Codes of Conduct for the Immigration Judges and Board Members, 35510-35513 [07-3174]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
35510
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 124 / Thursday, June 28, 2007 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Reddy Medtech, Ltd., of Tamil Nadu,
India; and Intellx, Inc., of Petoskey,
Michigan.
On June 30, 2006, the presiding
administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) issued
a final initial determination (‘‘ID’’) in
which he ruled that there is no violation
of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended. He found that certain valid
claims were infringed, but concluded
that there was no domestic industry
under the economic prong of the
domestic industry requirement. All
parties petitioned for review of various
parts of the final ID.
On September 29, 2006, the
Commission determined to review the
issues of claim construction,
infringement, invalidity due to
anticipation, and domestic industry,
and requested briefing on these issues
and certain subissues. 71 FR 58875 (Oct.
5, 2006). On December 5, 2006, the
Commission determined to affirm in
part, reverse in part, and remand in part
the final ID. Among other things, the
Commission reversed the ALJ’s finding
of no domestic industry under the
economic prong. The Commission also
determined to extend the target date for
completion of the investigation until
June 5, 2007. The date was subsequently
moved to June 21, 2007, by an
unreviewed ID.
On March 19, 2007, the ALJ issued his
remand ID, in which he ruled that there
is a violation of section 337 based on the
infringement of certain valid claims and
found that there is a domestic industry.
In further briefing before the
Commission, all parties claimed error.
Upon consideration of the parties’
submissions and the record in this
proceeding, the Commission has
determined to reverse the ALJ’s finding
of violation of section 337 and has
terminated the investigation with a
finding of no violation. In reaching this
conclusion, the Commission has
reversed the ALJ’s finding that the
accused products infringe certain claims
of U.S. Patent No. 5,082,004, as well as
his finding that certain claims of that
patent are invalid as anticipated by the
prior art.
The authority for this notice is
contained in section 337 of the Tariff
Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C.
1337, and in section 210.45(c) of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure (19 CFR 210.45(c)).
Issued: June 21, 2007.
By order of the Commission.
William R. Bishop,
Acting Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. E7–12519 Filed 6–27–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:23 Jun 27, 2007
Jkt 211001
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Executive Office for Immigration
Review
[EOIR No. 162]
Codes of Conduct for the Immigration
Judges and Board Members
Office of the Chief Immigration
Judge; Board of Immigration
Appeals,Executive Office for
Immigration Review, Department of
Justice.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Executive Office for
Immigration Review (EOIR) is proposing
newly formulated Codes of Conduct for
the immigration judges of the Office of
the Chief Immigration Judge and for the
Board members of the Board of
Immigration Appeals. EOIR is seeking
public comment on the codes before
final publication.
DATES: Comment date: Comments may
be submitted not later than July 30,
2007.
You may submit comments
by one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Kevin Chapman, Acting
General Counsel, Executive Office for
Immigration Review, 5107 Leesburg
Pike, Suite 2600, Falls Church, Virginia
22041. To ensure proper handling,
please reference EOIR Docket No. 162
on your correspondence. This mailing
address may also be used for paper,
disk, or CD–ROM submissions.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Kevin
Chapman, Acting General Counsel,
Executive Office for Immigration
Review, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2600,
Falls Church, Virginia 22041; telephone
(703) 305–0470 (not a toll free call).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kevin Chapman, Acting General
Counsel, Executive Office for
Immigration Review, 5107 Leesburg
Pike, Suite 2600, Falls Church, Virginia
22041; telephone (703) 305–0470 (not a
toll free call).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
January 9, 2006, the Attorney General
directed a comprehensive review of the
Immigration Courts and the Board of
Immigration Appeals. This review was
undertaken in response to concerns
about the quality of decisions being
issued by the immigration judges and
the Board and about reports of
intemperate behavior by some
immigration judges. The Deputy
Attorney General and the Associate
Attorney General assembled a review
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00089
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
team that, over the course of several
months, conducted hundreds of
interviews, administered an online
survey, and analyzed thousands of
documents to assess the adjudicative
process in the Executive Office for
Immigration Review (EOIR).
On August 9, 2006, the Attorney
General announced that the review was
complete, and he directed that a series
of measures be taken to improve
adjudications by the immigration judges
and the Board. One of these measures
required the EOIR Director to draft a
Code of Judicial Conduct specifically
applicable to immigration judges and
the members of the Board of
Immigration Appeals. The Director was
then, after consultation with the
Counsel for Professional Responsibility
and the Director of the Office of
Attorney Recruitment and Management,
to submit that code to the Deputy
Attorney General.
That has been accomplished and what
follow are the Code of Judicial Conduct
for immigration judges and the Code of
Judicial Conduct for members of the
Board of Immigration Appeals. The
Department is seeking comments from
the public before final publication. Once
published, these Codes will be available
on-line to counsel and litigants who
appear before the Immigration Courts
and the Board of Immigration Appeals.
Dated: June 20, 2007.
Kevin A. Ohlson,
Acting Director, EOIR
United States Department of Justice
Code of Judicial Conduct for
Immigration Judges
Preamble
In Order to Preserve the Integrity and
Professionalism of the Immigration
Court System, an Immigration Judge
Shall Observe High Standards of Ethical
Conduct, Act in a Manner that Promotes
Public Confidence in the Impartiality of
the Immigration Judge Corps, and Avoid
Impropriety and the Appearance of
Impropriety in All Activities.
Canons
Canon I. An immigration judge shall
comply with the canons contained in
this Code of Judicial Conduct for
Immigration Judges.
Canon II. An immigration judge shall
comply with the standards of conduct
applicable to all attorneys in the
Department of Justice, including the
Standards of Ethical Conduct for
Employees of the Executive Branch,
codified in Title 5 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, and the Department’s
supplemental regulations codified at 5
CFR part 3801 and 28 CFR part 45.
E:\FR\FM\28JNN1.SGM
28JNN1
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 124 / Thursday, June 28, 2007 / Notices
Canon III. An immigration judge shall
comply with the provisions of the rules
or code(s) of professional responsibility
of the state(s) where the immigration
judge is a member of the bar and the
state(s) where the immigration judge
performs his or her duties.
Canon IV. If an immigration judge
requests ethical guidance from the
Executive Office for Immigration
Review, Office of General Counsel, the
Professional Responsibility Advisory
Office, or the Office of Government
Ethics, the immigration judge shall
comply with the resulting ethics
opinion.
Canon V. An immigration judge shall
be faithful to the law and maintain
professional competence in it.
Canon VI. An immigration judge shall
act impartially and shall not give
preferential treatment to any
organization or individual when
adjudicating the merits of a particular
case.
Canon VII. An immigration judge
shall avoid any actions that, in the
judgment of a reasonable person, would
create the appearance that he or she is
violating the law or applicable ethical
standards.
Canon VIII. An immigration judge
shall not be swayed by partisan
interests, public clamor, or fear of
criticism.
Canon IX. An immigration judge shall
be patient, dignified and courteous to
litigants, witnesses, lawyers and others
with whom the judge deals in his or her
official capacity and shall not, in the
performance of official duties, by words
or conduct, manifest bias or prejudice.
Canon X. An immigration judge shall
act in a professional manner toward the
parties and their representatives before
the court, and toward others with whom
the immigration judge deals in an
official capacity.
Canon XI. An immigration judge shall
refrain from any conduct, including but
not limited to financial and business
dealings, that tends to reflect adversely
on impartiality, demeans the judicial
office, interferes with the proper
performance of judicial duties, or
exploits the immigration judge’s official
position.
Canon XII. An immigration judge
shall not hold membership in any
organization that practices invidious
discrimination on the basis of race, sex,
religion, national origin, or disability.
Canon XIII. An immigration judge
shall not publicly disclose or use for any
purpose unrelated to adjudicatory
duties nonpublic information acquired
in a judicial capacity.
Canon XIV. An immigration judge
shall not, while a proceeding is pending
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:23 Jun 27, 2007
Jkt 211001
or impending, make any public
comment that might reasonably be
expected to affect its outcome or impair
its fairness, or make any nonpublic
comment that might substantially
interfere with a fair hearing.
Canon XV. An immigration judge
shall not initiate, consider, or permit ex
parte communications about the
substance of a pending or impending
case unless authorized by precedent,
statute, or regulation. Communications
about purely ministerial matters, such
as a request for an extension of time,
shall not be regarded as ex parte
communications, provided the judge
makes provision promptly to notify all
other parties of the substance of the
communication and allows an
opportunity to respond. An immigration
judge’s communications with other
employees of the Department of Justice
shall not be considered ex parte
communications unless those
employees are witnesses in a pending or
impending proceeding before the
immigration judge and the
communication involves that
proceeding.
Canon XVI. An immigration judge
shall follow judicial precedent and
agency policy regarding recusal when
deciding whether to remove himself or
herself from a particular case.
Commentary
This Code of Judicial Conduct for
Immigration Judges (the ‘‘Code’’) is
being promulgated in order to maintain
and promote the highest ethical
standards of the Immigration Judge
Corps. The canons contained in this
Code are binding on all immigration
judges and are effective immediately
upon the approval of the Deputy
Attorney General or his or her designee.
Violations of these canons may serve as
the basis for disciplinary action, but
may not be used in any other
proceeding, and may not be used to
challenge the rulings of an Immigration
Judge. This Code does not create any
rights or interests for any party outside
of the Department of Justice, nor may
violations furnish the basis for civil
liability, injunctive relief or criminal
prosecution.
This Code supplements, and does not
supersede, the personnel disciplinary
rules, ethics rules, and management
policies of the Executive Office for
Immigration Review, the Department of
Justice, and/or the United States
government. Similarly, this Code does
not affect the applicability or scope of
the provisions of the Standards of
Ethical Conduct for Executive Branch
Employees, or the rules or code(s) of
professional responsibility applicable to
PO 00000
Frm 00090
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
35511
the immigration judge. An immigration
judge is subject to the rules or code(s)
of professional responsibility in the
state(s) where he or she is a member of
the bar and the rules or code(s) of the
state(s) where he or she performs his or
her duties. See 28 U.S.C. 530B.
Immigration judges are encouraged to
seek ethics opinions when confronted
with the complex questions that may
arise when professional responsibility
rules conflict.
The canons contained in this Code are
authoritative. The commentary portions
of the Code are not intended as a
statement of additional rules.
Commentary is made to provide, by
explanation and example, more detailed
guidance about the applicability of
specific sections and to further facilitate
an understanding and use of the Code.
An immigration judge who manifests
bias or engages in unprofessional
conduct in any manner during a
proceeding may impair the fairness of
the proceeding and may bring into
question the impartiality of the
immigration court system. An
immigration judge must be alert to avoid
behavior, to include inappropriate
demeanor, that may be perceived as
prejudicial. The test for appearance of
impropriety is whether the conduct
would create in the mind of a
reasonable person with knowledge of
the relevant facts the belief that the
immigration judge’s ability to carry out
adjudicatory responsibilities with
integrity, impartiality, and competence
is impaired.
Prohibitions against behaving with
impropriety or the appearance of
impropriety apply to both the
professional and personal conduct of an
immigration judge. An immigration
judge must be mindful that even private
conduct and associations can reflect
upon the immigration judge’s office and
affect the public’s confidence in the
immigration court system. Accordingly,
an immigration judge should not, for
example, be a member of an
organization that practices invidious
discrimination on the basis of race, sex,
religion or national origin. Membership
of an immigration judge in such an
organization may give rise to
perceptions that the judge’s impartiality
is impaired. Whether an organization
practices invidious discrimination is
often a complex question to which
immigration judges should be sensitive.
The requirement that immigration
judges abstain from public comment
regarding a pending or impending
proceeding continues during any
appellate process and until final
disposition of the matter. The
requirement does not prohibit
E:\FR\FM\28JNN1.SGM
28JNN1
35512
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 124 / Thursday, June 28, 2007 / Notices
immigration judges from making
appropriate comments in open court or
in written filings in the course of their
official duties. Comments made to other
Department of Justice employees in the
course of official business do not
constitute ‘‘public’’ comments.
United States Department of Justice
Code of Judicial Conduct for Members
of the Board of Immigration Appeals
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Preamble
In Order to Preserve the Integrity and
Professionalism of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (the ‘‘Board’’), a
Member of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (‘‘Board Member’’) Shall
Observe High Standards of Ethical
Conduct, Act in a Manner that Promotes
Public Confidence in the Impartiality of
the Board, and Avoid Impropriety and
the Appearance of Impropriety in All
Activities.
Canons
Canon I. A Board Member shall
comply with the canons contained in
this Code of Judicial Conduct for
Members of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Canon II. A Board Member shall
comply with the standards of conduct
applicable to all attorneys in the
Department of Justice, including the
Standards of Ethical Conduct for
Employees of the Executive Branch
codified in Title 5 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, and the Department’s
supplemental regulations codified at 5
CFR part 3801 and 28 CFR part 45.
Canon III. A Board Member shall
comply with the provisions of the rules
or code(s) of professional responsibility
of the state(s) where the Board Member
is a member of the bar and the state(s)
where the Board Member performs his
or her duties.
Canon IV. If a Board Member requests
ethical guidance from the Executive
Office for Immigration Review, Office of
General Counsel, the Professional
Responsibility Advisory Office, or the
Office of Government Ethics, the Board
Member shall comply with the resulting
ethics opinion.
Canon V. A Board Member shall be
faithful to the law and maintain
professional competence in it.
Canon VI. A Board Member shall act
impartially and shall not give
preferential treatment to any
organization or individual when
adjudicating the merits of a particular
case.
Canon VII. A Board Member shall
avoid any actions that, in the judgment
of a reasonable person, would create the
appearance that he or she is violating
the law or applicable ethical standards.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:23 Jun 27, 2007
Jkt 211001
Canon VIII. A Board Member shall not
be swayed by partisan interests, public
clamor, or fear of criticism.
Canon IX. A Board Member shall not,
in the performance of official duties, by
words or conduct, manifest bias or
prejudice.
Canon X. A Board Member shall act
in a professional manner toward the
parties and their representatives before
the Board, and toward others with
whom the Board Member deals in an
official capacity.
Canon XI. A Board Member shall
refrain from any conduct, including but
not limited to financial and business
dealings, that tends to reflect adversely
on impartiality, demeans the judicial
office, interferes with the proper
performance of judicial duties, or
exploits the Board Member’s official
position.
Canon XII. A Board Member shall not
hold membership in any organization
that practices invidious discrimination
on the basis of race, sex, religion,
national origin, or disability.
Canon XIII. A Board Member shall not
publicly disclose or use for any purpose
unrelated to adjudicatory duties
nonpublic information acquired in a
judicial capacity.
Canon XIV. A Board Member shall
not, while a proceeding is pending or
impending, make any public comment
that might reasonably be expected to
affect its outcome or impair its fairness,
or make any nonpublic comment that
might substantially interfere with a fair
hearing.
Canon XV. A Board Member shall not
initiate, consider, or permit ex parte
communications about the substance of
a pending or impending case unless
authorized by precedent, statute, or
regulation. Communications about
purely ministerial matters, such as a
request for an extension of time, shall
not be regarded as ex parte
communications, provided the Board
Member makes provision promptly to
notify all other parties of the substance
of the ex parte communication and
allows an opportunity to respond. A
Board Member’s communications with
other employees of the Department of
Justice shall not be considered ex parte
communications unless those
employees are witnesses or counsel
involved in a pending or impending
proceeding before the Board Member,
and the communication involves that
proceeding.
Canon XVI. A Board Member shall
follow judicial precedent and agency
policy regarding recusal when deciding
whether to remove himself or herself
from a particular case.
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Commentary
This Code of Judicial Conduct for
Members of the Board of Immigration
Appeals (the ‘‘Code’’) is being
promulgated in order to maintain and
promote the highest ethical standards of
the Board of Immigration Appeals. The
canons contained in this Code are
binding on all Board Members and are
effective immediately upon the approval
of the Deputy Attorney General or his or
her designee. Violations of these canons
may serve as the basis for disciplinary
action, but may not be used in any other
proceeding, and may not be used to
challenge the rulings of a Board
Member. This Code does not create any
rights or interests for any party outside
of the Department of Justice, nor may
violations furnish the basis for civil
liability, injunctive relief or criminal
prosecution.
This Code supplements, and does not
supersede, the personnel disciplinary
rules, ethics rules, and management
policies of the Executive Office for
Immigration Review, the Department of
Justice, and/or the United States
government. Similarly, this Code does
not affect the applicability or scope of
the provisions of the Standards of
Ethical Conduct for Executive Branch
Employees, or the rules or code(s) of
professional responsibility applicable to
the Board Member. A Board Member is
subject to the rules or code(s) of
professional responsibility in the state(s)
where he or she is a member of the bar
and the rules or code(s) of the state(s)
where he or she performs his or her
duties. See 28 U.S.C. 530B. Board
Members are encouraged to seek ethics
opinions when confronted with the
complex questions that may arise when
professional responsibility rules
conflict.
The canons contained in this Code are
authoritative. The commentary portions
of the Code are not intended as a
statement of additional rules.
Commentary is made to provide, by
explanation and example, more detailed
guidance about the applicability of
specific sections and to further facilitate
an understanding and use of the Code.
A Board Member who manifests bias
or engages in unprofessional conduct in
any manner during a proceeding may
impair the fairness of the proceeding
and may bring into question the
impartiality of the immigration court
system and the Board of Immigration
Appeals. A Board Member must be alert
to avoid behavior, to include
inappropriate demeanor, that may be
perceived as prejudicial. The test for
appearance of impropriety is whether
the conduct would create in the mind of
E:\FR\FM\28JNN1.SGM
28JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 124 / Thursday, June 28, 2007 / Notices
a reasonable person with knowledge of
the relevant facts the belief that the
Board Member’s ability to carry out
adjudicatory responsibilities with
integrity, impartiality, and competence
is impaired.
Prohibitions against behaving with
impropriety or the appearance of
impropriety apply to both the
professional and personal conduct of a
Board Member. A Board Member must
be mindful that even private conduct
and associations can reflect upon the
Board Member’s office and affect the
public’s confidence in the immigration
court system and the Board of
Immigration Appeals. Accordingly, a
Board Member should not, for example,
be a member of an organization that
practices invidious discrimination on
the basis of race, sex, religion or
national origin. Membership of a Board
Member in such an organization may
give rise to perceptions that the Board
Member’s impartiality is impaired.
Whether an organization practices
invidious discrimination is often a
complex question to which Board
Members should be sensitive.
The requirement that Board Members
abstain from public comment regarding
a pending or impending proceeding
continues during any appellate process
and until final disposition of the matter.
The requirement does not prohibit
Board Members from making
appropriate comments in open court or
in written filings in the course of their
official duties. Comments made to other
Department of Justice employees in the
course of official business do not
constitute ‘‘public’’ comments.
[FR Doc. 07–3174 Filed 6–27–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–30–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Office of the Secretary
Submission for OMB Review:
Comment Request
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
June 25, 2007.
The Department of Labor (DOL) has
submitted the following public
information collection requests (ICR) to
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval in
accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13,
44 U.S.C. chapter 35). Copies of these
ICRs, with applicable supporting
documentation, may be obtained from
RegInfo.gov at https://www.reginfo.gov/
public/do/PRAMain or by contacting
Darrin King on 202–693–4129 (this is
not a toll-free number) / e-mail:
king.darrin@dol.gov.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
19:32 Jun 27, 2007
Jkt 211001
Comments should be sent to Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), Office of
Management and Budget, Room 10235,
Washington, DC 20503, Telephone:
202–395–7316 / Fax: 202–395–6974
(these are not toll-free numbers), within
30 days from the date of this publication
in the Federal Register.
The OMB is particularly interested in
comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the
use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other
technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology,
e.g., permitting electronic submission of
responses.
Agency: Occupational Safety and
Health Administration.
Type of Review: Extension without
change of currently approved collection.
Title: Occupational Noise Exposure
(29 CFR 1910.95).
OMB Number: 1218–0048.
Type of Response: Recordkeeping and
third-party disclosure.
Affected Public: Public Sector:
Business or other for-profits.
Number of Respondents: 379,512.
Number of Annual Responses:
16,610,221.
Estimated Time per Response: Varies
from 2 minutes to notify employees
when noise exposure exceeds the 8-hour
time-weighted average of 85 decibels to
1 hour for employees in small
establishments to take audiometric
examinations.
Total Burden Hours: 2,853,730.
Total Annualized capital/startup
costs: $0.
Total Annual Costs (operating/
maintaining systems or purchasing
services): $40,993,579.
Description: The purpose of the
Occupational Noise Standard and its
information collection requirements are
to provide protection to employees from
adverse health effects associated with
occupational exposure to noise. The
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
35513
standard requires employers to establish
and maintain accurate records of
employee exposure to noise and
audiometric testing performed in
compliance with this standard.
Agency: Occupational Safety and
Health Administration.
Type of Review: Extension without
change of currently approved collection.
Title: Asbestos in General Industry (29
CFR 1910.1001).
OMB Number: 1218–0133.
Type of Response: Recordkeeping.
Affected Public: Public Sector:
Business or other for-profits.
Number of Respondents: 243.
Number of Annual Responses: 65,048.
Estimated Time per Response: Varies
from 5 minutes to maintain records to
1.5 hours for employees to receive
training or medical evaluations.
Total Burden Hours: 23,849.
Total Annualized capital/startup
costs: $0.
Total Annual Costs (operating/
maintaining systems or purchasing
services): $1,625,000.
Description: The Asbestos Standard
requires employers to train employees
about the hazards of asbestos, to
monitor employee exposure, to provide
medical surveillance, and to maintain
accurate records of employee exposure
to asbestos. These records are used by
employers, employees, and the
Government to ensure that employees
are not harmed by exposure to asbestos
in the workplace.
Agency: Occupational Safety and
Health Administration.
Type of Review: Extension without
change of currently approved collection.
Title: Construction Fall Protection
Plans and Training Requirements (29
CFR 1926.502 and 1926.503).
OMB Number: 1218–0197.
Type of Response: Recordkeeping.
Affected Public: Public Sector:
Business or other for-profits.
Number of Respondents: 301,178.
Number of Annual Responses:
6,039,818.
Estimated Time per Response: Time
per response ranges from 5 minutes to
certify a safety net to 1 hour to develop
a fall protection plan.
Total Burden Hours: 484,082.
Total Annualized capital/startup
costs: $0.
Total Annual Costs (operating/
maintaining systems or purchasing
services): $0.
Description: The Fall Protection
Systems Criteria and Practices Standard
(29 CFR 1926.502) allows employers to
develop alternative procedures to
conventional fall protection systems
when the systems are infeasible or
E:\FR\FM\28JNN1.SGM
28JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 124 (Thursday, June 28, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35510-35513]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-3174]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Executive Office for Immigration Review
[EOIR No. 162]
Codes of Conduct for the Immigration Judges and Board Members
AGENCY: Office of the Chief Immigration Judge; Board of Immigration
Appeals,Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) is
proposing newly formulated Codes of Conduct for the immigration judges
of the Office of the Chief Immigration Judge and for the Board members
of the Board of Immigration Appeals. EOIR is seeking public comment on
the codes before final publication.
DATES: Comment date: Comments may be submitted not later than July 30,
2007.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Mail: Kevin Chapman, Acting General Counsel, Executive
Office for Immigration Review, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2600, Falls
Church, Virginia 22041. To ensure proper handling, please reference
EOIR Docket No. 162 on your correspondence. This mailing address may
also be used for paper, disk, or CD-ROM submissions.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Kevin Chapman, Acting General
Counsel, Executive Office for Immigration Review, 5107 Leesburg Pike,
Suite 2600, Falls Church, Virginia 22041; telephone (703) 305-0470 (not
a toll free call).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Chapman, Acting General Counsel,
Executive Office for Immigration Review, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite
2600, Falls Church, Virginia 22041; telephone (703) 305-0470 (not a
toll free call).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 9, 2006, the Attorney General
directed a comprehensive review of the Immigration Courts and the Board
of Immigration Appeals. This review was undertaken in response to
concerns about the quality of decisions being issued by the immigration
judges and the Board and about reports of intemperate behavior by some
immigration judges. The Deputy Attorney General and the Associate
Attorney General assembled a review team that, over the course of
several months, conducted hundreds of interviews, administered an
online survey, and analyzed thousands of documents to assess the
adjudicative process in the Executive Office for Immigration Review
(EOIR).
On August 9, 2006, the Attorney General announced that the review
was complete, and he directed that a series of measures be taken to
improve adjudications by the immigration judges and the Board. One of
these measures required the EOIR Director to draft a Code of Judicial
Conduct specifically applicable to immigration judges and the members
of the Board of Immigration Appeals. The Director was then, after
consultation with the Counsel for Professional Responsibility and the
Director of the Office of Attorney Recruitment and Management, to
submit that code to the Deputy Attorney General.
That has been accomplished and what follow are the Code of Judicial
Conduct for immigration judges and the Code of Judicial Conduct for
members of the Board of Immigration Appeals. The Department is seeking
comments from the public before final publication. Once published,
these Codes will be available on-line to counsel and litigants who
appear before the Immigration Courts and the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Dated: June 20, 2007.
Kevin A. Ohlson,
Acting Director, EOIR
United States Department of Justice Code of Judicial Conduct for
Immigration Judges
Preamble
In Order to Preserve the Integrity and Professionalism of the
Immigration Court System, an Immigration Judge Shall Observe High
Standards of Ethical Conduct, Act in a Manner that Promotes Public
Confidence in the Impartiality of the Immigration Judge Corps, and
Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities.
Canons
Canon I. An immigration judge shall comply with the canons
contained in this Code of Judicial Conduct for Immigration Judges.
Canon II. An immigration judge shall comply with the standards of
conduct applicable to all attorneys in the Department of Justice,
including the Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the
Executive Branch, codified in Title 5 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, and the Department's supplemental regulations codified at
5 CFR part 3801 and 28 CFR part 45.
[[Page 35511]]
Canon III. An immigration judge shall comply with the provisions of
the rules or code(s) of professional responsibility of the state(s)
where the immigration judge is a member of the bar and the state(s)
where the immigration judge performs his or her duties.
Canon IV. If an immigration judge requests ethical guidance from
the Executive Office for Immigration Review, Office of General Counsel,
the Professional Responsibility Advisory Office, or the Office of
Government Ethics, the immigration judge shall comply with the
resulting ethics opinion.
Canon V. An immigration judge shall be faithful to the law and
maintain professional competence in it.
Canon VI. An immigration judge shall act impartially and shall not
give preferential treatment to any organization or individual when
adjudicating the merits of a particular case.
Canon VII. An immigration judge shall avoid any actions that, in
the judgment of a reasonable person, would create the appearance that
he or she is violating the law or applicable ethical standards.
Canon VIII. An immigration judge shall not be swayed by partisan
interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.
Canon IX. An immigration judge shall be patient, dignified and
courteous to litigants, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the
judge deals in his or her official capacity and shall not, in the
performance of official duties, by words or conduct, manifest bias or
prejudice.
Canon X. An immigration judge shall act in a professional manner
toward the parties and their representatives before the court, and
toward others with whom the immigration judge deals in an official
capacity.
Canon XI. An immigration judge shall refrain from any conduct,
including but not limited to financial and business dealings, that
tends to reflect adversely on impartiality, demeans the judicial
office, interferes with the proper performance of judicial duties, or
exploits the immigration judge's official position.
Canon XII. An immigration judge shall not hold membership in any
organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of
race, sex, religion, national origin, or disability.
Canon XIII. An immigration judge shall not publicly disclose or use
for any purpose unrelated to adjudicatory duties nonpublic information
acquired in a judicial capacity.
Canon XIV. An immigration judge shall not, while a proceeding is
pending or impending, make any public comment that might reasonably be
expected to affect its outcome or impair its fairness, or make any
nonpublic comment that might substantially interfere with a fair
hearing.
Canon XV. An immigration judge shall not initiate, consider, or
permit ex parte communications about the substance of a pending or
impending case unless authorized by precedent, statute, or regulation.
Communications about purely ministerial matters, such as a request for
an extension of time, shall not be regarded as ex parte communications,
provided the judge makes provision promptly to notify all other parties
of the substance of the communication and allows an opportunity to
respond. An immigration judge's communications with other employees of
the Department of Justice shall not be considered ex parte
communications unless those employees are witnesses in a pending or
impending proceeding before the immigration judge and the communication
involves that proceeding.
Canon XVI. An immigration judge shall follow judicial precedent and
agency policy regarding recusal when deciding whether to remove himself
or herself from a particular case.
Commentary
This Code of Judicial Conduct for Immigration Judges (the ``Code'')
is being promulgated in order to maintain and promote the highest
ethical standards of the Immigration Judge Corps. The canons contained
in this Code are binding on all immigration judges and are effective
immediately upon the approval of the Deputy Attorney General or his or
her designee. Violations of these canons may serve as the basis for
disciplinary action, but may not be used in any other proceeding, and
may not be used to challenge the rulings of an Immigration Judge. This
Code does not create any rights or interests for any party outside of
the Department of Justice, nor may violations furnish the basis for
civil liability, injunctive relief or criminal prosecution.
This Code supplements, and does not supersede, the personnel
disciplinary rules, ethics rules, and management policies of the
Executive Office for Immigration Review, the Department of Justice,
and/or the United States government. Similarly, this Code does not
affect the applicability or scope of the provisions of the Standards of
Ethical Conduct for Executive Branch Employees, or the rules or code(s)
of professional responsibility applicable to the immigration judge. An
immigration judge is subject to the rules or code(s) of professional
responsibility in the state(s) where he or she is a member of the bar
and the rules or code(s) of the state(s) where he or she performs his
or her duties. See 28 U.S.C. 530B. Immigration judges are encouraged to
seek ethics opinions when confronted with the complex questions that
may arise when professional responsibility rules conflict.
The canons contained in this Code are authoritative. The commentary
portions of the Code are not intended as a statement of additional
rules. Commentary is made to provide, by explanation and example, more
detailed guidance about the applicability of specific sections and to
further facilitate an understanding and use of the Code.
An immigration judge who manifests bias or engages in
unprofessional conduct in any manner during a proceeding may impair the
fairness of the proceeding and may bring into question the impartiality
of the immigration court system. An immigration judge must be alert to
avoid behavior, to include inappropriate demeanor, that may be
perceived as prejudicial. The test for appearance of impropriety is
whether the conduct would create in the mind of a reasonable person
with knowledge of the relevant facts the belief that the immigration
judge's ability to carry out adjudicatory responsibilities with
integrity, impartiality, and competence is impaired.
Prohibitions against behaving with impropriety or the appearance of
impropriety apply to both the professional and personal conduct of an
immigration judge. An immigration judge must be mindful that even
private conduct and associations can reflect upon the immigration
judge's office and affect the public's confidence in the immigration
court system. Accordingly, an immigration judge should not, for
example, be a member of an organization that practices invidious
discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion or national origin.
Membership of an immigration judge in such an organization may give
rise to perceptions that the judge's impartiality is impaired. Whether
an organization practices invidious discrimination is often a complex
question to which immigration judges should be sensitive.
The requirement that immigration judges abstain from public comment
regarding a pending or impending proceeding continues during any
appellate process and until final disposition of the matter. The
requirement does not prohibit
[[Page 35512]]
immigration judges from making appropriate comments in open court or in
written filings in the course of their official duties. Comments made
to other Department of Justice employees in the course of official
business do not constitute ``public'' comments.
United States Department of Justice Code of Judicial Conduct for
Members of the Board of Immigration Appeals
Preamble
In Order to Preserve the Integrity and Professionalism of the Board
of Immigration Appeals (the ``Board''), a Member of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (``Board Member'') Shall Observe High Standards of
Ethical Conduct, Act in a Manner that Promotes Public Confidence in the
Impartiality of the Board, and Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of
Impropriety in All Activities.
Canons
Canon I. A Board Member shall comply with the canons contained in
this Code of Judicial Conduct for Members of the Board of Immigration
Appeals.
Canon II. A Board Member shall comply with the standards of conduct
applicable to all attorneys in the Department of Justice, including the
Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch
codified in Title 5 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and the
Department's supplemental regulations codified at 5 CFR part 3801 and
28 CFR part 45.
Canon III. A Board Member shall comply with the provisions of the
rules or code(s) of professional responsibility of the state(s) where
the Board Member is a member of the bar and the state(s) where the
Board Member performs his or her duties.
Canon IV. If a Board Member requests ethical guidance from the
Executive Office for Immigration Review, Office of General Counsel, the
Professional Responsibility Advisory Office, or the Office of
Government Ethics, the Board Member shall comply with the resulting
ethics opinion.
Canon V. A Board Member shall be faithful to the law and maintain
professional competence in it.
Canon VI. A Board Member shall act impartially and shall not give
preferential treatment to any organization or individual when
adjudicating the merits of a particular case.
Canon VII. A Board Member shall avoid any actions that, in the
judgment of a reasonable person, would create the appearance that he or
she is violating the law or applicable ethical standards.
Canon VIII. A Board Member shall not be swayed by partisan
interests, public clamor, or fear of criticism.
Canon IX. A Board Member shall not, in the performance of official
duties, by words or conduct, manifest bias or prejudice.
Canon X. A Board Member shall act in a professional manner toward
the parties and their representatives before the Board, and toward
others with whom the Board Member deals in an official capacity.
Canon XI. A Board Member shall refrain from any conduct, including
but not limited to financial and business dealings, that tends to
reflect adversely on impartiality, demeans the judicial office,
interferes with the proper performance of judicial duties, or exploits
the Board Member's official position.
Canon XII. A Board Member shall not hold membership in any
organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of
race, sex, religion, national origin, or disability.
Canon XIII. A Board Member shall not publicly disclose or use for
any purpose unrelated to adjudicatory duties nonpublic information
acquired in a judicial capacity.
Canon XIV. A Board Member shall not, while a proceeding is pending
or impending, make any public comment that might reasonably be expected
to affect its outcome or impair its fairness, or make any nonpublic
comment that might substantially interfere with a fair hearing.
Canon XV. A Board Member shall not initiate, consider, or permit ex
parte communications about the substance of a pending or impending case
unless authorized by precedent, statute, or regulation. Communications
about purely ministerial matters, such as a request for an extension of
time, shall not be regarded as ex parte communications, provided the
Board Member makes provision promptly to notify all other parties of
the substance of the ex parte communication and allows an opportunity
to respond. A Board Member's communications with other employees of the
Department of Justice shall not be considered ex parte communications
unless those employees are witnesses or counsel involved in a pending
or impending proceeding before the Board Member, and the communication
involves that proceeding.
Canon XVI. A Board Member shall follow judicial precedent and
agency policy regarding recusal when deciding whether to remove himself
or herself from a particular case.
Commentary
This Code of Judicial Conduct for Members of the Board of
Immigration Appeals (the ``Code'') is being promulgated in order to
maintain and promote the highest ethical standards of the Board of
Immigration Appeals. The canons contained in this Code are binding on
all Board Members and are effective immediately upon the approval of
the Deputy Attorney General or his or her designee. Violations of these
canons may serve as the basis for disciplinary action, but may not be
used in any other proceeding, and may not be used to challenge the
rulings of a Board Member. This Code does not create any rights or
interests for any party outside of the Department of Justice, nor may
violations furnish the basis for civil liability, injunctive relief or
criminal prosecution.
This Code supplements, and does not supersede, the personnel
disciplinary rules, ethics rules, and management policies of the
Executive Office for Immigration Review, the Department of Justice,
and/or the United States government. Similarly, this Code does not
affect the applicability or scope of the provisions of the Standards of
Ethical Conduct for Executive Branch Employees, or the rules or code(s)
of professional responsibility applicable to the Board Member. A Board
Member is subject to the rules or code(s) of professional
responsibility in the state(s) where he or she is a member of the bar
and the rules or code(s) of the state(s) where he or she performs his
or her duties. See 28 U.S.C. 530B. Board Members are encouraged to seek
ethics opinions when confronted with the complex questions that may
arise when professional responsibility rules conflict.
The canons contained in this Code are authoritative. The commentary
portions of the Code are not intended as a statement of additional
rules. Commentary is made to provide, by explanation and example, more
detailed guidance about the applicability of specific sections and to
further facilitate an understanding and use of the Code.
A Board Member who manifests bias or engages in unprofessional
conduct in any manner during a proceeding may impair the fairness of
the proceeding and may bring into question the impartiality of the
immigration court system and the Board of Immigration Appeals. A Board
Member must be alert to avoid behavior, to include inappropriate
demeanor, that may be perceived as prejudicial. The test for appearance
of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in the mind of
[[Page 35513]]
a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts the belief
that the Board Member's ability to carry out adjudicatory
responsibilities with integrity, impartiality, and competence is
impaired.
Prohibitions against behaving with impropriety or the appearance of
impropriety apply to both the professional and personal conduct of a
Board Member. A Board Member must be mindful that even private conduct
and associations can reflect upon the Board Member's office and affect
the public's confidence in the immigration court system and the Board
of Immigration Appeals. Accordingly, a Board Member should not, for
example, be a member of an organization that practices invidious
discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion or national origin.
Membership of a Board Member in such an organization may give rise to
perceptions that the Board Member's impartiality is impaired. Whether
an organization practices invidious discrimination is often a complex
question to which Board Members should be sensitive.
The requirement that Board Members abstain from public comment
regarding a pending or impending proceeding continues during any
appellate process and until final disposition of the matter. The
requirement does not prohibit Board Members from making appropriate
comments in open court or in written filings in the course of their
official duties. Comments made to other Department of Justice employees
in the course of official business do not constitute ``public''
comments.
[FR Doc. 07-3174 Filed 6-27-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-30-P
