE- assisted repatriations at the alien's own expense and OFO repatriations. It also includes observed departures of aliens who have voluntarily departed with financial support from the U.S. Government through the CBP Home program. See Proclamation 10935, 90 FR 20357 (establishing Project Homecoming and directing DHS to establish a seamless process for illegal aliens to depart the United States including through the CBP Home program); see also DHS Fact Sheet, CBP Home: Assistance to Voluntarily Self-Deport (Sept. 1, 2026), https://www.dhs.gov/cbphome [https://perma.cc/PWQ2-W6ZJ] (explaining CBP Home app and departure incentives available to aliens who use the app to voluntarily self-depart). The count of departures without DHS assistance may be under-inclusive because, as explained in the IFR, DHS does not maintain comprehensive departure records for all aliens, particularly those who depart across the southern or northern land border without informing DHS. See 90 FR 27443, n.17.

\18\ Id.

\19\ Id.

Finally, DHS's experience implementing the civil penalties covered by this rule since March 26, 2025, confirms that many pre-IFR procedures were unnecessary and that the IFR's procedures provide a meaningful opportunity to contest penalties believed to be erroneous without unnecessarily diverting BIA resources away from adjudicating its existing pending caseload to conduct review better addressed by DHS. As discussed above, the IFR shortens the appeal period, eliminates in-person interviews, and shifts appeals from the BIA to DHS. DHS data support these changes:

Under the pre-IFR process, aliens filed written answers pursuant to 8 CFR 280.12 contesting failure to depart penalties for only 222 of the 12,135 notices of intent to fine that ICE issued, a less than 2 percent appeal rate. Under the post-IFR process through September 10, 2026, aliens appealed failure to depart civil penalties in 3,072 cases of the approximately 110,000 penalties that ICE issued between June 27, 2025, through September 14, 2026, a nearly 3 percent appeal rate. The appeal rate has therefore increased under the post-IFR process.\20\

\20\ Prior to the IFR, CBP did not issue any penalties for unlawful entry under INA 275(b), 8 U.S.C. 1325(b). Thus, the comparison between pre-IFR and post-IFR appeals is limited to the failure to depart penalties under INA 240B(d), 8 U.S.C. 1229c(d) and INA 274D, 8 U.S.C. 1324d. Further, as discussed throughout this preamble, the Departments believe that very few aliens have grounds to appeal unlawful entry penalties issued under INA 275(b), 8 U.S.C. 1325(b), given the even more straightforward nature of those penalties.

Only 4 aliens requested an in-person interview out of the 222 penalty notices that aliens contested under the pre-IFR process, indicating that in-person interviews are generally unnecessary and that aliens can adequately contest these decisions through written submissions based on information in the alien's possession.

Under the pre-IFR process, only 44 aliens appealed DHS's penalty decision to the BIA under 8 CFR part 1003, further supporting the Departments' assessment that the legal issues associated with these penalties are relatively straightforward and appeals can be handled by DHS. As of September 10, 2026, the BIA has issued only two decisions in these appeals, including a published decision which

upheld the civil penalty.\21\ This further supports the Departments' decision to eliminate BIA review in favor of an internal DHS appeal process given the lengthy BIA adjudication timeframes.

\21\ See Matter of R-P-L-, 29 I&N Dec. 859 (BIA 2026).

Aliens have successfully contested penalty decisions under the post-IFR processes. Of the appeals that DHS has adjudicated under the post-IFR process, aliens prevailed in 25 percent of the cases. This clearly demonstrates that the IFR's appeal process is meaningful, and DHS can adjudicate these penalties fairly without the need for the BIA's review.

These results support the Departments' conclusion that the IFR's streamlined procedures provide appropriate protections while allowing DHS to apply statutory penalties efficiently and at scale. DHS believes there have been fewer appeals to fines issued under 8 CFR part 281, as compared to 8 CFR part 280, because of the straightforward determinations of fact associated with fines under part 281. Additionally, the appeal process under 8 CFR part 281 discourages frivolous or non-meritorious appeals, focusing resources on cases with substantive claims.

The Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security issue this joint final rule pursuant to their respective authorities. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (“HSA”), Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, as amended, transferred to the Secretary many functions previously exercised by the former INS in implementing and enforcing Federal immigration law. The INA, as amended, charges the Secretary “with the administration and enforcement of this chapter and all other laws relating to the immigration and naturalization of aliens.” INA 103(a)(1); 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(1). It authorizes the Secretary to take actions “necessary for carrying out” that responsibility. INA 103(a)(3); 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(3). As relevant here, the INA and HSA now authorize the Secretary to impose most civil monetary penalties under the INA, including those set forth in INA 240B(d), 274D(a), and 275(b); 8 U.S.C. 1229c(d), 1324d(a), and 1325(b). See INA 103(a)(1); 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(1) (reposing in the Secretary the authority to administer and enforce the immigration laws except as expressly reserved to the President, Attorney General, or Secretary of State) and HSA 402(3), 6 U.S.C. 202(3) (charging the Secretary with carrying out the immigration enforcement functions vested by statute in, or performed by, the Commissioner of the former INS).

Within DHS, the HSA allocated immigration functions and responsibilities to CBP, ICE, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”). See HSA 411, 6 U.S.C. 211 (CBP); HSA 442, 6 U.S.C. 252 (ICE); HSA 451, 6 U.S.C. 271 (USCIS). ICE is generally responsible for interior immigration enforcement, and CBP is generally responsible for immigration enforcement at ports of entry and along the United States border. Both components have authority to administer civil monetary penalties relating to certain violations of immigration law and Immigration Court orders, including penalties authorized under INA 240B(d), 274(D)(a), and 275(b). See, e.g., 8 CFR part 280.

The Secretary may delegate or re-delegate any authority vested in DHS under the immigration laws to any DHS officer, official, or employee, including by successive delegations. See INA 103(a)(4), 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(4); 8 CFR 2.1; Authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security; Immigration Laws, 68 FR 10922 (Mar. 6, 2003). The Secretary may delegate his authority in any manner he chooses, including by regulation, memorandum, directive, or other method. 8 CFR 2.1. In addition, HSA 102(a)(3), 6 U.S.C. 112(a)(3), vests all functions of DHS officers, employees, and organizational units in the Secretary.

The HSA retains in DOJ, under the direction of the Attorney General, the functions of EOIR. See HSA 1101, 6 U.S.C. 521, INA 103(g)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1103(g)(1). Immigration Judges within EOIR conduct section 240 removal proceedings and have authority to issue removal orders or grant voluntary departure. See INA 240, 240B, 8 U.S.C. 1229a, 1229b. The INA further provides that the Attorney General's determinations on questions of law “shall be controlling.” INA 103(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(1). Nothing in this final rule alters EOIR's or the Attorney General's authority to conduct or review section 240 removal proceedings, including the issuance of removal orders or grants of voluntary departure.

DOJ participates in this rulemaking because, prior to the IFR, DOJ's regulations established BIA appellate jurisdiction over certain DHS-issued civil monetary penalties authorized under the INA, including those covered by this rulemaking. The IFR removed that appellate authority, which is finalized without further change in this rule. See 90 FR 27439, 27459. The INA does not require the BIA to review civil penalties, and nothing in the statute precludes the Attorney General from removing the BIA's appellate jurisdiction over civil monetary penalties imposed by another agency. To the contrary, INA 103(g)(1) and (g)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1103(g)(1)-(2), authorize the Attorney General to issue regulations necessary for carrying out EOIR's responsibilities and governing its adjudicatory structure. Consistent with that authority, through the IFR, DOJ amended its regulations to eliminate the BIA's appellate authority over these DHS-imposed penalties in order to focus EOIR's resources on its statutory functions.

This final rule addresses DHS procedures for imposing civil monetary penalties under INA 240B(d), 274D(a)(1), and 275(b), 8 U.S.C. 1229c(d), 1324d(a), and 1325(b). Those statutory provisions define the categories of aliens subject to civil penalties, establish penalty amounts, and authorize DHS to impose such penalties, but they do not prescribe procedures DHS must follow or require DOJ review of those penalties. Similarly, INA 280, 8 U.S.C. 1330, addresses the collection of civil monetary penalties but does not specify assessment procedures. Accordingly, the INA affords DHS discretion to adopt reasonable procedures for assessing and issuing civil monetary penalties. See Vt. Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 543 (1978) (“Absent constitutional constraints or extremely compelling circumstances the administrative agencies should be free to fashion their own rules of procedure and to pursue methods of inquiry capable of permitting them to discharge their multitudinous duties.”) (cleaned up).

Comment: Several commenters expressed overall support for the IFR. These commenters agreed with the use of civil monetary penalties to promote compliance with immigration laws. One commenter considered such civil penalties necessary to deter unlawful presence, encourage self- departure, and help offset the costs associated with

enforcing immigration laws and carrying out removals. Another commenter recognized the government's interest in recovering some of the costs associated with removing aliens. A third commenter expressed general support for imposing civil monetary fines to strengthen overall immigration enforcement. Collectively, these comments broadly endorsed the IFR's underlying policy objective of streamlining the process for imposing civil monetary penalties on aliens subject to the violations addressed in this rule.

Response: The Departments agree that promoting compliance with the Nation's immigration laws and maintaining border security is critical, and this rule is a key part of DHS's efforts to use all statutorily available tools to help achieve those objectives consistent with the Administration's policies and priorities while also allowing EOIR to focus time and resources on completing cases that are more aligned with its statutory authorities. See 90 FR 8445-55. Specifically, the unprecedented number of aliens entering and remaining in the country illegally, in recent years necessitates this rule. See 90 FR 27442 (quoting 90 FR 8443). Congress has authorized DHS to impose civil monetary penalties on aliens who unlawfully enter the United States and those who remain after a final removal or voluntary departure order. See 90 FR 27439-41. As explained in the IFR, this rule allows DHS to preserve due process while more efficiently imposing a greater number of these civil penalties on the aliens subject to them. 90 FR 27442. The Departments believe that this effort will, in turn, encourage greater compliance with removal and voluntary departure orders and discourage future unlawful entries. Id.

Comment: Many commenters opposed the IFR, asserting that it will negatively impact aliens and their families. One commenter stated that the aliens impacted by this rule could face steep civil monetary fines in excess of $1,000,000, causing significant financial distress for them and their families. Other commenters echoed this point, stating that the rule creates a substantial financial burden on aliens, and specifically viewed as particularly egregious the fine of $998-per-day for willful failure or refusal to depart after a final removal order and certain other proscribed activities. One commenter said the IFR directly harms U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents because many aliens subject to these civil monetary fines are parents and spouses of U.S. citizens and permanent residents. They characterized these fines as “economically catastrophic for the entire household” resulting in “eviction, bankruptcy, or forced separation.” This commenter also noted that aliens who fail to pay the assessed penalties may be subject to additional consequences including garnished wages, seizure of assets including homes and vehicles, and long-term financial ruin.

Another commenter reiterated this point and additionally noted the potential confiscation of savings and vehicles and imposed additional financial planning burden and financial uncertainty. This commenter claimed that the Departments' conclusion that the IFR aligns with due process was arbitrary and capricious. The commenter said that the IFR arbitrarily characterized these penalties as “modest,” and claimed the Departments overlooked case law recognizing heightened due process interests when the government seizes homes, confiscates savings, and imposes fines that result in significant economic impacts on families. Given the substantial penalty amounts and the collateral consequences that can result if an alien fails to pay, the commenter argued that the IFR's procedures are constitutionally inadequate.

Response: As an initial point, Congress, not the Departments, has defined both the types of violations and the monetary range for the civil penalties covered by the IFR and this rule. These penalties and their amounts reflect Congress's judgment that the conduct involved--an alien's unlawful entry and failure to depart after a removal or voluntary departure order--is serious, and in some cases substantial civil fines are necessary to encourage aliens to comply with the immigration laws. See 90 FR 27439-40. This rule does not expand the scope of these penalties, nor their minimum or maximum dollar amounts. Furthermore, the immigration consequences for failing to depart or unlawful entry flow from the underlying immigration violation, not from the failure to pay the assessed civil monetary penalties. This rule merely streamlines the process that DHS applies when imposing civil penalties that Congress has already authorized DHS to impose. Therefore, to the extent that commenters are objecting to these civil monetary penalties and the amounts authorized by Congress, such concerns are outside of the scope of this rulemaking.

DHS often assesses the maximum penalty amount to fulfill the enforcement and deterrent objectives of the statute, as intended by Congress. These amounts are also consistent with the enforcement priorities of the Administration, as reflected in recent Executive Orders. See 90 FR 8443, 8443-45; 90 FR 8467, 8467. However, the Departments note that, in the voluntary departure context, immigration officers follow the civil penalty amounts that will continue to be set by EOIR. See 8 CFR 1240.26(l).

The Departments disagree with commenters' arguments that DHS should not streamline the process for imposing these civil penalties because of the burdens the penalties create for aliens and their families. The Departments acknowledge these concerns but note that financial, emotional, and family burdens are also an inherent consequence of removal based on an alien's violation of the Nation's immigration laws. See e.g., Moctezuma-Reyes v. Garland, 124 F.4th 416, 423 (6th Cir. 2024) (“[F]inancial and emotional strains are the typical results of removal; they aren't rare”); see also Matter of Pilch, 21 I&N Dec. 627, 631 (BIA 1996) (“[E]motional hardship caused by severing family and community ties is a common result of deportation”). The most substantial civil fines apply only to aliens who have been ordered removed or granted voluntary departure after the conclusion of immigration proceedings. These aliens have been warned of the consequences for failing to comply with the removal or departure order but have willfully ignored their departure obligations. In these circumstances, the Departments do not believe that it is unfair to impose substantial civil penalties that Congress has authorized for these violations even though it may cause additional burdens and hardships on aliens and their families.

To help alleviate the financial burden of civil penalties and incentivize compliance, DHS has announced it will reopen and rescind most outstanding civil penalties when an alien uses the CBP Home app to voluntarily self-depart the United States.\22\ This option allows aliens to avoid the civil penalties and attendant consequences that commenters have noted. The

Departments recognize that an alien's choice to exercise this option may still impose significant personal and family hardships, including to U.S. citizen or lawful permanent family members, but the Departments note that these hardships are an inherent consequence of a removal order and are compounded by the alien's willful failure to depart when that order became final and executable. See Morales-Izquierdo v. DHS, 600 F.3d 1076, 1091 (9th Cir. 2010) (rejecting argument that “an illegal alien with United States citizen family members cannot be removed” because such a proposition “would radically alter the status quo of our immigration law”). Additionally, the Departments believe that permitting removable aliens to remain in the United States would undermine immigration enforcement, the integrity of the Nation's immigration laws, American communities, and public safety.\23\

\22\ DHS, DHS Announces It Will Forgive Failure to Depart Fines for Illegal Aliens who Self-Deport Through the CBP Home App (June 9, 2025), https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/06/09/dhs-announces-it-will-forgive-failure-depart-fines-illegal-aliens-who-self-deport [https://perma.cc/8RBN-PACA]. See Presidential Proclamation 10935, Establishing Project Homecoming, 90 FR 20357 (May 9, 2025); 90 FR 27442.

\23\ See 90 FR 47445-46 (discussing how an alien's failure to depart has serious consequences for immigration enforcement and the adjudication of immigration cases); see also E.O. 14159, 90 FR 8443, 8444-45 (Jan. 20, 2025). (“enforcing our Nation's immigration laws is critically important to the national security and public safety of the United States”); Presidential Proclamation 10935, 90 FR 20357 (May 9, 2025) (“The continued presence of illegal aliens in our Nation forces American taxpayers to bear a tremendous fiscal burden to support them, including through costs related to healthcare, food stamps, public housing, emergency services, education, and shelter, as well as the costs of crimes committed by illegal aliens.”).

Regarding commenters' concerns that aliens may face collateral consequences if they fail to take advantage of this off-ramp and further fail to pay these civil fines, the Departments note that the IFR and this final rule do not authorize the confiscation of savings, garnished wages, or the seizure of assets. Rather, separate statutes and regulations govern the U.S. Government's debt collection activities and remedies, which are outside the scope of this rule. However, the Departments note that only DOJ's Civil Division or another authorized litigating component of DOJ, not EOIR and DHS, have authority to obtain a judgment on a debt owed to the United States. See 31 CFR 904.1-904.4. DOJ's Civil Division or another authorized litigating component must bring an action in federal court to obtain a judgment and pursue any lien against assets or confiscation of savings, and the alien has an opportunity to request a federal court hearing on the enforceability of the debt. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. 3002(3)(B), 3101(d)(1), (d)(2). This provides due process before the U.S. Government seeks to obtain a judgment on an uncollected debt and before it can confiscate an alien's property or savings. Accordingly, nothing in this rule deprives an alien of the ability to challenge the imposition of particular civil penalty assessments or collection methods that the alien regards as disproportionate, excessive, or in violation of due process during a federal court hearing.

Finally, the Departments disagree that the IFR's due process analysis fails to consider the full magnitude of the departure penalties and the collateral consequences that could result, should an alien remain in the United States and fail to pay the civil monetary penalty. As an initial matter, contrary to one commenter's claim, the Departments did not characterize the penalties covered by this rule as “modest.” Rather, the IFR used that term to contrast the penalty amounts associated with the unlawful entry and voluntary departure order penalties and the per diem fines Congress has authorized DHS to impose on aliens who willfully remain in the United States for many years after a removal order. See 90 FR 27541.

The Departments do, however, acknowledge that the per diem civil penalties can result in substantial fines, including sums of over one million dollars in certain cases, and that these amounts could impose significant economic and emotional burdens on aliens and their families. The Departments also note that DHS will cancel most outstanding penalties when an alien uses the CBP Home app to depart the United States, as discussed above. Similarly, the Departments acknowledge the collateral consequences that could result if an alien fails to pay a civil penalty or depart the United States, but the Departments reiterate that this rule does not authorize DHS or EOIR to seize an alien's property, garnish wages, or confiscate savings. That authority rests with DOJ's Civil Division or another litigating component, and the alien would be able to challenge any action in court before any deprivation occurs.

The Departments, however, also have a weighty interest in ensuring that DHS can impose statutorily authorized civil monetary penalties efficiently and at scale to create greater incentives for aliens to comply with final removal orders and to impose timely consequences on those who do not. As the Departments explained in the IFR and Section II of this preamble, the need for this rule is demonstrated by the sheer number of aliens in the United States with final removal orders and the risk that, without additional action, a significant number of the millions of aliens currently in Immigration Court proceedings may be encouraged to simply ignore final decisions ordering their removal. See 90 FR 27445. An alien's failure to comply with a removal order risks undermining the overall integrity of the immigration laws and processes and imposes significant enforcement costs on DHS. Id; see also Section II of this preamble.

On balance, the Departments believe that the IFR's streamlined civil monetary penalty procedures strike an appropriate balance between: (1) increasing DHS's ability to impose statutorily authorized civil penalties quickly against aliens who have willfully failed to comply with removal orders and (2) protecting an alien's interest in ensuring that he or she has a meaningful opportunity to contest any civil penalty that DHS may have issued erroneously. Based on its experience, DHS believes that the risk of imposing these civil fines in error is low given the straightforward nature of these civil penalty determinations, and that the IFR's procedures provide sufficient due process to aliens who contest these penalties. See 90 FR 27451-54.

Comment: Commenters claimed that these penalties will harm businesses and communities. One commenter stated that many aliens targeted by this IFR pay taxes and work in “essential” sectors such as agriculture, healthcare, and construction. Another commenter claimed that the threat of high civil penalties will increase fear in communities and push people into hiding. The commenter claimed that the high penalties would reduce enrollment in schools and healthcare, and deter victims and witnesses from reporting crimes, thereby harming public safety and communities. Given these claimed impacts, commenters argued that the Departments should rescind the IFR.

Response: The Departments do not dispute the contributions of lawful immigrants to United States businesses and communities. The purpose of the IFR and this rule, however, is not to harm businesses or communities but to allow DHS to more efficiently impose these statutorily authorized civil monetary penalties on the large number of aliens who violate the Nation's immigration laws by entering or remaining in the country unlawfully. Congress has authorized DHS to impose civil penalties for these violations and did not create exceptions for aliens who pay taxes, work in “essential sectors”, or otherwise “contribute” to communities. An alien's engagement in these activities does not absolve him or her from complying with the immigration laws. Moreover, the Departments note that, with limited exceptions, Congress has not authorized

aliens with final executable removal and voluntary departure orders to work in the United States. INA 241(a)(7), 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(7). Therefore, the Departments decline to rescind the IFR based on commenters' speculation that its procedures for imposing penalties on aliens will indirectly “harm” businesses or essential sectors. Further, the Departments believe that any such indirect impact that the penalties themselves may have on businesses would be outweighed by their benefits, including benefits to border security, public safety, immigration enforcement, and the integrity of the immigration laws. See 90 FR 27445-46; Section II of this preamble; see also 90 FR 8444-45.

Regarding comments related to the IFR's potential effects on the willingness of aliens to report crimes, while DHS does not dispute that illegal aliens might be less willing to report a crime, DHS cannot reliably estimate this rule's speculative impact on local policing, especially considering that this rule merely provides procedures for issuing civil fines that are authorized by statute. For similar reasons, the Departments decline to rescind the IFR based on other speculative community-level effects described by some commenters. Commenters provided no support for their belief that the revised civil penalty procedures will discourage eligible individuals from accessing education, healthcare, or other community services, or otherwise disengaging from their communities. The Departments believe that any such indirect impacts are also outweighed by this rule's potential benefits, including benefits to border security, public safety, immigration enforcement, and the integrity of the immigration laws. 2. Impacts on Specific Populations

Comment: Commenters broadly suggested that the IFR will have a disproportionate impact on vulnerable groups such as minors, aliens with limited English proficiency, and aliens fleeing hardships and lacking sufficient funds for legal representation. Commenters asserted that such aliens may face barriers in understanding or responding to civil monetary penalties within the prescribed timeframes and that the imposition of fines could create additional hardship or deter some from challenging these penalties altogether. One commenter expressed particular concern about aliens subject to domestic violence and human trafficking. The commenter explained that these aliens may be eligible for immigration relief based on this harm, but large civil fines may impose a barrier to escaping these situations and obtaining such relief. Collectively, these commenters suggested that the IFR's streamlined penalty process, including its deadlines, should not apply to these groups.

Response: The procedures established by the IFR are designed to ensure efficiency in assessing civil penalties authorized by the INA, while maintaining the due process protections required by law. See 90 FR 27451-53. The rule does not alter eligibility for immigration benefits or relief available under other provisions of the INA, including protection for victims of trafficking or domestic violence, nor does it limit the Departments' existing discretion to consider individual circumstances consistent with applicable statutes and regulations. Moreover, ICE's guidance to immigration officers instructs that aliens with approved (or in some cases tentatively approved) applications for VAWA protections, T-visas, and U-visas for aliens who are victims of human trafficking or certain crimes should not be issued a civil fine. DHS also notes that nothing in this rule prevents immigration officers from exercising discretion in individual cases to not issue a civil monetary penalty if DHS is aware of such circumstances.

Moreover, the Departments reject commenters arguments that the IFR's procedures would have a singular impact on non-English speakers or aliens who are unrepresented, low-income, or unfamiliar with the law. First, the Departments note that all immigration documents issued to aliens by DHS, and all orders, decisions, and notices issued by EOIR--including written removal and voluntary departure orders--are in English.\24\ Therefore, the Departments do not believe that civil penalty decisions issued in English raise any inherent fairness concerns for non-English speakers, as a reasonable recipient would be on notice that further inquiry is required. See, e.g., Lopez v. Garland, 990 F.3d 1000, 1003 (6th Cir. 2021) (recognizing that English language notice typically satisfies due process because it alerts the alien to make further inquiry and seek help with any language barrier); see also Ojeda-Calderon v. Holder, 726 F.3d 669, 675 (5th Cir. 2013) (citing Nazarova v. INS, 171 F.3d 478, 483 (7th Cir. 1999)) (explaining due process does not require notices to be in a language the alien can understand).

\24\ All EOIR forms are written in English with instructions for select forms available in other languages. See EOIR, Forms & Fees (last visited Oct. 6, 2026), https://www.justice.gov/eoir/eoir-forms [https://perma.cc/G5PY-WDY]; USCIS, All Forms (last visited May 29, 2026), https://www.uscis.gov/forms/all-forms [https://perma.cc/J8A6-UASE]. Regulations require that all documents filed with the EOIR Immigration Courts must also be in the English language or accompanied by a certified English translation. See 8 CFR 1003.33, 1003.23(b)(1)(i). DHS regulations also contain English-language requirements. E.g., 8 CFR 103.2(b)(3), 204.1(f)(2).

Second, the IFR's procedures provide all aliens with a fair opportunity to contest civil penalties. The penalty decision itself provides aliens with notice, in plain language about why the alien is subject to a civil penalty, see 90 FR 27449, and the Departments reiterate that Immigration Judges have already warned aliens subject to the failure to depart penalties about the consequences of failing to comply with removal and departure orders. See Section II of this preamble. The penalty decision also explains, in plain language, what an alien must do to contest the penalty. See 90 FR 27449. Indeed, the penalty decision, DHS Form 281, Notice of Violation and Order, contains a textbox that the alien can use to indicate that he or she is contesting the penalty decision and to provide a brief statement of reasons for the appeal. Moreover, the IFR simplifies regulatory requirements to trigger an appeal compared to the former process at 8 CFR part 280 that applies when an alien responds to a NIF. See 8 CFR 280.12 (requiring written answers responding to civil penalties to be filed under oath and in triplicate). Finally, under the IFR, an alien's appeal suffices to trigger mandatory de novo supervisory review. See 8 CFR 281.1(e)(2). In these circumstances, the Departments disagree with commenters' speculative concerns that the IFR's procedures unfairly disadvantage non-English speakers and unrepresented aliens with limited financial means. With regard to commenters' concerns about minors, DHS notes that ICE guidance to immigration officers is that such penalties should not be issued to minors without exceptions.

Comment: One commenter claimed that the IFR is particularly harmful to aliens seeking asylum or protection at the border. The commenter stated that, as a result of this IFR, these aliens will now be charged a civil fine, which the commenter characterizes as an erosion of their right to seek asylum, particularly when paired with other policies limiting asylum at the border.

Response: This rule does not alter or limit any statutory or regulatory right to apply for asylum or related protections under the INA or the regulations implementing U.S. obligations under the CAT. It does not create new grounds of inadmissibility, deportability, or ineligibility for relief or protection, and

it does not authorize the imposition of penalties based solely on the act of seeking asylum or protection. Rather, the IFR streamlines the process for assessing statutorily authorized civil penalties against aliens who violate immigration laws by entering the United States unlawfully, irrespective of their purpose for doing so. The statute does not create an exception for those who enter the United States unlawfully for the purpose of seeking asylum or related protection. Aliens who present themselves at a port of entry to seek asylum or other related protection are not subject to civil penalties under this rule. 3. Discrimination and Value-Based Considerations

Comment: Several commenters characterized the IFR as inconsistent with U.S. values and traditions, describing the IFR as “un-American,” “unjust,” and “contrary to national values.” One commenter characterized the IFR as designed to “punish” people trying to navigate the “labyrinthian immigration system.” One commenter suggested that the IFR was promulgated for a pretextual political purpose rather than a legitimate administrative one. The commenter argued that the IFR punishes aliens rather than deterring violations and improving compliance with removal obligations or upholding statutory requirements. Commenters generally suggested that the Administration should pursue policies that focus on humane and fair immigration policies, rather than punitive ones.

Response: The Departments categorically reject commenters' characterization of this rule as inhumane, “un-American,” “unjust,” or “contrary to national values.” The United States is a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws. DHS is charged with administering and enforcing those laws, but the number of illegal aliens in the United States who are subject to final removal orders has outpaced DHS's enforcement resources. See 90 FR 27445; see also Section II of this preamble. Further, EOIR statistics indicate that there are over 3.4 million pending Immigration Court proceedings as of the third quarter of FY 2026.\25\ When completed, these cases may result in a substantial number of additional removal orders against aliens, and without additional action there is a risk that many of these aliens may remain in the United States unlawfully. Further, although this Administration has made great strides to secure the southern border, DHS is committed to maintaining operational control of the border to ensure that DHS has sufficient resources to address the public safety and national security threats that arise constantly at the border.\26\

\25\ See EOIR Workload & Adjudication Statistics, Pending Cases, New Cases, and Total Completions (July 31, 2026), https://www.justice.gov/eoir/media/1344791/dl?inline [https://perma.cc/B2AW-2QYD]. EOIR statistics reported 3,469, 569 pending cases as of FY 2026 (Third Quarter). The term “pending cases” includes all uncompleted cases in removal, deportation, exclusion, asylum-only, and withholding-only proceedings.

\26\ See Finding of Mass Influx, 90 FR 45396 (Sept. 22, 2025) (explaining the impact on DHS resources and the public safety and national security concerns that result when there is an influx of aliens arriving at the border and entering or attempting to enter illegally).

The Departments believe that these circumstances warrant additional action consistent with this Administration's direction to use all available statutory immigration enforcement tools including civil penalties. See 90 FR 27445-46 and Section II of this preamble; see also 90 FR 8444-45. Congress has authorized DHS to apply these penalties against aliens who are entering or attempting to enter the United States unlawfully and against aliens who have failed to comply with removal and departure orders. See 90 FR 27439-41. The enforcement of these statutory penalties is a legitimate and integral component of ensuring compliance with the Nation's immigration laws and maintaining the integrity of the immigration system. See 90 FR 27444-46. Indeed, the IFR is achieving this objective, as DHS has issued over 176,000 civil penalties under the IFR (compared to approximately 12,000 penalties issued under 8 CFR part 280). These penalties have encouraged greater compliance with removal and voluntary departure orders as evidenced by the nearly 82,000 aliens with removal orders and voluntary departure orders who have self-departed the United States after DHS began issuing civil penalties in March 2025, and the nearly 7,200 aliens who self-departed from the United States after receiving notice of a civil penalty issued under the IFR.\27\

\27\ See Office of Homeland Security Statistics analysis of Alien Departures by Civil Fine, DHS Enforcement, and EOIR Case Outcomes (Oct. 7, 2026).

Similarly, the Departments reject the claim that this rule is intended to dehumanize or punish people navigating the immigration system. DHS notes that these penalties generally are not imposed until after the aliens have completed immigration proceedings and received a determination that they are not authorized to remain in the United States. The IFR did not create new categories of violative conduct or expand the scope of existing penalties. Instead, it updated the procedural framework that applies to these statutorily authorized penalties to ensure that DHS can assess them efficiently against aliens who have failed to comply with the Nation's immigration laws. This framework allows DHS to avoid unnecessarily diverting resources from ICE's and CBP's missions to apprehend, detain, and remove aliens who have illegally entered and are unlawfully present. See 90 FR 27447. DHS remains committed to administering these authorities in a manner consistent with principles of due process, other statutory and regulatory requirements, and the Nation's longstanding values of fairness and respect for the rule of law.

Comment: One commenter claimed that the IFR is discriminatory because its streamlined penalty process applies only to aliens, while the Departments' regulations continue to provide additional procedural protections to companies that violate the immigration laws when they are faced with a fine. The commenter characterized the IFR as saying that the Departments cannot provide aliens with the same due process protections that they can afford companies like airline carriers because of the large number of fines that ICE has issued against aliens. The commenter claimed that this is a crisis of DHS's own making rather than a rational reason for distinguishing between aliens and companies when designing civil penalty procedures. The commenter further argues that the IFR is discriminatory because other regulations require the Departments to consider mitigating circumstances when imposing penalties on employers and companies that violate immigration laws, but the IFR does not afford aliens the same treatment or allow them to seek mitigation.

Response: The Departments disagree with the commenter's assertion that the IFR is discriminatory because it establishes a streamlined penalty process for aliens but not for carriers. The IFR is not intended to favor carriers over aliens. It addresses an immediate enforcement need: deterring large numbers of aliens from entering the United States unlawfully and encouraging compliance with removal and departure orders.

As an initial matter, the Departments note that aliens and carriers are not similarly situated under the INA. Aliens are the direct subjects of removal and departure orders and are personally responsible for complying with those

orders, if not removed by ICE. They receive an opportunity for a full and fair hearing during section 240 removal proceedings, including an opportunity to contest removability and seek relief.\28\ When an alien fails to comply with a removal or departure order after such proceedings, that violation directly undermines the orderly administration of the immigration system and the integrity of the immigration laws. By contrast, carriers are regulated third parties that frequently transport passengers, including aliens, into the United States, but are not directly responsible for an alien's independent decision to violate the Nation's immigration laws. Rather, their obligations are tailored to their role as carriers, arising from statutory and regulatory requirements to verify the travel documents of passengers seeking to travel to the United States, such as those in INA 273(a), 8 U.S.C. 1323(a). Noncompliance by carriers is addressed through a separate statutory provision, INA 273, 8 U.S.C. 1323, through a long-standing regime of inspections, penalties, and cooperative compliance measures with CBP tailored to entities engaged in international transportation.

\28\ As noted in the IFR, under the INA, certain aliens can also be ordered removed by DHS with limited or no review by EOIR. See 90 FR 27740, n. 3 (discussing removal process outside of section 240 removal proceedings including expedited removal under INA 235(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1), reinstatement of a prior removal order under INA 241(a)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1231(a)(5), and administrative removal orders for certain non-permanent residents aliens who are aggravated felons under INA 238(b), 8 U.S.C. 1228(b)). As the IFR explained, however, aliens ordered removed through these processes generally must be detained, which reduces the likelihood of the alien's failure to depart. Id. Therefore, while applicable to all administratively final removal orders, the failure to depart civil monetary penalties are most relevant to aliens ordered removed through section 240 removal proceedings. Id.

The IFR focused on streamlining the process for collection of penalties against aliens because DHS identified an urgent need to increase the scale of such penalties and facilitate more timely processing, as well as to reduce incentives to unlawfully enter the United States and to ignore removal and departure orders. 90 FR 27447- 48; see also Section II of this preamble. The streamlined process is intended to allow DHS to issue penalties more quickly and at a volume necessary to promote compliance and deterrence. DHS did not identify a comparable, immediate need to revise the penalty process for carrier violations. 90 FR 27447.

For years, CBP has assessed civil monetary penalties against carriers for violations of their obligations under the immigration laws \29\ and has routinely worked with carriers to improve compliance.\30\ Carriers that operate regular transportation services into the United States already have strong incentives to verify passengers' travel documents to avoid substantial and repeated fines, as well as the costs of securing and returning inadmissible passengers.\31\ These incentives are further reinforced by CBP programs and arrangements with carriers designed to strengthen document screening and compliance, including CBP's voluntary document validation program and memoranda of understanding under which civil penalties may be reduced if carriers submit to CBP review of their screening processes and demonstrate successful screening procedures, as described in INA section 273, 8 U.S.C. 1323 violations.\32\

\29\ As discussed in the IFR, between October 1, 2022, and May 5, 2025, CBP initiated 1,428 carrier fines. 90 FR 27447; see also Advanced Passenger Information System: Electronic Validation of Travel Documents, 88 FR 7016, 7027 (Feb. 2, 2023) (noting that “the average number of penalties issued annually between 2015 and 2019 was 415 and explaining that the number of civil penalties for the years 2020-2022 was affected by the COVID-19 global pandemic consistent with a decrease in arrivals).

\30\ For example, CBP's carrier liaison program enhances border security by providing standardized training and assistance to international air carriers related to admissibility and fraudulent document detection. See CBP Carrier Liaison Program, https://www.help.cbp.gov/s/article/Article-1664?language=en_US [https://perma.cc/F3NW-MFU6] (Nov. 4, 2025). Additionally, CBP has established a process, first created by the legacy INS, for carriers to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with CBP that results in automatic mitigation of carrier fines if the carrier agrees to certain conditions and the carrier demonstrates successful screening procedures by achieving satisfactory performance levels measured by the number of violations under INA 273, 8 U.S.C. 1323. See Mitigation of Carrier Fines for Transporting Aliens Without Proper Documents; Modification of Memorandum of Understanding and Recalculation of Performance Levels To Measure Carrier Performance; CBP Dec. 09-06, 75 FR 7616 (Feb. 22, 2010).

\31\ See INA 273(c)-(e), 8 U.S.C. 1323(c)-(e). See also Advanced Passenger Information System: Electronic Validation of Travel Documents, 88 FR 7016, 7027 (Feb. 2, 2023) (noting that the cost of a penalty under INA 273, 8 U.S.C. 1323, and the cost of securing and transporting the passenger out of the United States, which amounts to about $10,000 for a single passenger).

\32\ See, e.g., 88 FR 7018, 7026 (discussing CBP's voluntary Document Validation Program, which allows CBP to vet travel document information submitted by carriers for passengers on international flights arriving in the United States prior to departure, and noting that, as a result of carrier participating in the program, 67 percent of commercial air passengers were covered by document validation as of FY 2021); see also CBP Dec. 09-06, 75 FR 7616 (Feb. 22, 2010).

As explained in the IFR, carrier fines also raise distinct considerations, including different grounds for violations and issues related to statutorily authorized mitigation procedures, that are not present for the alien-focused civil penalties covered by this rule. See 90 FR 27447-48. These factors can in some cases make carrier penalty processes more complex and less suitable for the streamlined procedures adopted in the IFR. In addition, the existing regulations in 8 CFR part 280 were designed initially for carrier fines, not for the alien- focused civil penalties covered by this rule. See 90 FR 27440-41; see also National Fines Office, 54 FR 18648 (May 2, 1989) (describing 8 CFR part 280 procedures as applying to “violations of the [INA] by transportation companies”). The Departments concluded that addressing these carrier-specific issues in the IFR could have delayed action on the more pressing need to streamline penalties for aliens.

Quite simply, the IFR leaves the existing penalty framework for carriers intact while addressing a separate enforcement challenge related to aliens who unlawfully enter or remain in the United States in violation of the immigration laws. The Departments agree that it remains important to ensure that carriers comply with their obligations under immigration laws and that CBP can administer carrier penalties efficiently and effectively. Focusing this rulemaking on alien penalties does not preclude future consideration of whether changes to carrier penalty procedures may be warranted. The decision to address alien penalties first reflects prioritization based on pressing enforcement needs, not discrimination against aliens in favor of carriers. See Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. EPA, 722 F.3d 401, 409- 10 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (quoting City of Las Vegas v. Lujan, 891 F.2d 927, 935 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (agencies may address problems in stages and “treat a problem partially” or regulate “in a piecemeal fashion.”). The Departments therefore reject the claim that it is irrational or discriminatory to focus this rule on civil penalties against aliens without amending the procedures that apply to carriers.

For similar reasons, the Departments disagree with the commenter's claim that the need for streamlined procedures is a “problem of DHS's own making,” which, according to the commenter, was created by DHS's decision to issue large numbers of penalties against aliens. The Departments acknowledge that ICE rarely issued such fines prior to this Administration. As explained in the IFR, however, the Departments have determined that DHS must now use these penalties more robustly in light of the significant number of aliens who

have violated removal and departure orders and have unlawfully entered the country in recent years. 90 FR 27446-47. The increased use of penalties is intended to deter continued violations of the immigration laws and is consistent with this Administration's enforcement policies. Simply put, the IFR addresses the widespread failure by certain aliens to comply with the immigration laws and with removal or departure orders. The streamlined procedures in the IFR reflect a legitimate and rational interest in promoting timely and efficient enforcement against aliens who violate these laws. Congress provided these penalties and related authority in the INA; this rule merely modifies DHS's administration of collecting those penalties to implement that existing statutory authority more efficiently.

Finally, the streamlined procedures preserve the essential elements of due process for aliens. Aliens subject to these penalties continue to receive notice of the proposed penalty and an opportunity to seek review. Agencies may design procedures that take account of enforcement realities and deterrent effect, provided that the procedures preserve the core protections of meaningful notice and opportunity for a hearing. This rule maintains those protections while allowing DHS to more effectively enforce existing statutory penalties.

The Departments also disagree with the commenter's claims that the IFR discriminates against aliens in favor of companies because the IFR does not allow aliens to seek mitigation of civil penalties. The commenter's assertion overlooks that Congress established distinct statutory frameworks governing civil penalties imposed on employers and carriers, on the one hand, and the civil penalties at issue in this rule, on the other.

First, the commenter's reference to certain mitigating considerations for employer-related penalties under INA 274A, 8 U.S.C. 1324a, is misplaced. Congress has explicitly directed EOIR Administrative Law Judges (“ALJs”) to consider the “mitigating” factors cited by the commenter when imposing a civil penalty against an employer under INA 274A, 8 U.S.C. 1324a. See INA 274A(e)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1324a(e)(5). By contrast, the INA civil penalty provisions underlying this rule contain no comparable statutory requirement to consider mitigating factors. Compare INA 274A(e)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1324a(e)(5), with INA 240B(d)(1)(A), 274D(a)(1), and 275(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1229c(d)(1)(A), 1324d(a)(1), 1325(b)(1). The differing procedures therefore reflect differences Congress itself intended in these statutory schemes, not disparate treatment by the Departments, and the rule properly implements the procedures authorized for these distinct violations.

Second, the Departments disagree with the commenter's statement that “an [alien's] right to seek mitigation” has been curtailed under the IFR. The prior penalty process at 8 CFR part 280 did not provide all aliens subject to the civil penalties covered by this rule with a right to seek mitigation. Rather, 8 CFR 280.5 clarifies that an individual subject to a civil penalty covered by 8 CFR part 280 may only seek mitigation if it “is authorized by the [INA].” By statute, only certain individuals and entities subject to civil penalties covered by 8 CFR 280 are eligible to seek mitigation. For example, INA 273(e), 8 U.S.C. 1323(e), directs DHS to reduce, refund, or waive certain carrier penalties upon a showing of circumstances that would justify reduction, refund, or waiver. However, for the reasons discussed more fully in Section III.D.7 of this preamble, the INA does not authorize aliens to seek mitigation of the failure to depart and unlawful entry civil penalties. Accordingly, the Departments disagree that the aliens had a right to seek mitigation under 8 CFR part 280 and that this IFR denies them that right. For this reason, the Departments also disagree with the commenter that the IFR is facially discriminatory because it does not allow aliens to seek mitigation but preserves companies and corporations' ability to do so. Rather, the IFR merely implements Congress's choice. It is Congress, not the Departments, that has authorized carriers, companies, and employers to seek mitigation of certain immigration-related civil penalties, while not extending the same opportunity to aliens.

Comment: Several commenters took issue with the IFR's claim that the straightforward and readily verifiable nature of the failure to depart penalties supports the Departments' decision to streamline the underlying penalty process. 90 FR 27441-46. Commenters claimed that DHS has erroneously issued many civil fines over the past year under the prior penalty process, including to aliens with temporary or permanent immigration status and with an approved visa petition and related waiver request. A commenter also claimed that DHS has issued fines to aliens with pending motions seeking to reopen or rescind removal orders. One commenter claimed that their client received a NIF that incorrectly stated a voluntary departure order had been issued several years prior to the date of actual issuance. Another alleged that, based on their clients' experiences, DHS frequently does not use or seek out the relevant information to determine whether aliens are willfully evading a removal order, thus frequently making incorrect assessments of such civil monetary penalties. One commenter stated that DHS appears to be issuing these fines in bulk through an automated system, often based on incomplete or inaccurate records and without considering aliens' individual circumstances. Collectively, these commenters argued that the number of alleged errors seen in these fines contradict the IFR's assertion that these penalties are straightforward and readily verifiable and raise concerns that the number of errors will be even higher under the IFR's streamlined process.

Response: Civil penalties are issued based on the facts of an alien's case; an alien who chooses to appeal to DHS may present evidence relevant to their specific circumstances. Prior to issuing a failure to depart civil penalty, immigration officers verify there are no applications or actions pending litigation--including appeals, motions, and petitions for review (“PFRs”)--that would affect the finality of a removal order or allow the alien to lawfully remain in the United States. In the jurisdictions in which the filing of a PFR results in an automatic stay of removal, ICE generally will not issue the civil fine until there are no legal impediments to removal. Additionally, when calculating a fine under INA 274D, 8 U.S.C. 1324d, immigration officers account for any periods after the removal order became administratively final during which the alien was authorized to remain in the United States due to, for example, a stay of removal issued by EOIR, DHS, or a federal circuit court of appeals.

DHS rejects the claim that it is issuing these penalties in bulk through “an automated system” without a human verifying that there is a final executable removal order, and there are no legal impediments to removal. DHS further notes that aliens assessed a failure to depart civil penalty may raise on appeal any issues that purportedly affect the finality of the removal order, dates of issuance, or the alien's willfulness in failing to depart.

Finally, ICE acknowledges that, in some limited number of cases, it mistakenly issued penalties under the pre-IFR procedures in 8 CFR part 280.

However, ICE does not agree that the risk of such errors will increase under the more streamlined IFR procedures that this rule finalizes. The IFR was designed to simplify and speed up the process of issuing and finalizing ICE civil penalty decisions. It does not change ICE's process for deciding in the first place whether an alien is subject to a civil penalty. Moreover, as discussed above in Section II of this preamble, aliens have appealed civil penalties under both the pre-IFR and post-IFR procedures, albeit to different agencies, and have succeeded in having penalties set aside when issued in error at similar rates under both procedures. For these reasons, DHS continues to believe that the IFR provides aliens with sufficient opportunity to challenge a penalty they believe was issued in error and to have those penalties rescinded. The commenters' examples of errors in a limited number of individual cases under the pre-IFR process do not, on their face, call into question the adequacy of the IFR's process for error- correction. See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 344 (1976) (finding that “procedural due process rules are shaped by the risk of error inherent in the truth-finding process as applied to the generality of cases.”). 2. Compliance With Removal Orders

Comment: One commenter disagreed with the IFR's premise that increased use of civil penalties will deter immigration violations. Another commenter disagreed that the IFR would encourage individuals to comply with removal and departure orders through self-departure. The commenter stated that the IFR fails to account for the practical realities faced by many aliens who are unable to depart the United States, including aliens who cannot obtain travel documents because of the lack of U.S. consular relations with their home government and those who face dangers returning over land. According to the commenter, fining aliens who genuinely cannot depart is unjust and inconsistent with encouraging compliance with removal orders.

Response: The Departments disagree with commenters' claims that this rule will not encourage compliance with removal and departure orders through self-departure. In fact, since March 26, 2025, when DHS began issuing civil penalties, over 82,000 aliens with removal orders or voluntary departure orders have self-departed. DHS's ability to impose statutorily authorized civil penalties swiftly and in proportion to the large number of aliens with removal and departure orders is a critical part of DHS's efforts to encourage such aliens to depart the United States. Indeed, the IFR is achieving this objective, as DHS has issued approximately 176,000 fines under the IFR (compared to approximately 12,100 fines issued under 8 CFR part 280). These fines have encouraged greater compliance with removal and voluntary departure orders as evidenced by the over 7,700 illegal aliens who self-departed from the United States after receiving notice of a civil fine issued under the IFR. Moreover, DHS believes that these civil penalties are likely having a broader effect on encouraging compliance with removal orders as indicated by the total number of aliens with removal or voluntary departure orders who have self-departed the United States since DHS began issuing these penalties.

DHS disagrees that it failed to consider that certain aliens may face impediments to departing the United States, including aliens who cannot obtain travel documents through U.S. consular relations with their country of citizenship or nationality. When an alien remains in DHS custody, immigration officers help them obtain and complete the necessary paperwork, including assisting where possible with consulate interaction.\33\ When an alien has been released on supervision, the alien must sign ICE Form 220B, attesting that he or she will assist DHS in obtaining necessary travel documents in the event that a final order of removal is issued.

\33\ ICE notes that aliens in this situation could be subject to a range of options, including further detention, orders of supervision, removal to a third country, or in some cases, parole. These options do not grant the alien status in the United States and aliens remain subject to their final order of removal. 8 CFR 241.13.

DHS notes that aliens subject to a final order of removal who fail to timely depart the United States will be subject to civil penalties. Evidence that an alien has made a good faith attempt to obtain travel documents needed to timely depart is held by only aliens and DHS is not privy to this evidence until an alien presents it to DHS. During the appellate process, the alien or counsel may present evidence of the alien's inability to obtain travel documents due to no fault of his or her own. DHS officers retain the discretion to rescind civil penalties depending on the circumstances, such as a good-faith attempt to obtain travel documents. In addition, an alien need not depart to their country of citizenship or nationality; they need only depart the United States.

Moreover, as directed by the President, DHS has removed many impediments to an alien's ability to self-depart the United States. See 90 FR 8443. For example, DHS in partnership with the State Department is offering aliens free flights and providing travel document assistance to any non-criminal alien who uses the CBP Home app to indicate their intent to depart whether to their home country or a third country other than the United States. See DHS Press Release, DHS Announces Historic Travel Assistance and Stipend for Voluntary Self- Deportation (May 5, 2025), https://dhs.gov/news/2025/05/05/dhs-announces-historic-travel-assistance-and-stipend-voluntary-self-deportation [https://perma.cc/8ST2-RHHP]. Indeed, DHS data indicates that over 104,000 aliens have voluntarily departed the United States through this program since the IFR took effect on June 27, 2025 through September 14, 2026.\34\

\34\ See Office of Homeland Security Statistics analysis of Alien Departures by Civil Fine, DHS Enforcement, and EOIR Case Outcomes (Oct. 7, 2026).

Comment: Another commenter explained that pressuring aliens to depart the United States to avoid civil fines undermines their existing rights and forecloses eligibility for immigration relief. One commenter said that leaving during removal proceedings can result in the loss of the statutory right to a fair hearing before an Immigration Judge. These commenters argued that departing interrupts the continuous presence requirement for cancellation of removal, thereby depriving qualifying aliens of this form of relief. Similarly, a commenter stated that departing terminates an alien's pending application for adjustment of status, impacting eligibility for lawful permanent resident status. Commenters also noted that departure can trigger statutory re-entry bars, creating barriers to lawful return and future immigration benefits. In this regard, one commenter characterized the IFR's goal of incentivizing aliens to self-depart as a “legal trap” that deprives aliens of due process and access to immigration benefits while barring their reentry.

Response: The Departments acknowledge that an illegal alien's departure from the United States can trigger various immigration consequences. However, the Departments disagree with the claim that this rule, which uses civil penalties and the CBP Home application to encourage aliens to leave the United States, unfairly denies them access to Immigration Court proceedings or immigration relief. Rather, the penalties covered by this rule primarily apply to

aliens who have already gone through Immigration Court proceedings, which have resulted in an order of removal or grant of voluntary departure, and have failed to depart as required after the conclusion of such proceedings. Thus, commenter concerns about the implications of an alien's departure on the outcome of removal proceedings are unfounded. Relatedly, concerns about impacts to continuous physical presence are equally unfounded. The alien would stop accruing continuous physical presence, at the latest, on the date that they were served with the Notice to Appear to implement the removal proceedings that resulted in a final order of removal or grant of voluntary departure, not the date that they departed after being notified that they are subject to civil fines and penalties. INA 240A, 8 U.S.C. 1229b(d)(1). Departures for reasons other than the imposition of civil fines and penalties that may take place prior to the commencement of, or during, an alien's removal proceedings are beyond the scope of this rulemaking.

Moreover, aliens who are subject to removal orders or have failed to comply with voluntary departure orders are generally not eligible for, or face significant barriers to obtaining, the forms of relief mentioned by commenters. Under INA 240B(d)(1)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1229(d)(1)(B), aliens who fail to comply with voluntary departure orders are generally ineligible, for a period of 10 years to seek cancellation of removal, adjustment of status, and other forms of relief. Furthermore, aliens under removal orders generally must reopen their removal proceedings to seek such immigration relief. However, the BIA has held that reopening is generally not justified for relief based on eligibility that arose after the removal order. See Matter of H-Y-Z- , 28 I&N Dec. 156, 161 (BIA 2020) (“[E]quities that were acquired while [an alien] remained illegally in the United States after being ordered removed . . . generally do not . . . warrant discretionary reopening”); see also Matter of Yauri, 25 I&N Dec. 103, 105 (BIA 2009) (“[U]ntimely motions to reopen to pursue . . . adjustment of status . . . will ordinarily be denied”). More broadly, aliens subject to final executable removal orders do not have a right to remain in the United States to apply for motions to reopen or potential immigration benefits and, in many instances, they do not even have a right to remain to pursue pending applications for immigration benefits or motions to reopen.\35\ There may be limited circumstances where penalizable aliens can obtain the relief that the commenters mention. The number of cases in which an alien could obtain such relief in these circumstances is small, and civil penalties do not actually prevent aliens from applying for such relief. At most, it has an incidental deterrent impact on the alien, which is justified by the policies that the rule promotes. Therefore, the Departments disagree with commenters' claims that the IFR's goal of encouraging self-departure impermissibly deprives an alien of potential eligibility for immigration benefits or relief.

\35\ See, e.g. Dada v. Mukasey, 554 U.S. 1, 21 (2008) (explaining that an alien subject to a removal order “may be removed by the DHS . . . even if the motion to reopen has yet to be adjudicated”); Dada Achacoso-Sanchez v. INS, 779 F.2d 1260, 1264 (7th Cir. 1985) (“Congress has not given deportable aliens a right to the reopening of deportation proceedings.”); see also Riasati v. I.N.S., 738 F.2d 1115, 1118 (10th Cir. 1984) (“[a] pending visa application does not entitle an alien to a stay of deportation”) (citations and quotations omitted). The Departments acknowledge that certain aliens may be entitled to a stay of removal after filing for certain immigration benefits or certain motions to reopen. See, e.g., 8 CFR 214.205(g) (T-visas with a positive bona fide determination); INA 240(c)(7)(C)(iv), 8 U.S.C. 1229a(c)(7)(C)(iv) (VAWA self-petitioners); INA 240(b)(5)(C), 8 U.S.C. 1229a(b)(5)(C) (motions to reopen an in-absentia order based on lack of notice). As explained in Section III.E.2 of this preamble, DHS does not issue civil fines in these circumstances.

For similar reasons, the Departments also disagree with the claim that the IFR's goal of encouraging self-departure creates a “legal trap” for aliens who may become subject to reentry bars if they leave the United States. The Departments acknowledge that aliens who are subject to final removal orders or have accrued unlawful presence may be barred from re-admission to the United States for a certain number of years after departing. INA 212(a)(9), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9). However, Congress did not intend for such consequences to excuse an illegal alien's continued presence in the United States. Enactment of these reentry bars plainly demonstrates that Congress intended immigration violations to carry significant consequences and did not view the possibility of future inadmissibility as a reason to excuse compliance with departure obligations. Accordingly, it is important for the Departments to faithfully carry out Congress's intent in a streamlined manner within the bounds of the law.

Moreover, the Departments note that relief may be available to certain aliens who are barred under these inadmissibility grounds if they later have a valid basis to re-enter the United States. See INA 212(a)(9)(A)(iii), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(A)(iii) (exception to re-entry bar for certain aliens ordered removed who seek permission to re- enter); see also INA 212(a)(9)(B)(v), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)(v) (waiver to unlawful presence bars for certain aliens).

Finally, to the extent that commenters are concerned about the impact of the unlawful entry civil monetary penalties, the Departments believe that concerns about aliens leaving the United States and abandoning removal hearings or benefits applications to avoid these specific penalties are speculative. The Departments do not believe that it is reasonable to assume that such aliens would abandon viable claims for relief or ongoing Immigration Court hearings given the more modest amount of these penalties.\36\ See DHS, Press Release DHS Announces It Will Forgive Failure to Depart Fines for Illegal Aliens who Self-Deport Through the CBP Home App (June 9, 2025). Furthermore, Congress has made clear that aliens who enter unlawfully are subject to such penalties notwithstanding the initiation or pendency of removal proceedings. See INA 275(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1325(b)(1).

\36\ Indeed, the Departments note that the fees for filing many immigration benefits applications, including cancellation of removal and adjustment of status, are higher than the civil penalty for unlawful entry.

Comment: One commenter questioned DHS's reliance on the CBP Home application as an available mechanism for compliance incentives. The commenter asserted that the application is not broadly accessible to all aliens subject to civil monetary penalties under the IFR but is limited to aliens who entered at or between a port of entry, those who arrived under a parole program, and those whose Temporary Protected Status had been terminated. The commenter stated that the application therefore excludes many aliens who could be fined under this rule and does not provide meaningful relief from fines or available incentive programs.

Response: All non-criminal aliens who schedule their self-departure through the CBP Home App and depart will receive forgiveness of any civil penalties issued by DHS for failing to depart the United States. DHS has updated its website to reflect the full scope of the DHS policy.\37\ Thus, the departure incentives announced by DHS are not limited to the category of aliens identified by commenters, and DHS encourages all aliens subject to removal

or departure orders to take advantage of this opportunity and receive forgiveness for any civil penalty.

\37\ See, DHS Press Release, CBP HOME: Assistance to Voluntarily Self-Deport, https://www.dhs.gov/cbphome [https://perma.cc/PWQ2-W6ZJ] (Sept. 1, 2026).

Comment: Several commenters questioned the IFR's empirical basis for the assertion that civil monetary penalties will deter immigration violations and promote compliance with removal and departure orders. One stated that the IFR lacks evidence-based support for this justification and pointed to ICE's prior use of fines and subsequent recission of that policy as demonstrating that these fines are ineffective at achieving these purposes. One commenter stated that previous rules understood this and resultingly did not enforce these penalties, due to the cost of administering them far outweighing any fines collected. Collectively, these commenters viewed the IFR as lacking an empirical foundation, unlikely to alter behavior, and ineffective in achieving its compliance and enforcement goals.

One commenter claimed that behavioral research on sanctions and procedural justice shows that fines do not deter unlawful behavior or encourage compliance with the law if the process for imposing them is unfair. The commenter cited to a “policy briefing” \38\ discussing research suggesting that people are more likely to comply with court orders when they believe that the underlying process is respectful, neutral, accessible, and provides an opportunity for them to participate before a decision is rendered.

\38\ Emily Gold LaGratta, Criminal Justice Alliance, To Be Fair: Procedural Fairness in Courts (Oct. 2014), https://justiceinnovation.org/publications/be-fair-procedural-fairness-courts [https://perma.cc/YL4F-UVU9].

Response: The Departments disagree with the assertion that this rule lacks an empirical basis or relies on unsupported assumptions regarding deterrence. Congress has expressly authorized civil monetary penalties for the violations addressed in this rule and has long identified such penalties as a tool that may promote compliance with these statutory obligations. See 90 FR 27439-40. The Departments' role in this rulemaking is to ensure that DHS can efficiently utilize these statutory penalties consistent with Congress's objective in enacting them, not to reconsider the policy judgement underlying those statutory authorities or to undertake a new empirical assessment of their effectiveness. Moreover, as explained in Section I of this preamble, the IFR is achieving its intended incentive and deterrence objectives.\39\

\39\ See Office of Homeland Security Statistics analysis of Alien Departures by Civil Fine, DHS Enforcement, and EOIR Case Outcomes (Oct. 7, 2026).

As explained in the IFR, DHS does not believe that its prior limited experience assessing these penalties in 2019 demonstrates that these penalties are ineffective. When ICE rescinded the prior penalty policy in 2021, there were only 26 active cases,\40\ which DHS concluded was an insufficient sample size to judge the effectiveness of these civil penalties. DHS explained its belief that these civil penalties would be more effective at achieving their deterrence and compliance objectives if applied quickly and at scale. In addition, the IFR was designed to address many of those administrative challenges that ICE faced when issuing civil penalties in 2019, by streamlining the procedures for these civil monetary penalties, thereby reducing operational burden and costs. Finally, the Departments noted that DHS's decision to stop issuing civil penalties under the prior Administration was based on that Administration's findings that there is no indication that these penalties promoted compliance with the alien's departure obligations. On January 20, 2025, President Trump directed DHS to focus enforcement resources on carrying out final orders of removal and enforcing laws related to illegal entry and unlawful presence. E.O. 14159 also directed DHS to assess and collect all fines and penalties authorized by law. This rule is needed to help DHS meet these directives. See 90 FR 27447-48.

\40\ See ICE Memorandum for Tae D. Johnson, Acting Dir., ICE, from Corey A. Price, Acting Exec. Assoc. Dir., Enforcement and Removal Operations, ICE, Re: Recission of Civil Penalties for Failure to Depart (Aug. 6, 2021).

With respect to comments on sanctions and “procedural justice,” the Departments note that the rule preserves the core procedural protections necessary to ensure fairness and meaningful participation, including written notice of the proposed penalty, information about the factual basis for it, an opportunity to present a written response with supporting evidence, and independent supervisory review by an official who was not involved in the initial determination. These protections reflect the principles of neutrality, respect, accessibility, and meaningful opportunity to be heard that the cited research suggests may support voluntary compliance.

Finally, while commenters questioned whether civil penalties would deter unlawful behavior, Congress has already determined that these penalties may serve an enforcement and compliance function, and the Departments' procedural refinements help ensure these penalties can be administered efficiently and fairly in accordance with due process principles required by law. In any event, the Departments believe that DHS's robust use of these penalties is helping to achieve their compliance function as demonstrated by the over 82,000 aliens with removal and voluntary departure orders who self-departed after DHS began issuing these penalties, and as demonstrated by the fact that nearly 7,200 aliens self-departed after receiving a civil fine under the IFR.\41\ Accordingly, the Departments conclude that the rule has a sufficient basis.

\41\ See Office of Homeland Security Statistics analysis of Alien Departures by Civil Fine, DHS Enforcement, and EOIR Case Outcomes (Oct. 7, 2026).

Comment: Commenters said that a large-scale penalty process will waste government time and resources. One claimed that issuing fines on a large scale would be an inefficient use of DHS resources because few aliens will pay them. Commenters discussed several factors that make collection improbable and administrative enforcement costly. They noted that many aliens have limited financial resources to pay these fines and the amounts are so high that aliens will not take them seriously. One commenter also said that the IFR will only further confuse many aliens as they do not understand the immigration system and many will not pay if they will be deported anyway. Another commenter said that sending a large number of fines to the Treasury Department for collection is wasteful because DHS itself cannot verify that aliens subject to these fines are actually in the United States, citing the IFR's statement that DHS records do not always reliably indicate which aliens actually remain in the United States after a removal or departure order. Another commenter also pointed to DHS's prior conclusion that the resources needed to impose these penalties outweighed the potential collections from a transient alien population that generally lacks the means to pay. Accordingly, commenters claimed that DHS should not expend substantial time and resources pursuing these penalties.

Response: The Departments do not agree that this rule's goal of streamlining the civil penalty process is wasteful or an improper use of Government

resources. As an initial matter, the IFR and this rule are a critical part of DHS's efforts to use all statutorily available tools to achieve the Administration's immigration enforcement and border security objectives. This includes issuance of civil monetary penalties to encourage aliens to comply with removal and voluntary departure orders and to deter unlawful entries. The purpose of the rule is to streamline the civil penalty process to ensure that DHS can use these statutorily authorized penalties swiftly and at the scale needed to respond to the large number of aliens who have entered the United States or remain unlawfully. See 90 FR 27442; see also Section I of this preamble. Quite simply, this rulemaking is intended to help ensure that DHS has a workable process for issuing civil monetary penalties against aliens who unlawfully entered or failed to depart the United States as part of ICE's and CBP's missions to apprehend, detain, and remove aliens who have illegally entered the United States and are unlawfully present.

More fundamentally, the Departments do not agree that civil penalties are an ineffective solution to the problem that many aliens remain in the United States in contravention of removal and departure orders. To the contrary, Congress has authorized DHS to impose these civil penalties on such aliens as a means to encourage them to comply with removal and departure orders and to impose consequences on those who fail to comply. 90 FR 27446. Indeed, DHS's use of these statutorily authorized tools is working to achieve the objective as discussed above in Section I of this preamble.

Similarly, the Departments disagree with one commenter's claims that attempting to collect failure to depart penalties is wasteful because DHS cannot verify that aliens issued fines remain in the United States. As discussed in the IFR, DHS acknowledges that it does not maintain comprehensive departure records for all aliens, particularly for aliens who cross land borders, and, therefore, DHS may have issued a certain number of penalties to aliens who have already departed. 90 FR 27445. ICE believes however, based on its experience, that it is reasonable to assume that a large number of aliens with final removal and departure orders remain in the United States.\42\ Id. Therefore, consistent with the President's direction in section 8 of E.O. 14159, 90 FR 8444-45, DHS believes that the IFR's goal of quickly imposing penalties to encourage compliance with removal and departure orders justifies the resource expenditure, even if some number of penalties are not collected because the alien departed.

\42\ According to data in DHS's ENFORCE Alien Removal Module, there are 1.9 million aliens with final executable orders of removal out of a total of 2.1 million final orders of removal (last visited Sep. 10, 2026).

Finally, the IFR fully explains why the Departments believe that this rule is needed notwithstanding ICE's prior determination in 2021 that the resource burdens outweigh the amount that can be collected from a transient population of aliens that lacks the means to pay. 90 FR 27446-47. In the IFR, DHS first noted that its limited experience implementing these civil monetary penalties in prior years does not demonstrate that these penalties are innately ineffective. 90 FR 27447. Moreover, DHS explained that the IFR is intended to reduce potential resource burdens that DHS previously experienced when issuing these penalties by streamlining the underlying civil penalty process. Id. Additionally, DHS noted that the collection of civil penalties was not the only or even the primary goal; rather, DHS believes that maximizing the use of these civil penalties will encourage illegal aliens who are subject to them to voluntarily depart the United States. Id. As discussed above, DHS's use of these civil penalties is achieving this objective, and the use of the CBP Home app to self-deport is a cost- effective means of achieving this objective.

Comment: At least one commenter suggested that pursuing fines on a large scale would merely divert limited agency resources away from higher priority enforcement objectives, such as apprehending aliens who pose threats to public safety or national security. The commenter concluded that the IFR's approach would ultimately increase costs for the Departments without meaningfully advancing enforcement goals. Similarly, one commenter claimed that the IFR would not promote public safety but would have the opposite effect by heightening fear and discouraging engagement with law enforcement amongst immigrant communities. According to the commenter, imposing high civil fines on aliens, including those without criminal histories, would lead to fewer reports of crime, diminishing public safety for all. Another commenter suggested that a more effective and resource-efficient approach would be to focus enforcement on employers who hire unauthorized workers, suggesting that such entities can be expected to understand and comply with employment verification laws and will be better motivated by civil penalties, or the threat of civil penalties, to follow those laws.

Response: The Departments disagree that implementing the civil penalty process described in the IFR will divert resources away from higher priority enforcement objectives or fail to advance statutory enforcement goals. Congress has expressly authorized the imposition and collection of civil penalties under INA 240B(d), 8 U.S.C. 1229c; INA 274D, 8 U.S.C. 1324d; and INA 275(b), 8 U.S.C. 1325. The Departments therefore have a responsibility to maintain procedures that enable the effective administration of these statutory authorities. Implementing a clear, streamlined penalty process does not diminish the Departments' ability to prioritize cases involving threats to public safety or national security, including cases where the alien fails to depart or illegally enters the United States. Rather, the IFR promotes administrative efficiency by updating and consolidating procedural steps.

Additionally, the concerns about the imposition of civil penalties heightening fear and discouraging engagement with law enforcement by the immigrant community is speculative. The commenter failed to provide information or evidence to support the concern that civil penalties will discourage aliens from reporting crime or engaging with law enforcement. Even if there is a disincentive to report crime or engage with law enforcement, the commenter failed to provide a basis to conclude that these disincentives stem from making the process of imposing civil penalties more efficient, rather than from the existence of civil penalties or immigration enforcement more generally.

The Departments also disagree that the penalty process undermines public safety by discouraging aliens from reporting crime or engaging with law enforcement. The penalties addressed in the IFR apply only in limited circumstances specified by statute and do not alter DHS's longstanding policies and efforts aimed at encouraging victims, witnesses, and other individuals to cooperate with law enforcement regardless of immigration status. Nothing in the IFR changes protections for victims of crime, humanitarian programs, or DHS's ability to exercise discretion on a case-by-case basis. The Departments, therefore, do not expect the procedural updates in the IFR to meaningfully affect crime reporting or relationships between immigrant communities and law enforcement.

The Departments further disagree that focusing enforcement resources on employers who hire unauthorized workers would be a more effective or statutorily appropriate approach. Employer sanctions and worker-related civil penalties are governed by distinct provisions of the INA, and the IFR did not amend or affect those frameworks. While the Departments enforce employer compliance laws through separate authorities, those efforts do not displace the need to implement civil monetary penalties against aliens where Congress has authorized their use and vested DHS with authority to enforce them. The IFR ensures streamlined procedures for carrying out the statutory provisions for civil monetary penalties applicable to aliens for failure to depart, failure to voluntarily depart, and improper entry, while employer- related enforcement continues under its own statutory framework.

For these reasons, the Departments conclude that the IFR's civil penalty procedures are an appropriate use of agency resources. The procedures promote efficient administration of existing statutory penalty authorities to meet immigration enforcement priorities and challenges.