Fee Adjustment for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Form I–246, Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal
Details
The document's own metadata, straight from the source system.
- Title
- Fee Adjustment for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Form I–246, Application for a Stay of Deportation or Removal
- Posted
- May 7, 2026
- Comment period
- May 7, 2026 – Jul 7, 2026
- FR Doc
- 2026-09007
Overview
What the public is saying — stance, who's commenting, and the issues they raise.
Stance breakdown
Who commented
Breakdown by commenter type.
Comments over time
Weekly arrivals, stacked by stance.
Support × commenter type
How each type splits across stance.
Issues raised
The docket's canonical issues. Select one to browse its comments.
Position map
Who stands where on each issue?
Every non-silent position is backed by an excerpt from the comment.
Issues shown
Uncheck an issue to choose another.
| Organization | Fee adjustment for inflation | Fee amount and deterrent effect | Fee amount for removal orders | Fee increase impact on accessibility | Form i-246 fee increase |
|---|
6 organization-typed comments could not be identified.
Explorer
Every mirrored comment — filter by stance, campaign, or issue.
- Jul 6, 2026Comment Submitted by National Immigration ProjectOpposeAdvocacy📎 Attachment
The National Immigration Project, a national nonprofit membership organization, opposes the proposed fee increase for Form I-246, arguing that the nearly fivefold hike is unnecessary, arbitrary, and serves as a deterrent to noncitizens seeking stays of removal. They contend that the analysis in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is flawed, fails to account for recent Board of Immigration Appeals precedents, and ignores the fact that ICE is already heavily funded by congressional appropriations.
Read comment → - May 7, 2026Comment Submitted by AnonymousSupportIndividual
A concerned citizen supports the proposed fee increase for Form I-246, arguing that the current fee is too low to act as a deterrent against illegal immigration and third-party interference. The commenter suggests increasing the fee even further to $2,000 to cover the administrative costs of enforcement and to prevent taxpayers from subsidizing the costs of unlawful presence.
Read comment →