UNITED FARM WORKERS FOUNDATION

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 454 (BIA 2014) Interim Decision #3821
454
Matter of UNITED FARM WORKERS FOUNDATION,
Applicant
Request for Accreditation
Decided November 20, 2014
U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for Immigration Review
Board of Immigration Appeals
A recognized organization need only apply for its representative’s accreditation at one
location, and if approved, that representative may thereafter practice at any branch
location of the organization that has been recognized by the Board of Immigration
Appeals. Matter of EAC, Inc., 24 I&N Dec. 563 (BIA 2008), modified.
BEFORE: Board Panel: NEAL, Chairman; ADKINS-BLANCH, Vice Chairman;
HOLMES, Board Member.
NEAL, Chairman:
The United Farm Workers Foundation, an organization recognized by
the Board, has submitted multiple applications for partial accreditation for
Luis Guerra as its accredited representative at its offices in Bakersfield,
Fresno, Salinas, Los Angeles, and Phoenix under 8 C.F.R. § 1292.2(d)
(2014). The Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) has recommended
approval of accreditation.1 The requests will be approved.
The applicant is an established recognized organization with several
approved branch locations and seven accredited representatives. It serves
mostly farmworkers, whose employment tends to be seasonal and regional,
and the need for its low-cost legal services therefore fluctuates
geographically throughout the year. To efficiently serve its clientele, the
organization’s legal staff travels to its various locations in the agricultural
regions of California and Arizona.
In its application, the organization states that its proposed representative
will be adequately supervised and supported wherever he is situated.
1 The DHS recommended against approving accreditation at the Phoenix site based on
its misunderstanding that Luis Guerra submitted the request for partial accreditation on
his own behalf. Since the record reflects that the executive director of the organization
submitted applications for all office locations, we consider the adverse recommendation
regarding Phoenix to be inadvertent.

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 454 (BIA 2014) Interim Decision #3821
455
There will be a senior accredited representative available to the new
representative wherever he is located, and the proposed representative will
have the benefit of a weekly conference call in which the organization’s
senior accredited representatives review cases, answer questions, and
provide updates in immigration law and procedure. The proposed
representative will also have access to several electronic resources specific
to immigration law, including online materials from the United States
Citizenship and Immigration Services and the American Immigration
Lawyers Association, as well as telephonic access to legal advice from
a reputable nonprofit legal services provider.
Based on our review of the application and the materials submitted, we
are satisfied that the proposed representative appears to be a person of good
moral character and possesses the broad knowledge of immigration law and
procedure required to practice before the DHS. 8 C.F.R. § 1292.2(d);
see also Matter of Central California Legal Services, Inc., 26 I&N Dec.
105 (BIA 2013). Accordingly, the application for partial accreditation will
be approved.
The organization has requested that we accredit the proposed
representative at all five of its branches and has provided us with
five parallel applications for accreditation. The redundancy of these
applications presents us with an opportunity to reevaluate the need for
multiple accreditation applications.
When the Board grants recognition to an organization, our recognition is
location-specific. See Matter of Florida Rural Legal Services, Inc., 20 I&N
Dec. 639 (BIA 1993). We created the requirement that each branch office
must independently prove itself qualified for recognition to ensure that the
organization provides adequate legal representation at each branch office.
Id. at 640.
As a complement to that requirement, we adopted the practice of
treating accreditation of representatives as location-specific as well. Thus,
where a recognized organization has multiple approved branch offices, we
have required the organization to file separate applications for accreditation
of representatives for each approved location. See Matter of EAC, Inc.,
24 I&N Dec. 563, 565 (BIA 2008) (accreditation). As a result, where
organizations have more than one approved location, we receive multiple
virtually identical accreditation applications for the same representative.
The limited availability of pro bono legal services in the communities
that need them most makes recognized organizations and their accredited
representatives even more valuable than in the past. Matter of Ayuda,
26 I&N Dec. 449, 450 (BIA 2014). The need for representation has
increased, but the availability of trustworthy low-cost and no-cost legal
services has not kept pace with the demand. Id. We appreciate that

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 454 (BIA 2014) Interim Decision #3821
456
recognized organizations must therefore be flexible to manage and optimize
their limited resources to respond to the increasing need for competent
representation for low-income individuals.
While “per branch” accreditation applications may once have been
a logical extension of “per branch” recognition, we find it impractical to
require recognized organizations to file repetitive applications for
accreditation (and subsequent applications for renewal) for the same
individual. If an organization is recognized, we have already made the
determination that it provides adequate supervision and resources for its
representatives. If a representative is or has been accredited by the Board,
we have already determined that the individual has the requisite knowledge
to practice immigration law and is competent to provide legal
representation. Requiring duplicative applications and determinations
solely to allow recognized organizations to reassign accredited personnel
between recognized branch offices offers no meaningful benefit to the
public. The organization’s decision where to place the representative is
therefore not critical to our administration of the recognition and
accreditation process. In short, we see no need to continue our practice of
“per branch” accreditation.
Furthermore, organizations and the public will benefit from the
elimination of our “per branch” accreditation practice. At present, if a
recognized organization needs to reassign an accredited representative to a
different recognized branch for an emergent staffing reason (for example, in
response to attrition, separation, or increase in caseload), the organization
cannot simply transfer that representative to the branch. Rather, it has to
file a new application for accreditation—even though the adjudication is
largely redundant to the original application—and the receiving branch
must remain unstaffed or understaffed during the wait for a final
adjudication. With the elimination of “per branch” accreditation,
recognized organizations will be in a much better position to adapt to
seasonal and temporary needs, respond to staffing exigencies, and
otherwise reallocate personnel to maximize service delivery to their
low-income and indigent clientele.2
For these reasons, we modify Matter of EAC, Inc., 24 I&N Dec. 563, to
discontinue our practice of requiring multiple applications for the same
representative, and we will now allow a recognized organization to place
or relocate its accredited representatives at any location within that
organization’s network of recognized branches. In other words,
2 This change in practice will also lessen the paperwork and costs associated with
duplicative applications, and it will eliminate the unproductive need for recognized
organizations to monitor multiple expiration dates for the same accredited representative.

Cite as 26 I&N Dec. 454 (BIA 2014) Interim Decision #3821
457
a recognized organization need only apply for its representative’s
accreditation at one location, and if approved, that representative may
thereafter practice at any branch location of the organization that has been
recognized by the Board. 3 Accordingly, the requests for partial
accreditation of Luis Guerra will be approved, and he may practice at any
of the branch locations of the organization recognized by the Board.
ORDER: The application for partial accreditation of Luis Guerra to
represent individuals on behalf of the United Farm Workers Foundation is
approved.
NOTICE: Accreditation of the representative is only valid for a period
of 3 years from the date of this order. Accreditation remains valid pending
the Board’s consideration of an application for renewal of accreditation
only if the application is filed at least 60 days before the expiration
of accreditation. 8 C.F.R. § 1292.2(d); see also Matter of EAC, Inc.,
24 I&N Dec. at 565.
3 We still expect a recognized organization to furnish the same level of supervision to
its accredited representatives and provide them with access to adequate knowledge,
information, and experience wherever they may be located within the organization.
Matter of EAC, Inc., 24 I&N Dec. 556, 558−61 (BIA 2008) (recognition).