The Trump Administration has amended the Form EOIR-33 Change of Address Form to remove the “in Care of” line, which allowed a respondent to receive their notices at a safe address such as an attorney’s office. This change was made under emergency provisions that bypass the comment period because they claimed that the changes to the Form EOIR-33 is essential to Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR)’s mission. See 5 C.F.R. § 1320.13(a)(1)(ii).
The government explains,
“EOIR has identified two fields on the Form EOIR-33 that present significant sources of public harm. Currently, the Form EOIR-33 displays two collection fields for ‘in care of’ ‘other person (if any).’ These fields permit the subject of immigration proceedings to designate a third party to receive mail addressed from EOIR to the subject. Such designation assumes, without verification, that the third party is trustworthy. Rather, such designation presents potentially nefarious third parties with opportunities to: (1) intercept the subject’s mail and fail to complete delivery of immigration records to the subject; and/or (2) acquire the subject’s personally identifiable information (PII) contained within the immigration records. Additionally, the field allows certain aliens to obscure their true address from immigration officials (which is expressly contrary to the intent of the form) and to potentially obstruct the adjudicatory process by intentionally avoiding the mailed notice. Immigration proceedings are obstructed and compromised by such conduct.
Furthermore, if court documents are intercepted, the subject is not appropriately informed of the status of proceedings or how the subject must comply with immigration procedures and orders. The subject cannot participate in the proceedings as needed for EOIR to expeditiously resolve the immigration case. Moreover, third parties may use the subject’s immigration records and PII for fraudulent and criminal purposes, such as harassment, identity theft, or document forgery. To address these public harms as well as the others referenced above, as soon as possible, EOIR requests emergency clearance to revise Form EOIR-33 to remove the “in care of” form fields. Such public harms are reasonably likely to continue if normal clearance procedures are followed. See 5 C.F.R. § 1320.13(a)(2)(i).”
The first concern is that the third party the respondent choses for the in care of address might not be trustworthy and may actually be nefarious individuals who will use the opportunity to commit fraud. It is strange to assume that a respondent would elect to send their mail to a nefarious individual but in the event that they did, the opportunities to commit fraud with a person’s immigration court hearing notice is rather limited. A nefarious party could intentionally withhold the mail from them but there isn’t much they could do beyond that. It certainly wouldn’t pose any harm to the public if a respondent missed a hearing notice because they trusted the wrong third party.
The government raises another concern that people might not receive their hearing notice at the care of address, which is a serious concern. However, it seems more likely that a respondent will not receive their notices if they are not allowed to use a care of address and must instead rely on constantly changing their mailing address or receiving mail at an address they know to be unreliable, as opposed to the address of their attorney or other trusted third party. If a respondent lives at an address where they have a history of undelivered mail or where many individuals have access to the mail they may wish to take the risk of sending their notices to a trusted third party.
Finally, they fail to even address an extremely important reason for the use of in care of addresses. Many of these respondents will be seeking asylum having escaped from brutal regimes, domestic violence, organized crime, and other potentially dangerous situations, in which they have a very valid reason for not wanting their physical address to be easily found by dangerous persons seeking to cause them harm. This is particularly true in the not uncommon circumstances of a victim of domestic violence who has separated from an abusive spouse while in the process of applying for permanent residency in the US and is now attempting to conceal their current whereabouts from their abusive spouse.
The government’s final concern is that the in care of line allows respondents to obscure their actual address from immigration officials but this is not true. A respondent would still need to provide the address where they physically reside on any applications for relief that they file with the court. Further, this issue could be avoided by simply adding a field for the respondent to list their physical address in addition to providing an in care of address.
Beyond all that, what made this an emergency?
Such public harms are reasonably likely to continue if normal clearance procedures are followed. See 5 C.F.R. § 1320.13(a)(2)(i). Under normal clearance procedures, the “in care of” fields will remain on the Form EOIR-33 for several additional months, affording greater opportunities for nefarious third parties to commit fraud and obstruct justice in immigration proceedings. To immediately prevent further perpetration of such crimes with serious adverse consequences, EOIR must cease collecting such information more quickly than the time to complete the normal clearance process would allow. See 5 C.F.R. § 1320.13(a)(1)(i).
Do with that what you will.
What will this cost the taxpayers?
At least $1,200,000.00. Great use of tax dollars.
It is estimated that the total annual government cost for distributing, stocking, processing, and maintaining the Form EOIR-33 will be $1,199,997. The total estimated cost to the federal government includes the estimated printing cost of $158,776, which is derived by multiplying the 2 pages of the Form EOIR-33 by an estimated $.10 per copy by the 793,879 pending immigration 10 cases with paper ROPs. The total estimated annual cost to the federal government also includes maintenance costs of $1,041,221, which is derived by calculating the personnel and overhead costs to EOIR for processing the form.
TLDR
This is dumb. It is a huge waste of tax money. It is designed to hurt respondents in removal proceedings. There definitely isn’t any reason why they needed to proceed under the emergency procedures and bypass the comment period and make the change take effect immediately.
If this was such an important issue then why did they wait a year and a half to address it. They aren’t trying to bypass the comment period indefinetely though like they have with some other rule changes they’ve made recently. This change will still go through the normal process with comments prior to the expiration of the emergency grant.
What’s Next?
On March 2, 2026, in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.13, EOIR requested and OMB granted emergency review and approval of this revision to the EOIR-33. The emergency approval expires on July 31, 2026. In compliance with the PRA, EOIR will request review under normal procedures before the expiration of OMB’s emergency approval on July 31, 2026. Public comment will be considered and incorporated into the submission under normal procedures. You can find more information on how to submit your comment at https://immpolicytracking.org/policies/doj-proposes-changes-to-form-eoir-33/#/tab-policy-documents.
See the full EMERGENCY REVIEW SUPPORTING STATEMENT below.