Increasing the Fee for Certain Aliens Ordered Removed in Absentia as Established by the HR-1 Reconciliation Bill
This is a proposal open for comment, not a rule in force. It may never be finalised, and it creates no obligation today.
DHS is proposing to update the fee required by section 100016 of the Budget Reconciliation Act (known as the HR-1). This fee applies to certain aliens ordered removed in absentia who fail to depart the United States and are subsequently arrested by ICE. DHS is proposing to increase the fee from $5,130 to $18,000. This rule also makes clear that DHS will adjust this fee for inflation each year.
What this means
- This is a proposal open for comment, not a rule. It changes nothing today, and it may be altered or never finalised. (classification: proposed_rule)
- The document states a requirement for the people it covers. The exact wording is quoted above — whether it applies to any particular person depends on facts this platform does not have. (impact.actionRequired)
Derived from this event’s own recorded fields — not written by a model, and not an interpretation of anyone’s case.
Who is affected
The document does not name specific countries or visa categories in its scope language. Read the original to confirm whether it applies to a particular case.
What the document says may be required
The document states a requirement for those it covers. The exact obligation, and whether it applies to a particular person, depends on the document's own terms — the relevant passage is quoted below.
“…--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pursuant to section 287(a)(1)-(2) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1357(a)(1)- (2), DHS immigration officers have the authority to interrogate and to arrest aliens for whom there is probable cause to believe are removable from the United States.\7\ Arrests made without a warrant must be accompanied by a determination that the alien…”
Assembled from the source document, not from anyone's individual circumstances. Whether a change applies to a specific person depends on facts this platform does not have. This is data context, not legal advice.
- This is a PROPOSED rule. It is not in force, may change before finalisation, and may never be finalised.