Notice: Immigration Judges and Board Members Codes of Conduct

35510 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No.
124 / Thursday, June 28, 2007 / Notices
Reddy Medtech, Ltd., of Tamil Nadu, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE team that, over the course of several
India; and Intellx, Inc., of Petoskey, months, conducted hundreds of
Michigan. Executive Office for Immigration interviews, administered an online
On June 30, 2006, the presiding Review survey, and analyzed thousands of
administrative law judge (‘‘ALJ’’) issued [EOIR No. 162] documents to assess the adjudicative
a final initial determination (‘‘ID’’) in process in the Executive Office for
which he ruled that there is no violation Codes of Conduct for the Immigration Immigration Review (EOIR).
of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, Judges and Board Members On August 9, 2006, the Attorney
as amended. He found that certain valid General announced that the review was
claims were infringed, but concluded AGENCY: Office of the Chief Immigration complete, and he directed that a series
that there was no domestic industry Judge; Board of Immigration of measures be taken to improve
under the economic prong of the Appeals,Executive Office for adjudications by the immigration judges
domestic industry requirement. All Immigration Review, Department of and the Board. One of these measures
parties petitioned for review of various Justice. required the EOIR Director to draft a
parts of the final ID. ACTION: Notice. Code of Judicial Conduct specifically
On September 29, 2006, the applicable to immigration judges and
SUMMARY: The Executive Office for the members of the Board of
Commission determined to review the Immigration Review (EOIR) is proposing
issues of claim construction, Immigration Appeals. The Director was
newly formulated Codes of Conduct for then, after consultation with the
infringement, invalidity due to the immigration judges of the Office of
anticipation, and domestic industry, Counsel for Professional Responsibility
the Chief Immigration Judge and for the and the Director of the Office of
and requested briefing on these issues Board members of the Board of
and certain subissues. 71 FR 58875 (Oct. Attorney Recruitment and Management,
Immigration Appeals. EOIR is seeking to submit that code to the Deputy
5, 2006). On December 5, 2006, the public comment on the codes before
Commission determined to affirm in Attorney General.
final publication. That has been accomplished and what
part, reverse in part, and remand in part
DATES: Comment date: Comments may follow are the Code of Judicial Conduct
the final ID. Among other things, the
be submitted not later than July 30, for immigration judges and the Code of
Commission reversed the ALJ’s finding
2007. Judicial Conduct for members of the
of no domestic industry under the
economic prong. The Commission also ADDRESSES: You may submit comments Board of Immigration Appeals. The
determined to extend the target date for by one of the following methods: Department is seeking comments from
completion of the investigation until • Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// the public before final publication. Once
June 5, 2007. The date was subsequently www.regulations.gov. Follow the published, these Codes will be available
moved to June 21, 2007, by an instructions for submitting comments. on-line to counsel and litigants who
unreviewed ID. • Mail: Kevin Chapman, Acting appear before the Immigration Courts
General Counsel, Executive Office for and the Board of Immigration Appeals.
On March 19, 2007, the ALJ issued his
remand ID, in which he ruled that there Immigration Review, 5107 Leesburg Dated: June 20, 2007.
is a violation of section 337 based on the Pike, Suite 2600, Falls Church, Virginia Kevin A. Ohlson,
infringement of certain valid claims and 22041. To ensure proper handling, Acting Director, EOIR
found that there is a domestic industry. please reference EOIR Docket No. 162
on your correspondence. This mailing United States Department of Justice
In further briefing before the Code of Judicial Conduct for
Commission, all parties claimed error. address may also be used for paper,
disk, or CD–ROM submissions. Immigration Judges
Upon consideration of the parties’
submissions and the record in this • Hand Delivery/Courier: Kevin Preamble
proceeding, the Commission has Chapman, Acting General Counsel,
Executive Office for Immigration In Order to Preserve the Integrity and
determined to reverse the ALJ’s finding Professionalism of the Immigration
of violation of section 337 and has Review, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2600,
Falls Church, Virginia 22041; telephone Court System, an Immigration Judge
terminated the investigation with a Shall Observe High Standards of Ethical
finding of no violation. In reaching this (703) 305–0470 (not a toll free call).
Conduct, Act in a Manner that Promotes
conclusion, the Commission has FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Public Confidence in the Impartiality of
reversed the ALJ’s finding that the Kevin Chapman, Acting General the Immigration Judge Corps, and Avoid
accused products infringe certain claims Counsel, Executive Office for Impropriety and the Appearance of
of U.S. Patent No. 5,082,004, as well as Immigration Review, 5107 Leesburg Impropriety in All Activities.
his finding that certain claims of that Pike, Suite 2600, Falls Church, Virginia
patent are invalid as anticipated by the 22041; telephone (703) 305–0470 (not a Canons
prior art. toll free call). Canon I. An immigration judge shall
The authority for this notice is SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On comply with the canons contained in
contained in section 337 of the Tariff January 9, 2006, the Attorney General this Code of Judicial Conduct for
Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. directed a comprehensive review of the Immigration Judges.
1337, and in section 210.45(c) of the Immigration Courts and the Board of Canon II. An immigration judge shall
Commission’s Rules of Practice and Immigration Appeals. This review was comply with the standards of conduct
Procedure (19 CFR 210.45(c)). undertaken in response to concerns applicable to all attorneys in the
about the quality of decisions being Department of Justice, including the
Issued: June 21, 2007.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
issued by the immigration judges and Standards of Ethical Conduct for

By order of the Commission. the Board and about reports of Employees of the Executive Branch,
William R. Bishop, intemperate behavior by some codified in Title 5 of the Code of Federal
Acting Secretary to the Commission. immigration judges. The Deputy Regulations, and the Department’s
[FR Doc. E7–12519 Filed 6–27–07; 8:45 am] Attorney General and the Associate supplemental regulations codified at 5
BILLING CODE 7020–02–P Attorney General assembled a review CFR part 3801 and 28 CFR part 45.
VerDate Aug<31>2005 18:23 Jun 27, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\28JNN1.SGM 28JNN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 124 / Thursday, June 28, 2007 / Notices 35511
Canon III. An immigration judge shall or impending, make any public the immigration judge. An immigration
comply with the provisions of the rules comment that might reasonably be judge is subject to the rules or code(s)
or code(s) of professional responsibility expected to affect its outcome or impair of professional responsibility in the
of the state(s) where the immigration its fairness, or make any nonpublic state(s) where he or she is a member of
judge is a member of the bar and the comment that might substantially the bar and the rules or code(s) of the
state(s) where the immigration judge interfere with a fair hearing. state(s) where he or she performs his or
performs his or her duties. Canon XV. An immigration judge her duties. See 28 U.S.C. 530B.
Canon IV. If an immigration judge shall not initiate, consider, or permit ex Immigration judges are encouraged to
requests ethical guidance from the parte communications about the seek ethics opinions when confronted
Executive Office for Immigration substance of a pending or impending with the complex questions that may
Review, Office of General Counsel, the case unless authorized by precedent, arise when professional responsibility
Professional Responsibility Advisory statute, or regulation. Communications rules conflict.
Office, or the Office of Government about purely ministerial matters, such The canons contained in this Code are
Ethics, the immigration judge shall as a request for an extension of time, authoritative. The commentary portions
comply with the resulting ethics shall not be regarded as ex parte of the Code are not intended as a
opinion. communications, provided the judge statement of additional rules.
Canon V. An immigration judge shall makes provision promptly to notify all Commentary is made to provide, by
be faithful to the law and maintain other parties of the substance of the explanation and example, more detailed
professional competence in it. communication and allows an guidance about the applicability of
Canon VI. An immigration judge shall opportunity to respond. An immigration specific sections and to further facilitate
act impartially and shall not give judge’s communications with other an understanding and use of the Code.
preferential treatment to any employees of the Department of Justice An immigration judge who manifests
organization or individual when shall not be considered ex parte bias or engages in unprofessional
adjudicating the merits of a particular communications unless those conduct in any manner during a
case. employees are witnesses in a pending or proceeding may impair the fairness of
Canon VII. An immigration judge impending proceeding before the the proceeding and may bring into
shall avoid any actions that, in the immigration judge and the question the impartiality of the
judgment of a reasonable person, would communication involves that immigration court system. An
create the appearance that he or she is proceeding. immigration judge must be alert to avoid
violating the law or applicable ethical Canon XVI. An immigration judge behavior, to include inappropriate
standards. shall follow judicial precedent and demeanor, that may be perceived as
Canon VIII. An immigration judge agency policy regarding recusal when prejudicial. The test for appearance of
shall not be swayed by partisan deciding whether to remove himself or impropriety is whether the conduct
interests, public clamor, or fear of herself from a particular case. would create in the mind of a
criticism. reasonable person with knowledge of
Commentary
Canon IX. An immigration judge shall the relevant facts the belief that the
be patient, dignified and courteous to This Code of Judicial Conduct for immigration judge’s ability to carry out
litigants, witnesses, lawyers and others Immigration Judges (the ‘‘Code’’) is adjudicatory responsibilities with
with whom the judge deals in his or her being promulgated in order to maintain integrity, impartiality, and competence
official capacity and shall not, in the and promote the highest ethical is impaired.
performance of official duties, by words standards of the Immigration Judge Prohibitions against behaving with
or conduct, manifest bias or prejudice. Corps. The canons contained in this impropriety or the appearance of
Canon X. An immigration judge shall Code are binding on all immigration impropriety apply to both the
act in a professional manner toward the judges and are effective immediately professional and personal conduct of an
parties and their representatives before upon the approval of the Deputy immigration judge. An immigration
the court, and toward others with whom Attorney General or his or her designee. judge must be mindful that even private
the immigration judge deals in an Violations of these canons may serve as conduct and associations can reflect
official capacity. the basis for disciplinary action, but upon the immigration judge’s office and
Canon XI. An immigration judge shall may not be used in any other affect the public’s confidence in the
refrain from any conduct, including but proceeding, and may not be used to immigration court system. Accordingly,
not limited to financial and business challenge the rulings of an Immigration an immigration judge should not, for
dealings, that tends to reflect adversely Judge. This Code does not create any example, be a member of an
on impartiality, demeans the judicial rights or interests for any party outside organization that practices invidious
office, interferes with the proper of the Department of Justice, nor may discrimination on the basis of race, sex,
performance of judicial duties, or violations furnish the basis for civil religion or national origin. Membership
exploits the immigration judge’s official liability, injunctive relief or criminal of an immigration judge in such an
position. prosecution. organization may give rise to
Canon XII. An immigration judge This Code supplements, and does not perceptions that the judge’s impartiality
shall not hold membership in any supersede, the personnel disciplinary is impaired. Whether an organization
organization that practices invidious rules, ethics rules, and management practices invidious discrimination is
discrimination on the basis of race, sex, policies of the Executive Office for often a complex question to which
religion, national origin, or disability. Immigration Review, the Department of immigration judges should be sensitive.
Canon XIII. An immigration judge Justice, and/or the United States The requirement that immigration
shall not publicly disclose or use for any government. Similarly, this Code does judges abstain from public comment
purpose unrelated to adjudicatory not affect the applicability or scope of regarding a pending or impending
duties nonpublic information acquired the provisions of the Standards of proceeding continues during any
in a judicial capacity. Ethical Conduct for Executive Branch appellate process and until final
Canon XIV. An immigration judge Employees, or the rules or code(s) of disposition of the matter. The
shall not, while a proceeding is pending professional responsibility applicable to requirement does not prohibit
35512 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 124 / Thursday, June 28, 2007 / Notices
immigration judges from making Canon VIII. A Board Member shall not Commentary
appropriate comments in open court or be swayed by partisan interests, public This Code of Judicial Conduct for
in written filings in the course of their clamor, or fear of criticism. Members of the Board of Immigration
official duties. Comments made to other Canon IX. A Board Member shall not, Appeals (the ‘‘Code’’) is being
Department of Justice employees in the in the performance of official duties, by promulgated in order to maintain and
course of official business do not words or conduct, manifest bias or promote the highest ethical standards of
constitute ‘‘public’’ comments. prejudice. the Board of Immigration Appeals. The
United States Department of Justice Canon X. A Board Member shall act canons contained in this Code are
Code of Judicial Conduct for Members in a professional manner toward the binding on all Board Members and are
of the Board of Immigration Appeals parties and their representatives before effective immediately upon the approval
the Board, and toward others with of the Deputy Attorney General or his or
Preamble whom the Board Member deals in an her designee. Violations of these canons
In Order to Preserve the Integrity and official capacity. may serve as the basis for disciplinary
Professionalism of the Board of Canon XI. A Board Member shall action, but may not be used in any other
Immigration Appeals (the ‘‘Board’’), a refrain from any conduct, including but proceeding, and may not be used to
Member of the Board of Immigration not limited to financial and business challenge the rulings of a Board
Appeals (‘‘Board Member’’) Shall dealings, that tends to reflect adversely Member. This Code does not create any
Observe High Standards of Ethical on impartiality, demeans the judicial rights or interests for any party outside
Conduct, Act in a Manner that Promotes office, interferes with the proper of the Department of Justice, nor may
Public Confidence in the Impartiality of performance of judicial duties, or violations furnish the basis for civil
the Board, and Avoid Impropriety and exploits the Board Member’s official liability, injunctive relief or criminal
the Appearance of Impropriety in All position. prosecution.
Activities. Canon XII. A Board Member shall not This Code supplements, and does not
hold membership in any organization supersede, the personnel disciplinary
Canons
that practices invidious discrimination rules, ethics rules, and management
Canon I. A Board Member shall on the basis of race, sex, religion, policies of the Executive Office for
comply with the canons contained in national origin, or disability. Immigration Review, the Department of
this Code of Judicial Conduct for Canon XIII. A Board Member shall not Justice, and/or the United States
Members of the Board of Immigration publicly disclose or use for any purpose government. Similarly, this Code does
Appeals. unrelated to adjudicatory duties not affect the applicability or scope of
Canon II. A Board Member shall nonpublic information acquired in a the provisions of the Standards of
comply with the standards of conduct judicial capacity. Ethical Conduct for Executive Branch
applicable to all attorneys in the Canon XIV. A Board Member shall Employees, or the rules or code(s) of
Department of Justice, including the not, while a proceeding is pending or
Standards of Ethical Conduct for professional responsibility applicable to
impending, make any public comment the Board Member. A Board Member is
Employees of the Executive Branch that might reasonably be expected to
codified in Title 5 of the Code of Federal subject to the rules or code(s) of
affect its outcome or impair its fairness, professional responsibility in the state(s)
Regulations, and the Department’s or make any nonpublic comment that
supplemental regulations codified at 5 where he or she is a member of the bar
might substantially interfere with a fair and the rules or code(s) of the state(s)
CFR part 3801 and 28 CFR part 45.
hearing. where he or she performs his or her
Canon III. A Board Member shall
comply with the provisions of the rules Canon XV. A Board Member shall not duties. See 28 U.S.C. 530B. Board
or code(s) of professional responsibility initiate, consider, or permit ex parte Members are encouraged to seek ethics
of the state(s) where the Board Member communications about the substance of opinions when confronted with the
is a member of the bar and the state(s) a pending or impending case unless complex questions that may arise when
where the Board Member performs his authorized by precedent, statute, or professional responsibility rules
or her duties. regulation. Communications about conflict.
Canon IV. If a Board Member requests purely ministerial matters, such as a The canons contained in this Code are
ethical guidance from the Executive request for an extension of time, shall authoritative. The commentary portions
Office for Immigration Review, Office of not be regarded as ex parte of the Code are not intended as a
General Counsel, the Professional communications, provided the Board statement of additional rules.
Responsibility Advisory Office, or the Member makes provision promptly to Commentary is made to provide, by
Office of Government Ethics, the Board notify all other parties of the substance explanation and example, more detailed
Member shall comply with the resulting of the ex parte communication and guidance about the applicability of
ethics opinion. allows an opportunity to respond. A specific sections and to further facilitate
Canon V. A Board Member shall be Board Member’s communications with an understanding and use of the Code.
faithful to the law and maintain other employees of the Department of A Board Member who manifests bias
professional competence in it. Justice shall not be considered ex parte or engages in unprofessional conduct in
Canon VI. A Board Member shall act communications unless those any manner during a proceeding may
impartially and shall not give employees are witnesses or counsel impair the fairness of the proceeding
preferential treatment to any involved in a pending or impending and may bring into question the
organization or individual when proceeding before the Board Member, impartiality of the immigration court
adjudicating the merits of a particular and the communication involves that system and the Board of Immigration
case. proceeding. Appeals. A Board Member must be alert

Canon VII. A Board Member shall Canon XVI. A Board Member shall to avoid behavior, to include
avoid any actions that, in the judgment follow judicial precedent and agency inappropriate demeanor, that may be
of a reasonable person, would create the policy regarding recusal when deciding perceived as prejudicial. The test for
appearance that he or she is violating whether to remove himself or herself appearance of impropriety is whether
the law or applicable ethical standards. from a particular case. the conduct would create in the mind of
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 124 / Thursday, June 28, 2007 / Notices 35513
a reasonable person with knowledge of Comments should be sent to Office of standard requires employers to establish
the relevant facts the belief that the Information and Regulatory Affairs, and maintain accurate records of
Board Member’s ability to carry out Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the employee exposure to noise and
adjudicatory responsibilities with Occupational Safety and Health audiometric testing performed in
integrity, impartiality, and competence Administration (OSHA), Office of compliance with this standard.
is impaired. Management and Budget, Room 10235, Agency: Occupational Safety and
Prohibitions against behaving with Washington, DC 20503, Telephone: Health Administration.
impropriety or the appearance of 202–395–7316 / Fax: 202–395–6974 Type of Review: Extension without
impropriety apply to both the (these are not toll-free numbers), within change of currently approved collection.
professional and personal conduct of a 30 days from the date of this publication Title: Asbestos in General Industry (29
Board Member. A Board Member must in the Federal Register. CFR 1910.1001).
be mindful that even private conduct The OMB is particularly interested in OMB Number: 1218–0133.
and associations can reflect upon the comments which: Type of Response: Recordkeeping.
Board Member’s office and affect the • Evaluate whether the proposed Affected Public: Public Sector:
public’s confidence in the immigration collection of information is necessary Business or other for-profits.
court system and the Board of for the proper performance of the Number of Respondents: 243.
Immigration Appeals. Accordingly, a functions of the agency, including Number of Annual Responses: 65,048.
Board Member should not, for example, whether the information will have Estimated Time per Response: Varies
be a member of an organization that practical utility; from 5 minutes to maintain records to
practices invidious discrimination on • Evaluate the accuracy of the 1.5 hours for employees to receive
the basis of race, sex, religion or agency’s estimate of the burden of the training or medical evaluations.
national origin. Membership of a Board proposed collection of information, Total Burden Hours: 23,849.
Member in such an organization may including the validity of the Total Annualized capital/startup
give rise to perceptions that the Board methodology and assumptions used; costs: $0.
Member’s impartiality is impaired. • Enhance the quality, utility, and Total Annual Costs (operating/
Whether an organization practices clarity of the information to be maintaining systems or purchasing
invidious discrimination is often a collected; and services): $1,625,000.
complex question to which Board • Minimize the burden of the Description: The Asbestos Standard
Members should be sensitive. collection of information on those who
The requirement that Board Members requires employers to train employees
are to respond, including through the about the hazards of asbestos, to
abstain from public comment regarding use of appropriate automated,
a pending or impending proceeding monitor employee exposure, to provide
electronic, mechanical, or other medical surveillance, and to maintain
continues during any appellate process technological collection techniques or
and until final disposition of the matter. accurate records of employee exposure
other forms of information technology, to asbestos. These records are used by
The requirement does not prohibit e.g., permitting electronic submission of
Board Members from making employers, employees, and the
responses. Government to ensure that employees
appropriate comments in open court or Agency: Occupational Safety and
in written filings in the course of their are not harmed by exposure to asbestos
Health Administration.
official duties. Comments made to other in the workplace.
Type of Review: Extension without
Department of Justice employees in the Agency: Occupational Safety and
change of currently approved collection.
course of official business do not Title: Occupational Noise Exposure Health Administration.
constitute ‘‘public’’ comments. (29 CFR 1910.95). Type of Review: Extension without
OMB Number: 1218–0048. change of currently approved collection.
[FR Doc. 07–3174 Filed 6–27–07; 8:45 am] Title: Construction Fall Protection
Type of Response: Recordkeeping and
BILLING CODE 4410–30–P
third-party disclosure. Plans and Training Requirements (29
Affected Public: Public Sector: CFR 1926.502 and 1926.503).
Business or other for-profits. OMB Number: 1218–0197.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Number of Respondents: 379,512. Type of Response: Recordkeeping.
Number of Annual Responses: Affected Public: Public Sector:
Office of the Secretary Business or other for-profits.
16,610,221.
Submission for OMB Review: Estimated Time per Response: Varies Number of Respondents: 301,178.
Comment Request from 2 minutes to notify employees Number of Annual Responses:
when noise exposure exceeds the 8-hour 6,039,818.
June 25, 2007. time-weighted average of 85 decibels to Estimated Time per Response: Time
The Department of Labor (DOL) has 1 hour for employees in small per response ranges from 5 minutes to
submitted the following public establishments to take audiometric certify a safety net to 1 hour to develop
information collection requests (ICR) to examinations. a fall protection plan.
the Office of Management and Budget Total Burden Hours: 2,853,730. Total Burden Hours: 484,082.
(OMB) for review and approval in Total Annualized capital/startup Total Annualized capital/startup
accordance with the Paperwork costs: $0. costs: $0.
Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, Total Annual Costs (operating/ Total Annual Costs (operating/
44 U.S.C. chapter 35). Copies of these maintaining systems or purchasing maintaining systems or purchasing
ICRs, with applicable supporting services): $40,993,579. services): $0.
documentation, may be obtained from Description: The purpose of the Description: The Fall Protection
RegInfo.gov at http://www.reginfo.gov/ Occupational Noise Standard and its Systems Criteria and Practices Standard
public/do/PRAMain or by contacting information collection requirements are (29 CFR 1926.502) allows employers to
Darrin King on 202–693–4129 (this is to provide protection to employees from develop alternative procedures to
not a toll-free number) / e-mail: adverse health effects associated with conventional fall protection systems
king.darrin@dol.gov. occupational exposure to noise. The when the systems are infeasible or

Notice: Immigration Judges and Board Members Codes of Conduct

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Notice: Immigration Judges and Board Members Codes of Conduct

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

35510 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No.

124 / Thursday, June 28, 2007 / Notices

issued by the immigration judges and Standards of Ethical Conduct for

case. proceeding. Appeals. A Board Member must be alert

You might also like