Comment Submitted by Makita Thatcher

Re: DHS Docket No. ICEB-2026-0034<br/><br/>I submit this comment as an individual member of the public concerned with notice, record preservation, meaningful review, and lawful administration of immigration-related fees.<br/><br/>My comment addresses proposed 8 CFR 103.7(d)(17), concerning the fee for individuals ordered removed in absentia and subsequently arrested by ICE. DHS proposes to increase the fee from $5,130 to $18,000. Because this fee may impose severe financial consequences, DHS should ensure that the final rule includes clear procedural safeguards before the fee is assessed, collected, or shared with other federal systems.<br/><br/>I do not submit this comment to dispute that Congress authorized a fee. My concern is that the final rule should prevent the fee from being imposed on the basis of mistaken, incomplete, inaccessible, or uncorrected records.<br/><br/>At minimum, DHS should require written, case-specific notice identifying: the date of the in absentia order; the immigration court or agency record relied upon; the date and manner of the later ICE arrest; the statutory and regulatory basis for the fee; the amount assessed; the deadline and method for disputing the fee; the consequences of nonpayment; and whether any motion to reopen, motion to rescind, appeal, stay, or related proceeding is pending or known to DHS.<br/><br/>DHS should also preserve the administrative record supporting each fee assessment, including the in absentia order, proof of hearing notice, address and change-of-address records, custody records where relevant, arrest records, records showing whether the order has been rescinded, reopened, stayed, appealed, or otherwise affected, the fee notice, any dispute or correction request, and DHS&rsquo;s response.<br/><br/>The dispute process should be meaningful, not merely formal. A 30-day dispute window is not meaningful if the person cannot access the records needed to identify an error. DHS should specify where and how disputes may be filed, what records DHS will provide or identify, whether collection is paused during a timely dispute, who decides the dispute, what written explanation will be provided, and what further review is available.<br/><br/>The final rule should also include safeguards for lack of notice, custody at the time of hearing, mistaken identity, incorrect records, and pending motions to reopen or rescind. If an in absentia order is later rescinded, DHS should provide a clear process for cancellation, refund, correction of debt records, and notice to any agency or system that received the debt information.<br/><br/>Finally, DHS should maintain aggregate audit data on fee notices issued, disputes filed, disputes granted or denied, assessments cancelled, refunds issued, cases involving alleged lack of notice or custody, referrals for debt collection, amounts assessed, and amounts actually collected. This data is necessary for Congress, Inspectors General, courts, and the public to evaluate whether the rule is operating as intended.<br/><br/>A fee of this size should not depend on inaccessible or uncorrected records. Where DHS imposes a major financial consequence based on an in absentia order and later arrest, the record must be traceable, the notice must be specific, and the dispute process must be meaningful.<br/><br/>Respectfully submitted,<br/>Makita Thatcher<br/>Georgia