Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 149 / Monday, August 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

46788 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No.
149 / Monday, August 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND E. Effect on the Department of Justice’s 16. Form I–751, Petition To Remove
SECURITY Executive Office for Immigration Review Conditions on Residence
(EOIR) 17. Form I–765, Application for
8 CFR Parts 103, 106, 204, 211, 212, F. Effect of the COVID–19 Pandemic on the Employment Authorization
USCIS Fee Review and Rulemaking 18. Form I–817, Application for Family
214, 216, 217, 223, 235, 236, 240, 244, II. Background Unity Benefits
245, 245a, 248, 264, 274a, 286, 301, 319, A. History 19. Form I–821D, DACA Renewal Fee
320, 322, 324, 334, 341, 343a, 343b, and B. Authority and Guidance 20. Form I–829, Petition by Investor To
392 C. Basis for Fee Adjustments Remove Conditions on Permanent
D. Final Rule Resident Status
[CIS No. 2627–18; DHS Docket No. USCIS– III. Response to Public Comments on the 21. Form I–881, Application for
2019–0010] Proposed Rule Suspension of Deportation or Special
A. Summary of Public Comments Rule Cancellation of Removal (Pursuant
RIN 1615–AC18 B. Comments Expressing General Support to Section 203 of Public Law 105–100
for the NPRM (NACARA))
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration C. Comments Expressing General 22. Forms I–924, Application for
Opposition to the NPRM Regional Center Designation Under the
Services Fee Schedule and Changes to
1. Immigration Policy Concerns Immigrant Investor Program, and I–
Certain Other Immigration Benefit 2. Other General Opposition 924A, Annual Certification of Regional
Request Requirements 3. Proposed Fees Are Unconstitutional Center
4. Rule Will Have Negative Effects on 23. Form I–929, Petition for Qualifying
AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and Applicants Family Member of a U–1 Nonimmigrant
Immigration Services, DHS. 5. Rule Will Have Negative Effects on the 24. Form N–400, Application for
ACTION: Final rule. Economy and Employers Naturalization
6. Comments on the DACA Renewal Fee 25. Other Naturalization and Citizenship
SUMMARY: This final rule adjusts certain D. Comments on Legal Adequacy of the Forms
immigration and naturalization benefit Rule H. Comments on Changes to Form I–129,
request fees charged by U.S. Citizenship E. Comments on Fee Waivers Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker
and Immigration Services (USCIS). It 1. Limits on Eligible Immigration I. Premium Processing
Categories and Forms J. 9–11 Response and Biometric Entry-Exit
also removes certain fee exemptions, 2. Fee Waiver Income Requirements Fee for H–1B and L–1 Nonimmigrant
changes fee waiver requirements, alters 3. Means-Tested Benefits Workers (Pub. L. 114–113 Fees)
premium processing time limits, and 4. Public Charge Rule K. Comments on Other General Feedback
modifies intercountry adoption 5. Financial Hardship L. Cost Analysis and DHS Rationale for Fee
processing. USCIS conducted a 6. Public Charge Ground of Adjustments
comprehensive biennial fee review and Inadmissibility and Affidavit of Support 1. Workload Projections
determined that current fees do not Requirements 2. Completion Rates
7. Discretionary Fee Waivers 3. USCIS Staffing
recover the full cost of providing
8. Fee Waiver Documentation 4. Cost Baseline
adjudication and naturalization 9. Cost of Fee Waivers 5. Alternative Funding Sources
services. Therefore, the Department of 10. Changes to Form I–912, Request for M. ICE Transfer
Homeland Security (DHS) is adjusting Fee Waiver N. Processing Times and Backlogs
USCIS fees by a weighted average 11. Suggestions O. Fee Payment and Receipt Requirements
increase of 20 percent, adding new fees F. Comments on Fee Exemptions P. Fees Shared by CBP and USCIS
for certain immigration benefit requests, 1. EAD (Form I–765) Exemption Q. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
establishing multiple fees for 2. TPS Comment Responses
G. Comments on Specific Fees R. Statutory and Regulatory Responses
nonimmigrant worker petitions, and
1. Fees for Online Filing 1. General Comments on the Regulatory
limiting the number of beneficiaries for 2. Biometric Services Fee Impact Analysis
certain forms. This final rule is intended 3. Genealogy Fees, Forms G–1041, 2. Methodology Issues
to ensure that USCIS has the resources Genealogy Index Search Request, and G– 3. Other Comments on the Cost-Benefit
it needs to provide adequate service to 1041A, Genealogy Records Request Analysis
applicants and petitioners. 4. Form I–90, Application To Replace 4. Impacts on Lower-Income Individuals
DATES: This final rule is effective
Permanent Resident Card and Families
5. Form I–131, Application for Travel 5. Impacts on Immigrant Populations in
October 2, 2020. Any application, Document, Refugee Travel Documents Distinct Geographic Areas
petition, or request postmarked on or 6. Form I–131A, Application for Travel 6. Immigrants’ Access to Legal and
after this date must be accompanied Document (Carrier Documentation) Supportive Services
with the fees established by this final 7. Form I–192, Application for Advance 7. Impacts on Students From Low
rule. Permission To Enter as a Nonimmigrant Income Families
8. Form I–193, Application for Waiver of 8. Impacts on Victimized Groups and
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kika Passport and/or Visa Other Vulnerable Populations
Scott, Chief Financial Officer, U.S. 9. Form I–290B, Notice of Appeal or 9. Impacts to Industries That Use H–2A
Citizenship and Immigration Services, Motion Workers
Department of Homeland Security, 20 10. Form I–360, Petition for Amerasian, 10. Effects on Other Federal Agencies
Massachusetts Avenue NW, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant IV. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
Washington, DC 20529–2130, telephone 11. Form I–485, Application To Register A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory
(202) 272–8377. Permanent Residence or Adjust Status Planning and Review), Executive Order
12. Form I–526, Immigrant Petition by 13563 (Improving Regulation and
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with RULES2
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Alien Investor Regulatory Review), and Executive Order

Table of Contents 13. Form I–589, Application for Asylum 13771 (Reducing Regulation and
and Withholding of Removal Fee Controlling Regulatory Costs)
I. Executive Summary 14. Form I–600A/I–600 Supplement 3, B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action Request for Action on Approved Form I– 1. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
B. Legal Authority 600A/I–600 (FRFA)
C. Summary of the Final Rule Provisions 15. Form I–601A, Application for a. A Statement of Need for, and Objectives
D. Summary of Costs and Benefits Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver of, the Rule
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:56 Jul 31, 2020 Jkt 250001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03AUR2.SGM 03AUR2
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 149 / Monday, August 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations 46789
b. A statement of the Significant Issues DHS Department of Homeland Security SSI Supplemental Security Income
Raised by the Public Comments in DOJ Department of Justice Stat. U.S. Statutes at Large
Respone to the Initail Regulatory DOL Department of Labor STEM Science, Technology, Engineering,
Flexibility Analysis, a Statement of the DOS Department of State and Mathematics
Assessment of the Agency of Such EAD Employment Authorization Document TPS Temporary Protected Status
Issues, and a Statement of Any Changes EB–5 Employment-Based Immigrant Visa, TVPA Trafficking Victims Protection Act of
Made in the Proposed Rule as a Result Fifth Preference 2000
of Such Comments EIN Employer Identification Number TVPRA The William Wilberforce
c. The Response of the Agency to any E.O. Executive Order Trafficking Victims Protection
Comments Filed by the Chief Counsel for EOIR Executive Office for Immigration Reauthorization Act of 2008
Advocacy of the Small Business Review UAC Unaccompanied Alien Child
Administration in Response to the Rule, FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
and a Detailed Statement of Any Change FDMS Federal Docket Management System 1995
Made to the Final Rule as a Result of the FOIA Freedom of Information Act U.S.C. United States Code
Comments FPG Federal Poverty Guidelines USCIS U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
d. A Description of and an Estimate of the FR Federal Register Services
Number of Small Entities to Which the FRFA Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis VAWA Violence Against Women Act
Rule Will Apply or an Explanation of FVRA Federal Vacancies Reform Act VPC Volume Projection Committee
Why No Such Estimate is Available FY Fiscal Year
e. A Description of the Projected Reporting, GAO Government Accountability Office
I. Executive Summary
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance GDP Gross Domestic Product A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
Requirements of the Rule, Including an ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs
Estimate of the Classes of Small Entities Enforcement This final rule adjusts certain
That Will be Subject to the Requirement IEFA Immigration Examinations Fee immigration and naturalization benefit
and the Type of Professional Skills Account request fees charged by USCIS. It also
Necessary for Preparation of the Report IIRIRA Illegal Immigration Reform and makes changes related to setting,
or Record Immigrant Responsibility Act collecting, and administering fees. Fee
f. Description of the Steps the Agency Has INA Immigration and Nationality Act of schedule adjustments are necessary to
Taken To Minimize the Significant 1952 recover the full operating costs
Economic Impact on Small Entities INS Immigration and Naturalization Service
Consistent With the Stated Objectives of associated with administering the
IRS Internal Revenue Service
Applicable Statutes, Including a ISAF International Security Assistance
nation’s lawful immigration system and
Statement of Factual, Policy, and Legal Forces safeguarding its integrity and promise
Reasons for Selecting the Alternative IT information technology by efficiently and fairly adjudicating
Adopted in the Final Rule and Why Each LCA Labor Condition Application requests for immigration benefit, while
One of the Other Significant Alternatives LGBTQ Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, protecting Americans, securing the
to the Rule Considered by the Agency and questioning homeland, and honoring our values.
Which Affect the Impact on Small IOAA Independent Offices Appropriations This final rule also makes certain
Entities was Rejected Act
C. Congressional Review Act
adjustments to fee waiver eligibility,
LIFO Last In, First Out filing requirements for nonimmigrant
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act LPR Lawful Permanent Resident
E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) MOAs Memoranda of Agreement
workers, premium processing service,
F. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice MPP Migrant Protection Protocols and other administrative requirements.
Reform) NACARA Nicaraguan Adjustment and
G. Executive Order 13175 Consultation and
B. Legal Authority
Central American Relief Act
Coordination With Indian Tribal NAICS North American Industry DHS’s authority is in several statutory
Governments Classification System provisions. Section 102 of the
H. Family Assessment NARA National Archives and Records Homeland Security Act of 2002 (the
I. National Environmental Policy Act Administration Act),1 6 U.S.C. 112, and the Immigration
(NEPA) NEPA National Environmental Policy Act and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA)
J. Paperwork Reduction Act NOID Notice of Intent to Deny
K. Signature section 103, 8 U.S.C. 1103, charge the
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Secretary with the administration and
NRC National Record Center
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations enforcement of the immigration and
OIG DHS Office of the Inspector General
ABC Activity-Based Costing OIRA Office of Information and Regulatory naturalization laws of the United States.
the Act Homeland Security Act of 2002 Affairs Further, authority for establishing fees is
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act OMB Office of Management and Budget found in INA section 286(m), 8 U.S.C.
AOP Annual Operating Plan PA Privacy Act 1356(m) (authorizing DHS to charge fees
APA Administrative Procedure Act PII Personally Identifiable Information for adjudication and naturalization
ASVVP Administrative Site Visit and PRA Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 services at a level to ‘‘ensure recovery of
Verification Program PRC Permanent Resident Card the full costs of providing all such
ASC Application Support Center Privacy Act Privacy Act of 1974
services, including the costs of similar
BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics Pub. L. Public Law
CAA Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 RFE Request for Evidence services provided without charge to
CAT Convention Against Torture and Other RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act asylum applicants and other
Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis immigrants’’).2
or Punishment SAVE Systematic Alien Verification for
1 Public Law 107–296, 116 Stat. 2135, 2142–44
CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection Entitlements
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality SBA Small Business Administration (Nov. 25, 2002).
2 The longstanding interpretation of DHS is that
CFO Chief Financial Officer SCRD Signature Confirmation Restricted
CFR Code of Federal Regulations Delivery the ‘‘including’’ clause in INA section 286(m) does
not constrain DHS’s fee authority under the statute.
CNMI Commonwealth of the Northern Secretary The Secretary of Homeland The ‘‘including’’ clause offers only a non-
Mariana Islands Security exhaustive list of some of the costs that DHS may
CUNY City University of New York SIJ Special Immigrant Juvenile consider part of the full costs of providing
DACA Deferred Action for Childhood SNAP Supplemental Nutrition Assistance adjudication and naturalization services. See INA
Arrivals Program Continued
46790 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 149 / Monday, August 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
C. Summary of the Final Rule Provisions court or a state child welfare agency, • Clarifies the fee waiver request
DHS carefully considered the public may submit requests for fee waivers for documentation requirements for VAWA,
comments received. This final rule Form I–485 and associated forms; and T, and U requestors who may not have
adopts, with appropriate changes, the explains the documentation access to documentation of household
regulatory text proposed in the Notice of requirement for SIJs. New 8 CFR income. New 8 CFR 106.3(f)(5).
106.3(a)(2)(i) and (a)(3).
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
• Provides that an Afghan or Iraqi • Provides that the fee for forms
published in the Federal Register on currently available for online filing with
November 14, 2019. See U.S. Interpreter, an Iraqi National employed
by or on behalf of the U.S. Government, USCIS and filed online will be $10
Citizenship and Immigration Services lower than the fee for the same paper
Fee Schedule and Changes to Certain or an Afghan National employed by the
U.S. Government or the International forms. New 8 CFR 106.2(d).
Other Immigration Benefit Request
Requirements; Proposed rule, 84 FR Security Assistance Forces (ISAF) may • Requires a separate $30 biometric
62280. This final rule also relies on all submit requests for fee waivers for Form services fee for Form I–765 filed by
the justifications articulated in the I–485 and associated forms.3 New 8 CFR pending asylum applicants and
NPRM, except as reflected below. 106.3(a)(2)(ii). applicants for status as a long-term
This final rule makes the following • Provides that requestors who meet resident from the Commonwealth of the
changes as compared to the NPRM: the requirements of INA section Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). New
• Does not provide for the transfer of 245(l)(7), 8 U.S.C. 1255(l)(7) may also 8 CFR 106.2(a)(32)(i).
Immigration Examinations Fee Account request a fee waiver for the Forms N–
400, N–600, and N–600K. New 8 CFR • Separates fee exemptions for Form
(IEFA) funds collected by USCIS to U.S. I–765 for renewal or replacement of an
Immigration and Customs Enforcement 106.3(a)(3).
• Also provides that SIJs who are Employment Authorization Document
(ICE). 84 FR 62287; ‘‘U.S. Citizenship and clarifies the provisions related to
placed in out-of-home care under the
and Immigration Services Fee Schedule VAWA self-petitioners who are eligible
supervision of a juvenile court or a state
and Changes to Certain Other
child welfare agency and Afghan or for a fee exemption. New 8 CFR
Immigration Benefit Request
Iraqi Interpreter, or Iraqi National 106.2(a)(32).
Requirements,’’ Proposed Rule;
employed by or on behalf of the U.S. • Incorporates a $10 fee for the
Extension of Comment Period;
Government or Afghan National registration requirement for petitioners
Availability of Supplemental
employed by the U.S. Government or seeking to file H–1B petitions on behalf
Information, 84 FR 67243 (Dec. 9, 2019).
ISAF may submit requests for fee
• Removes the proposed fee ($275) of cap-subject aliens. See old 8 CFR
waivers for Forms N–400, N–600, and
for Form I–821D, Consideration of 103.7(b)(1)(i)(NNN), 84 FR 60307 (Nov.
N–600K. New 8 CFR 106.3(a)(2)(i) and
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, 8, 2019); new 8 CFR 106.2(c)(11). The
(a)(3).
filed for renewal of Deferred Action for • Clarifies that the Violence Against final regulation at 8 CFR 103.2(a)(1) also
Childhood Arrivals (DACA). 84 FR Women Act (VAWA) self-petitioner clarifies that all USCIS fees are generally
62320, 62362; proposed and new 8 CFR classification includes individuals who non-refundable, regardless of whether
106.2(a)(38). meet the requirements of INA section they apply to a benefit request, another
• Reassigns National Record Center adjudication and naturalization service,
101(a)(51) and anyone otherwise self-
(NRC) costs that do not directly apply to or other requests such as H–1B
petitioning due to battery or extreme
the genealogy program, thereby setting cruelty pursuant to the procedures in Registration, DACA, Civil Surgeon
genealogy fees lower than proposed. 84 INA section 204(a) See new 8 CFR Designation, and Genealogy requests.
FR 62315, 62316, 62362; proposed 8 106.3(a)(1)(i).
CFR 106.2(c)(1) and (2); new 8 CFR • Updates 8 CFR 244.6(b) to clarify
• Consolidates the Director’s the Temporary Protected Status (TPS)
106.2(c)(1) and (2). discretionary provision on fee waivers
• Realigns $10 million of anticipated to remove redundancy. See proposed 8
related fee provisions in accordance
IEFA costs for the Office of Citizenship with the NPRM. See 84 FR 62301
CFR 106.3(b) and (c); 84 FR 62363
to account for citizenship grants (stating that the rule proposed to remove
(containing the text that is being
appropriations received via the FY the Form I–765 fee exemption for
consolidated). New 8 CFR 106.3(b).
2019—2020 DHS appropriation bills. • Moves proposed 8 CFR 106.3(d)(1) Temporary Protected Status if the
See Consolidated Appropriations Act, and (d)(2) (not permitting a fee waiver individual is filing an initial TPS
2019, Public Law 116–6, div. A, tit. IV for a requestor who is subject to the application and is under 14 years of age
(Feb. 15, 2019) and Consolidated affidavit of support, already a sponsored or over 65 years of age).
Appropriations Act, 2020, Public Law immigrant, or subject to the public • DHS will maintain the DACA
116–93, div. D, tit. IV (Dec. 20, 2019). charge inadmissibility ground) to 8 CFR policy fees as in effect before September
• Provides a $50 reduction in the fee 106.3(b)(1) and (b)(2) (governing waivers 5, 2017, at $410 for employment
for Form I–485, Application to Register provided by the USCIS Director), authorization and $85 for biometric
Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, because an affidavit of support and the
filed in the future for principal services. New 8 CFR 106.2(a)(32)(vi).
public charge inadmissibility ground are
applicants who pay the $50 fee for Form not applicable to applicants who are • Makes other minor non-substantive
I–589 and are subsequently granted otherwise eligible for fee waivers in this and clarifying changes.
asylum. New 8 CFR 106.2(a)(17)(ii). rule). New 8 CFR 106.3(b). DHS summarizes the final fees in
• Provides that petitioners for and Table 1. The table excludes fees
recipients of Special Immigrant Juvenile 3 As described in section 1059(a)(2) of the

established and required by statute and
(SIJ) classification who, at the time of National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year those that DHS cannot adjust. The table
filing, have been placed in out-of-home 2006 Public Law 109–163 (Jan. 6, 2006) as
amended; section 602(b) of the Afghan Allies only calculates the change in the current
care under the supervision of a juvenile Protection Act of 2009, Public Law 111–8, title VI fee. If an applicant, petitioner, or
(Mar. 11, 2009), as amended, 8 U.S.C. 1101 note; requestor must file additional forms as
section 286(m), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m); 84 FR 23930, and section 1244(g) of the National Defense
23932 n.1 (May 23, 2019); 81 FR 26903, 26906 n.10 Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, as amended a result of policy changes in this rule,
(May 4, 2016). Public Law 110–181 (Jan. 28, 2008). then the individual changes to a single
fee may not represent the total change

in fees for every circumstance.
TABLE 1—NON-STATUTORY IEFA IMMIGRATION BENEFIT REQUEST FEES

Current fee Final fee Change Percentage
Immigration benefit request $ $ ($) change
I–90 Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card (online filing) ............ 455 405 ¥50 ¥11
I–90 Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card (paper filing) ............ 455 415 ¥40 ¥9
I–102 Application for Replacement/Initial Nonimmigrant Arrival-Departure
Document ..................................................................................................... 445 485 40 9
I–129 Petition for a Nonimmigrant worker ....................................................... 460 N/A N/A N/A
I–129CW, I–129E&TN, and I–129MISC ................................................... 460 695 235 51
I–129H1 .................................................................................................... 460 555 95 21
I–129H2A—Named Beneficiaries ............................................................. 460 850 390 85
I–129H2B—Named Beneficiaries ............................................................. 460 715 255 55
I–129L ....................................................................................................... 460 805 345 75
I–129O ...................................................................................................... 460 705 245 53
I–129H2A—Unnamed Beneficiaries ......................................................... 460 415 ¥45 ¥10
I–129H2B—Unnamed Beneficiaries ......................................................... 460 385 ¥75 ¥16
I–129F Petition for Alien Fiancé(e) .................................................................. 535 510 ¥25 ¥5
I–130 Petition for Alien Relative (online filing) ................................................ 535 550 15 3
I–130 Petition for Alien Relative (paper filing) ................................................. 535 560 25 5
I–131 Application for Travel Document ........................................................... 575 590 15 3
I–131 Refugee Travel Document for an individual age 16 or older ................ 135 145 10 7
I–131 Refugee Travel Document for a child under the age of 16 .................. 105 115 10 10
I–131A Application for Travel Document (Carrier Documentation) ................. 575 1,010 435 76
I–140 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker ...................................................... 700 555 ¥145 ¥21
I–191 Application for Relief Under Former Section 212(c) of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (INA) ............................................................................. 930 790 ¥140 ¥15
I–192 Application for Advance Permission to Enter as Nonimmigrant
(CBP) 4 .......................................................................................................... 585 1,400 815 139
I–192 Application for Advance Permission to Enter as Nonimmigrant
(USCIS) ........................................................................................................ 930 1,400 470 51
I–193 Application for Waiver of Passport and/or Visa .................................... 585 2,790 2,205 377
I–212 Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission into the U.S.
After Deportation or Removal ...................................................................... 930 1,050 120 13
I–290B Notice of Appeal or Motion ................................................................. 675 700 25 4
I–360 Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant ..................... 435 450 15 3
I–485 Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status 5 ........ 1,140 1,130 ¥10 ¥1
750 1,130 380 51
I–526 Immigrant Petition by Alien Investor ...................................................... 3,675 4,010 335 9
I–539 Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status (online filing) ...... 370 390 20 5
I–539 Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status (paper filing) ....... 370 400 30 8
I–589 Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal ....................... 0 50 50 N/A
I–600/600A Adoption Petitions and Applications ............................................ 775 805 30 4
I–600A Supplement 3 Request for Action on Approved Form I–600A ........... N/A 400 N/A N/A
I–601 Application for Waiver of Ground of Excludability ................................. 930 1,010 80 9
I–601A Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver ............................................... 630 960 330 52
I–612 Application for Waiver of the Foreign Residence Requirement (Under
Section 212(e) of the INA, as Amended) .................................................... 930 515 ¥415 ¥45
I–687 Application for Status as a Temporary Resident .................................. 1,130 1,130 0 0
I–690 Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility ............................. 715 765 50 7
I–694 Notice of Appeal of Decision- ................................................................ 890 715 ¥175 ¥20
I–698 Application to Adjust Status from Temporary to Permanent Resident
(Under Section 245A of the INA) ................................................................. 1,670 1,615 ¥55 ¥3
I–751 Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence ....................................... 595 760 165 28
I–765 Application for Employment Authorization (Non-DACA) ....................... 410 550 140 34
I–765 Application for Employment Authorization (DACA only) 6 ..................... 410 410 0 0
I–800/800A Adoption Petitions and Applications ............................................ 775 805 30 4
I–800A Supplement 3 Request for Action on Approved Form I–800A ........... 385 400 15 4
I–817 Application for Family Unity Benefits ..................................................... 600 590 ¥10 ¥2
I–824 Application for Action on an Approved Application or Petition ............. 465 495 30 6
I–829 Petition by Investor to Remove Conditions ........................................... 3,750 3,900 150 4
I–881 Application for Suspension of Deportation or Special Rule Cancella-
tion of Removal 7 .......................................................................................... 285 1,810 1,525 535
570 1,810 1,240 218
I–910 Application for Civil Surgeon Designation ............................................. 785 635 ¥150 ¥19
I–924 Application For Regional Center Designation Under the Immigrant In-
vestor Program ............................................................................................. 17,795 17,795 0 0
I–924A Annual Certification of Regional Center .............................................. 3,035 4,465 1,430 47
I–929 Petition for Qualifying Family Member of a U–1 Nonimmigrant ........... 230 1,485 1,255 546
N–300 Application to File Declaration of Intention .......................................... 270 1,305 1,035 383
N–336 Request for Hearing on a Decision in Naturalization Proceedings
(online filing) ................................................................................................. 700 1,725 1,025 146
TABLE 1—NON-STATUTORY IEFA IMMIGRATION BENEFIT REQUEST FEES—Continued

Current fee Final fee Change Percentage
Immigration benefit request $ $ ($) change
N–336 Request for Hearing on a Decision in Naturalization Proceedings

(paper filing) ................................................................................................. 700 1,735 1,035 148
N–400 Application for Naturalization (online filing) ......................................... 640 1,160 520 81
N–400 Application for Naturalization (paper filing)8 ........................................ 640 1,170 530 83
320 1,170 850 226
N–470 Application to Preserve Residence for Naturalization Purposes ......... 355 1,585 1,230 346
N–565 Application for Replacement Naturalization/Citizenship Document
(online filing) ................................................................................................. 555 535 ¥20 ¥4
N–565 Application for Replacement Naturalization/Citizenship Document
(paper filing) ................................................................................................. 555 545 ¥10 ¥2
N–600 Application for Certificate of Citizenship (online filing) ........................ 1,170 990 ¥180 ¥15
N–600 Application for Certificate of Citizenship (paper filing) ......................... 1,170 1,000 ¥170 ¥15
N–600K Application for Citizenship and Issuance of Certificate (online filing) 1,170 935 ¥235 ¥20
N–600K Application for Citizenship and Issuance of Certificate (paper filing) 1,170 945 ¥225 ¥19
USCIS Immigrant Fee ..................................................................................... 220 190 ¥30 ¥14
Biometric Services (Non¥DACA) 9 ................................................................. 85 30 ¥55 ¥65
Biometric Services (DACA only) 10 .................................................................. 85 85 0 0
G–1041 Genealogy Index Search Request (online filing) ............................... 65 160 95 146
G–1041 Genealogy Index Search Request (paper filing) ............................... 65 170 105 162
G–1041A Genealogy Records Request (online filing) .................................... 65 255 190 292
G–1041A Genealogy Records Request (paper filing) ..................................... 65 265 200 308
and benefits of available alternatives, it does not provide for the proposed
and if regulation is necessary, to select transfer of any Immigration Examination
D. Summary of Costs and Benefits
regulatory approaches that maximize Fee Account (IEFA) funds collected by
Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and net benefits (including potential USCIS to ICE; 13 it reassigns the
13563 direct agencies to assess the costs economic, environmental, public health proposed National Record Center (NRC)
and safety effects, distributive impacts, costs that do not directly apply to the
4 Because the FY 2016/2017 fee review and
and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the genealogy program, thereby setting
resulting fee change were based on USCIS’s costs
for processing inadmissibility waivers and not importance of quantifying both costs genealogy fees lower than proposed; 14
CBP’s costs, the Form I–192 fee remained $585 and benefits, of reducing costs, of and it now allows for a $10 reduction
when filed with and processed by CBP. See 8 CFR harmonizing rules, and of promoting in filing fee for applicants who file
103.7(b)(1)(i)(P); 81 FR 73307. online for forms that are electronically
5 Currently, there are two fees for Form I–485. See
flexibility. This rulemaking has been
8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(U). The $750 fee is applied to designated an ‘‘economically significant available by USCIS rather than submit
‘‘an applicant under the age of 14 years when [the regulatory action’’ under section 3(f)(1) paper applications.15
application] is (i) submitted concurrently with the of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, it has been The fee schedule that went into effect
Form I–485 of a parent, (ii) the applicant is seeking on December 23, 2016 was expected to
to adjust status as a derivative of his or her parent, reviewed by the Office of Management
and (iii) the child’s application is based on a and Budget (OMB). E.O. 13771 directs yield approximately $3.4 billion of
relationship to the same individual who is the basis agencies to reduce regulation and average annual revenue during the FY
for the child’s parent’s adjustment of status, or control regulatory costs. Because the 2019/2020 biennial period. This
under the same legal authority as the parent.’’ See
84 FR 62305. With this rule, DHS removes the estimated impacts range from costs to represents a $0.9 billion, or 36 percent,
reduced child fee. See section III.G.11.b. Form I– cost savings, this final rule is considered increase from the FY 2016/2017 fee rule
485 Child Fee. Additionally, DHS adds a $1,080 fee neither regulatory or deregulatory under projection of $2.5 billion. See 81 FR
for certain asylum applicants. See section III.G.11.c. 26911. The projected revenue increase
Form I–485 Reduced Fee for Asylees and new 8
E.O. 13771. Details on the estimated
CFR 106.2(a)(17)(ii). impacts of this final rule can be found is due to higher fees as a result of the
6 DHS will maintain the DACA fees at $410 for in the rule’s economic analysis, section FY 2016/2017 fee rule and more
employment authorization and $85 for biometric 2. anticipated fee-paying receipts. The FY
services. See section III.C.6. Comments on DACA 2016/2017 fee rule forecasted
Renewal Fee of this preamble; new 8 CFR This final rule adjusts certain
106.2(a)(32)(vi). immigration and naturalization benefit approximately 5.9 million total
7 Currently there are two USCISs fees for Form I–
request fees charged by U.S. Citizenship workload receipts and 4.9 million fee-
881: $285 for individuals and $570 for families. See
and Immigration Services (USCIS). It paying receipts, excluding biometric
8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(QQ)(1). EOIR has a separate services. See 81 FR 26923–4. However,
$165 fee. DHS does not change the EOIR fee with also removes certain fee exemptions,
this rule. changes fee waiver requirements,11 the FY 2019/2020 fee review forecasts
8 Currently, there are two fees for paper filing of
alters premium processing time limits, approximately 8.5 million total
Form N–400. See 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(BBB). This
and modifies intercountry adoption workload receipts and 7.0 million fee-
final rule eliminates the reduced fee option for an paying receipts, excluding biometric
applicant whose documented income is greater than processing. This final rule removes the
150 percent and not more than 200 percent of the proposed fee that was introduced in the
13 84 FR 62287, 84 FR 67243. This final rule does

Federal poverty level. See section III.G.24.c of this NPRM of this rule for Form I–821D; 12
final rule or 84 FR 62317 for the proposed rule. not transfer funds to ICE. Therefore, DHS removes
9 As explained in this preamble and NPRM, this $207.6 million for ICE from its cost baseline,
rule only requires the separate biometric services 11 Also, in this final rule DHS Consolidates the resulting in lower fees than if DHS pursued the
fee in certain cases. See section III.G.2. Biometric Director’s discretionary provision on fee waivers to transfer of funds.
Services Fee of this preamble; 84 FR 62302; new 8 remove redundancy. 84 FR 62363. Proposed and 14 84 FR 62315, 62316, 62362; proposed and new
CFR 103.7(a)(2), 106.2(a)(32)(i), and new 8 CFR 106.3. 8 CFR 106.2(c)(1)–(c)(2); new 8 CFR 106.2(c)(1)–
106.2(a)(37)(iii). 12 84 FR 62320, 62362; proposed and new 8 CFR (c)(2).
10 See footnote 6. 106.2(a)(2)(38). 15 New 8 CFR 106.2(d).
services. This represents a 44 percent those EOIR applications, appeals, and absorb that large of a revenue loss and
increase to workload and a 43 percent motions that are subject to an EOIR- have enough funding to sustain
increase to fee-paying receipt determined fee, based on a fee review operations at the same level as prior to
assumptions.16 conducted by EOIR. 85 FR 11866 (Feb. the pandemic. Therefore, DHS has
For the 10-year implementation 28, 2020). EOIR also stated that its provided technical assistance
period of the rule, DHS estimates the proposed rule would not affect the fees identifying for Congress USCIS funding
annualized costs of the rule to be that have been established by DHS with needs to help cover payroll and other
$13,856,291, annualized at either 3- and respect to DHS forms for applications fixed costs in FY 2020 ($571 million)
7-percent discount rates. DHS estimates that are filed or submitted in EOIR and to have enough carryover ($650
the annualized cost savings to be proceedings. Id. at 11871. DOJ did not million) available during the first
$6,192,201 to $22,546,053. DHS propose any revisions to 8 CFR quarter of FY 2021 to continue
estimates the annualized net societal 1103.7(b)(4)(ii) in its rule that would operations while new fees continue to
costs and savings of the rule to range change its longstanding use of DHS be collected. The additional revenue
from costs of $7,664,090 to savings of forms and fees. Rather, EOIR proposed provided by this rule addresses the
$8,689,762. Over the 10-year to revise its regulations to make changes difference between the costs of USCIS
implementation period of the rule, DHS conforming to the DHS NPRM, namely operations and USCIS revenue for the
estimates the annualized transfers to the the transfer of DHS’s fee schedule from biennial period as projected at the time
government from applicants/petitioners 8 CFR 103.7 to the new 8 CFR part 106. of the USCIS fee review. The amount of
to be $551,842,481, annualized at either Id. Consequently, in immigration court funding identified in DHS’s technical
3- and 7-percent discount rates. Over proceedings, EOIR will continue to assistance to Congress would restore
the same 10-year implementation period charge fees established by DHS for DHS USCIS’ financial situation to its pre-rule
of the rule, DHS estimates the forms, including the fees that DHS is status and would not obviate the need
annualized transfers of the rule between establishing in this final rule, which for DHS to adjust USCIS’ fees to address
different groups of fee-paying applicants include but are not limited to the fees the projected disparity between costs
and/or petitioners to specific form for Form I–485, Application to Register and revenue identified in this rule.
populations is $832,239,426, annualized Permanent Residence or Adjust Status; DHS makes no changes in this rule in
at either 3- and 7-percent discount rates. Form I–589, Application for Asylum response to the pandemic. USCIS
The final revenue increase is based on and Withholding of Removal Fee; 17 and considers all available data at the time
USCIS costs and volume projections Form I–601, Application for Waiver of it conducts its fee review. USCIS
available at the time of the USCIS fee Grounds of Inadmissibility. conducted most of the FY 2019/2020 fee
review. A full analysis of these review in FY 2017, before the
F. Effect of the COVID–19 Pandemic on
regulatory provisions and their impacts emergence of the pandemic. At that
the USCIS Fee Review and Rulemaking
can be found in the stand-alone time, USCIS did not foresee, and could
Regulatory Impact Analysis found in the DHS acknowledges the broad effects not reasonably have foreseen, the effects
docket of this rulemaking and in the of the COVID–19 international of such a pandemic on USCIS receipt,
statutory and regulatory requirements pandemic on the United States broadly revenue, or cost projections during the
section of this preamble. and the populations affected by this FY 2019/2020 biennial period, and we
rule. USCIS has seen a dramatic decline cannot project the effects at this time.
E. Effect on the Department of Justice’s in applications and petitions during the
Executive Office for Immigration Review The projections in this rule were based
COVID–19 pandemic which has also on conventional conditions, and with
(EOIR) resulted in an unprecedented decline in no way of knowing or being able to
DHS notes possible ancillary effects of revenue. DHS has no comparable predict the long-term effects of COVID–
this final rule on the fees charged by the historical data that can be used to 19 at this point, DHS must assume that
Executive Office for Immigration project the scope, duration, and total filing volumes will return to near
Review (EOIR). In the NPRM, DHS effect this will have on USCIS’ revenue. previous levels within a reasonable
proposed a fee for a Form I–589 filed As a result, USCIS is monitoring its period. Thus, DHS proceeds with this
with DHS only. Whether the fee also revenue collections daily. In April 2020, rulemaking on the basis of the FY 2019/
will apply to a Form I–589 filed with USCIS projected that USCIS’ non- 2020 USCIS fee review and associated
EOIR is a matter within the jurisdiction premium revenue for April 2020 projections. Consistent with past
of the Department of Justice (DOJ) rather through September 2020 would fall practice and as required by the CFO Act,
than DHS, subject to the laws and approximately 59 percent below USCIS’ USCIS will evaluate all available data at
regulations governing the fees charged initial FY 2020 annual operating plan the time it conducts future fee reviews,
in EOIR immigration proceedings. 84 FR revenue projection based on the
including data related to the COVID–19
62318. DHS does not directly set any dramatic reduction in fees received
pandemic and any potential effects on
fees for DOJ. DHS did not collaborate during the pandemic. The projections
USCIS workload volumes, revenue, or
with DOJ to calculate or incorporate the show that USCIS would receive $1.1
costs. DHS will consider these effects in
costs for DOJ adjudication and billion less in non-premium revenue in
future fee rules.
naturalization services into the USCIS the second half of the fiscal year than
Activity-Based Costing (ABC) model previously forecast.18 USCIS cannot II. Background
used for this final rule. After the NPRM A. History
17 No fee would apply where an applicant
was published, DOJ published a rule
submits a Form I–589 for the sole purpose of On November 14, 2019, DHS
that proposed to increase the fees for seeking withholding of removal under INA section published a proposed rule in the
241(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3), or protection from
16 See FY 2019/2020 Immigration Examinations removal under the regulations implementing U.S. Federal Register (docket USCIS–2019–
Fee Account Fee Review Supporting obligations under Article 3 of the Convention
Documentation with Addendum, which is part of Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or observed receipt patterns for each form during the
the docket for this final rule. DHS revised the Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). See 85 pandemic. The annual operating plan revenue
volumes to exclude DACA and change fee-paying FR 11871. projections are not the same as the fee rule revenue
assumptions for Forms N–400, N–600, and N–600K, 18 In April 2020, USCIS revised its internal projections, and revisions to them do not adjust the
as discussed later in this preamble. annual operating plan revenue projections based on results of the USCIS fee review.
0010). See 84 FR 62280. In budget process, and federal accounting requests appropriations to offset a
consideration of requests to extend the principles. See OMB Circular A–25, 58 portion of IEFA costs.22
comment period and to provide FR 38142 (July 15, 1993) (establishing Finally, this final rule accounts for,
additional time for the public to review federal policy guidance regarding fees and is consistent with, congressional
supplemental information, on December assessed by federal agencies for appropriations for specific USCIS
9, 2019, DHS published a proposed rule; government services); 19 Federal programs. See Consolidated
extension of comment period; Accounting Standards Advisory Board Appropriations Act, 2019, Public Law
availability of supplemental Handbook, Version 17 (06/19), 116–6, div. A, tit. IV (Feb. 15, 2019) and
information; and extended the comment Statement of Federal Financial Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020,
deadline from December 16, 2019 Accounting Standards 4: Managerial Public Law 116–93, div. D, tit. IV (Dec.
through December 30, 2019. 84 FR Cost Accounting Standards and 20, 2019).
67243 (Dec. 9, 2019). Then on January Concepts, SFFAS 4 (generally C. Basis for Fee Adjustments
24, 2020, DHS further extended the describing cost accounting concepts and
comment period until February 10, DHS conducted a comprehensive fee
standards, and defining ‘‘full cost’’ to
2020. See 85 FR 4243 (Jan. 24, 2020). In review for the FY 2019/FY 2020
mean the sum of direct and indirect
addition, DHS announced that it would biennial period. It identified a projected
costs that contribute to the output,
consider comments received during the average annual cost and revenue
including the costs of supporting differential of $1,262.3 million between
entire public comment period,
services provided by other segments and the revenue anticipated under current
including comments received since
entities.); id. at 49–66 (identifying fees and the anticipated full cost of
December 30, 2019. Id. In this final rule,
DHS will refer to these three documents various classifications of costs to be providing immigration adjudication and
collectively as the proposed rule or included and recommending various naturalization services. DHS revises the
NPRM. methods of cost assignment); 20 see also estimated cost and revenue differential
OMB Circular A–11, Preparation, to $1,035.9 million in this final rule. In
B. Authority and Guidance Submission, and Execution of the the final rule, DHS has removed $226.4
DHS issues this final rule consistent Budget, section 20.7(d), (g) (June 29, million of average annual estimated
with INA section 286(m), 8 U.S.C. 2018) (providing guidance on the FY costs related to the immigration
1356(m) and the Chief Financial 2020 budget and instructions on budget adjudication and naturalization services
Officers (CFO) Act, 31 U.S.C. 901–03 execution, offsetting collections, and provided by ICE and the Deferred
(requiring each agency’s CFO to review, user fees).21 DHS uses OMB Circular A– Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA)
on a biennial basis, the fees imposed by 25 as general policy guidance for policy from the budget projection used
the agency for services it provides and determining user fees for immigration to calculate the fees in the NPRM. DHS
to recommend changes to the agency’s benefit requests, with exceptions as issues this final rule to adjust USCIS’ fee
fees). outlined in section III.B. of the schedule to recover the full cost of
This final rule is also consistent with preamble. DHS also follows the annual providing immigration adjudication and
non-statutory guidance on fees, the guidance in OMB Circular A–11 if it naturalization services.
TABLE 2—REVISED IEFA NON-PREMIUM COST AND REVENUE PROJECTIONS COMPARISON

IEFA Non-Premium Cost and Revenue Projections Comparison
FY 2019/2020 av-
Comparison FY 2019 FY 2020 erage
Non-Premium Revenue ............................................................................................. $3,408,233,376 $3,408,233,376 $3,408,233,376

Non-Premium Budget ................................................................................................ $4,331,978,119 $4,556,386,463 $4,444,182,291
Difference ........................................................................................................... ($923,744,743) ($1,148,153,087) ($1,035,948,915)
D. Final Rule supporting documents may be reviewed USCIS–2019–0010 in response to the

at the Federal Docket Management NPRM.23 DHS reviewed all the public
Following careful consideration of System (FDMS) at http:// comments received in response to the
public comments received, DHS made www.regulations.gov, docket number NPRM and addresses relevant
modifications to the NPRM’s regulatory USCIS–2019–0010. comments in this final rule, grouped by
text, as described above. Rationale subject area. The majority of comment
provided in the background section of III. Response to Public Comments on submissions were from individual and
the NPRM remains valid, except as the Proposed Rule anonymous commenters. Other
described in this regulatory preamble. A. Summary of Public Comments commenters included healthcare
Section III of this preamble includes a providers; research institutes and
detailed summary and analysis of the DHS received a total of 43,108 public universities; law firms and individual
public comments. Comments and comment submissions in Docket attorneys; federal, state, local, and tribal
19 Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp- 22 OMB Circulars A–25 and A–11 provide www.regulations.gov. The other 30,994 submissions
content/uploads/2017/11/Circular-025.pdf (last nonbinding internal Executive Branch direction for were designated ‘‘inactive—do not post’’ and
viewed 03/06/2020). the development of fee schedules under the included form copies, duplicates, and non-germane
20 Available at http://files.fasab.gov/pdffiles/ Independent Offices Appropriations Act (IOAA) submissions.
handbook_sffas_4.pdf (last viewed 03/06/2020). and appropriations requests, respectively. See 5
21 Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp- CFR 1310.1.
content/uploads/2018/06/a11_2018.pdf (last 23 Of the 43,108 public comment submissions
viewed 03/06/2020). received, 12,114 were posted to
elected officials; state and local • The fees would especially affect • The proposal would increase
government agencies; religious and people of color; the rule implements predatory and fraudulent immigration
community organizations; advocacy and displays the racial animus that services scams and USCIS will need to
groups; unions; as well as trade and officials have expressed, is designed to enhance its efforts to combat these
business organizations. While some keep non-white immigrants out of the harmful practices.
commenters wrote that they supported U.S., limits people of color from • The proposal would negatively
the NPRM, the vast majority of becoming lawful permanent residents or impact familial integrity and family
commenters opposed all or part of it. U.S. citizens, and would have a negative unity and would increase the financial
effect on the Latin population. strain on immigrants’ household
B. Comments Expressing General • The rule is cruel, inhumane, resources that would be better spent on
Support for the NPRM nationalistic, fascist, racist, xenophobic, improving the family’s welfare.
Comment: Several commenters intended to limit voting rights to the • The proposal, along with the
expressed general support for the wealthy, and deter green card holders previous public charge rule,
NPRM. Most did not state precise from seeking citizenship. demonstrates DHS’ ‘‘animus towards
reasons for their support. Examples of • The fee increases will create low-income immigrants seeking family
the rationale for some of the generally financial hardships for low-income unity’’ and urged the agency to instead
supportive comments include: Fees are immigrants and the increased cost of facilitate family unity regardless of
a small price to pay for the benefits of renewing residency cards would make it immigrants’ finances.
immigration; the burden of immigration more difficult for immigrants to obtain • The proposal would create an
should fall on the applicants and not on employment or provide proof of their ‘‘invisible wall’’ that would block many
U.S. taxpayers; the fees will discourage immigration status. hard-working noncitizens from
fraudulent immigration; USCIS must • Low income immigrants will be accessing immigration benefits and
have funds to operate; and the rule forced to choose between providing for would cause long-term family
would benefit the U.S. government. A basic needs and pursuing immigration separation.
few commenters suggested that fees benefits. Response: DHS proposed adjustments
should be even higher than DHS • The fee increase is an attack on the to USCIS’ fee schedule to ensure full
proposed. One commenter generally immigrant and refugee communities cost recovery. DHS did not target any
supported the proposal and wrote that who already face discrimination, particular group or class of individuals,
the methodology used in the biennial language barriers, lack of services, or propose changes with the intent to
fee review was accurate and fully poverty, marginalization, persecution, deter requests from low-income
compliant with statutory requirements trauma, and fear. immigrants seeking family unity or
set forth at INA sections 286(m) and (n), • High fees could result in healthcare deterring requests from any immigrants
8 U.S.C. 1356(m), (n). This commenter avoidance and other negative impacts based on their financial or family
said the fee review was also compliant on foreign-born individuals, as well as situation or to block individuals from
with OMB and Federal Accounting their U.S. citizen family members. accessing immigrant benefits. With
Standards Board standards for • The rule would harm LGBTQ or limited exceptions as noted in the
budgeting and financial management. HIV positive noncitizens. NPRM and this final rule, DHS
Response: DHS appreciates that some • The rule’s adverse and disparate establishes its fees at the level estimated
commenters support the NPRM. impact on immigrants of color renders to represent the full cost of providing
However, it has not separately the proposed rule arbitrary and adjudication and naturalization
summarized these comments and does capricious in contravention of federal services, including the cost of relevant
not make any changes in this final rule anti-discrimination protections. overhead and similar services provided
because of them. • The rule creates roadblocks to the at no or reduced charge to asylum
integration of immigrants. applicants or other immigrants. This
C. Comments Expressing General • The rule attempts to establish rule is consistent with DHS’s legal
Opposition to the NPRM discriminatory policies that have been authorities. See INA section 286(m), 8
Many commenters generally opposed judicially enjoined and to prevent fair U.S.C. 1356(m). DHS proposed changes
the NPRM, including the proposed fees, and equal access to the U.S. in fee waiver policies to ensure that
magnitude of the fee adjustments, immigration system. those who benefit from immigration
charging fees in general, and specific • The proposed fee increase would
benefits pay their fair share of costs,
proposed policy changes. DHS prevent many immigrants from seeking
consistent with the beneficiary-pays
summarized and responded to the and obtaining the right to vote. A
principle as described in the
public comments as follows: commenter questioned whether the
Government Accountability Office
increase was intentionally seeking to
1. Immigration Policy Concerns report number GAO–08–386SP.24
suppress potential low- and middle-
In certain instances, DHS deviates
Comment: Many commenters opposed income immigrant voters.
from the beneficiary-pays principle to
fee adjustments for policy reasons • DHS should remove financial
establish fees that do not represent the
generally suggesting that the fees will be barriers clearly intended to target the
estimated full cost of adjudication. For
harmful. The comments are summarized poor to encourage people to use the
example, DHS proposed a $50 fee for
as follows: legal immigration process.
• Increased fees and removal of fee Form I–589, Application for Asylum
• Immigration is important to the
waiver categories in the proposed rule and for Withholding of Removal, when
United States and the NPRM betrays or
would result in more applicants being filed with USCIS. This fee deviates from
is contrary to American values.
• USCIS has an enormous and far- put into removal proceedings. the beneficiary-pays principle by
reaching impact and it is imperative that • The proposal would worsen USCIS’ holding the fee well below the estimated
USCIS consider the harmful human already bad reputation. 24 GAO, Federal User Fees: A Design Guide (May
effects of the proposed fee increases. • USCIS is engaging in partisan 29, 2008), available at https://www.gao.gov/
• The fee increase is an attack on machinations rather than acting as a products/GAO-08-386SP. (last accessed Feb. 24,
immigrants and vulnerable populations. neutral federal agency. 2020).
cost of adjudication. The $50 fee for Æ Failure to revise policies to keep for three reasons: The department
affirmative asylum filings is not costs within current fees; managers should be requesting
intended to recover the estimated full Æ Failure to hire and train already additional funding from Congress to
cost of adjudication. Instead, it is budgeted staff; meet legal requirements,
intended to limit the increase of other Æ Extensive and frivolous use of a reimbursements between USCIS and
fees that must otherwise be raised to Request for Evidence (RFE) and Notice DHS ‘‘are not to be addressed directly
cover the estimated full cost of of Intent to Deny (NOID); by the users of services required to be
adjudicating asylum applications. Fee Æ ‘‘Extreme vetting’’; provided by the executive branch,’’ and
adjustments are not intended to advance Æ Lengthy suspension of longstanding the executive branch is required to
any policy objectives related to premium processing services for certain provide certain services regardless of
influencing the race or nationality of applications; cost.
immigrants, deterring immigration and Æ The current lockbox system; Response: DHS has no opinion on
naturalization, or affecting voting. Æ Increased and unnecessary in- whether Congress should pass any new
DHS adjusts the USCIS fee schedule person interviews; laws to address fees for adjudication
Æ Ramped up denaturalization efforts;
in this final rule to provide for recovery and naturalization services. However,
Æ Resources spent litigating
of the estimated full cost of immigration DHS reiterates that this final rule
improperly denied applications; and
adjudication and naturalization Æ Actions that increased appeals and complies with current laws. Consistent
services. DHS notes that the fees are the motions. with DHS’ statutory authority, user fees
same for all people who submit benefit Many of these commenters said the are the primary source of funding for
requests regardless of their physical, NPRM does not account for agency USCIS. See INA section 286(m), 8 U.S.C.
cultural, or individual characteristics. inefficiencies resulting from these 1356(m). This final rule adjusts those
The commenters state that DHS has policies or how increased revenue user fees to provide for full cost
discriminatory intent or pretext for this would mitigate them and that USCIS recovery to USCIS. DHS declines to
rulemaking, but they provide no should end them before seeking make changes in this final rule in
evidence to support that statement. DHS additional fees from applicants. response to these comments.
has complied with all relevant legal and After listing several policy changes Comment: One commenter stated that
statutory authorities, including the leading to USCIS inefficiencies, one new administrative procedures
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) commenter said these policies and instituted in the last 3 years serve as
and the Administrative Procedure Act requiring fee increases would, in key barriers to naturalization and
(APA). DHS rejects the claim that its respects, transfer the costs of the immigration rather than as security
justifications for adjusting the fees are agency’s own inefficiencies to the precautions.
pretextual or intended to obscure its public. The commenter also wrote that Response: Under the law, DHS must
true intent, or that nefarious reasons like the NPRM suggests that the agency fund USCIS operations, including the
voter suppression and racial animus are could expand implementation of at least vetting of individuals who want to enter
behind the fee adjustments, and DHS some of these ‘‘misguided measures.’’ the United States, using fees. The
declines to make any changes in this The commenter concluded that it is security screening, background checks,
final rule on these bases. therefore unsurprising that the NPRM and interviews are all vitally necessary
2. Other General Opposition fails to provide any meaningful to ensuring that bad actors do not
evidence that the changes it proposes exploit the legal immigration system to
Comment: Many commenters would relieve case processing delays or enter the United States and undertake
expressed general opposition to the otherwise improve agency performance; actions that harm citizens and conflict
proposed increase in USCIS fees. rather, the proposed rule assumes that with our national values. USCIS must
Commenters stated: lengthy delays will persist. carry out those functions as part of the
• USCIS should find a way to Response: DHS will continue to vetting process and these functions are
increase its margins without causing explore efficiencies that improve USCIS funded by fees.
detriment to the populations it serves. services. DHS may incorporate Comment: Some commenters said that
• The NPRM was not justifiable and corresponding cost savings into future USCIS should maintain the current fee
USCIS should increase its own biennial fee reviews and rulemakings schedule as-is and revisit the issue after
efficiency instead of charging more and accordingly. Nevertheless, USCIS must further review of the efficiency and
providing less service. recover the estimated full cost of effectiveness of current policies, or
• The rule’s objectives are pretextual, providing immigration adjudication and possible review of the U.S. system of
and its goal of fully recovering costs is naturalization services, including immigration policy by future terms of
undermined by the series of USCIS services provided at no or reduced Congress.
policies and practices that increase the charge to asylum applicants and other Response: In its FY 2019/2020 fee
agency’s costs and inefficiencies. USCIS immigrants. DHS declines to make review, USCIS estimated that there is a
fails to describe alternatives to those changes in this final rule in response to gap of more than $1 billion annually
policies and practices in the proposed these comments. between the revenue collections
rule. Comment: Several commenters projected under the previous fee
• USCIS should not increase fees suggested tax solutions instead of fee schedule and the resources USCIS needs
when it has inefficiencies such as increases. One commenter stated that to meet its operational needs to address
performing three different background because they were an American, the incoming workloads. Therefore, if DHS
and biological checks on a single U.S. government should raise the did not adjust fees in this final rule,
applicant. commenter’s taxes instead of raising USCIS’ pending caseload would likely
• USCIS policy failings and fees for citizenship applications. continue to grow and applicants and
inefficient resource allocation are Another commenter suggested that the petitioners would experience longer
creating the need for increased fees. U.S. government should tax large processing times. DHS declines to adopt
Commenters provided examples such as corporations to fund public services. the commenter’s suggestion in this final
the following: One commenter opposed the regulation rule.
3. Proposed Fees Are 4. Rule Will Have Negative Effects on determinants of health and contribute to
Unconstitutional 25 Applicants individuals’ and families’ well-being.
Comment: Many commenters wrote Response: DHS is unable to quantify
Comment: Several commenters wrote how many people will not apply
that the proposed USCIS fee rule that the NPRM, including the fee
schedule and limited fee waivers, would because they do not have access to fee
violates one or more provisions of the waivers and we acknowledge that some
United States Constitution. These have negative effects on applicants,
including the following: individuals will need to save, borrow, or
comments are summarized as follows: use a credit card in order to pay fees
• Impede legal immigration;
• By removing fee waivers for most because they may not receive a fee
• Block low-income immigrants from
categories of cases, USCIS is waiver. DHS also recognizes that if
achieving citizenship and the associated
conditioning fundamental rights, such individuals borrow or use a credit card,
benefits;
as the ability to vote, on the ability to they are likely also responsible for the
• Disproportionately impact Asian
pay, engaging in discrimination filing fee, and any additional interest
immigrants and Asian Americans;
prohibited by the Constitution because cost accruing on the loan or credit card.
• Encourage illegal immigration;
it affects one race more than another, DHS does not know the price elasticity
• Prevent immigrants from being
and using the ‘‘beneficiary pays’’ of demand for immigration benefits, nor
contributing members of society;
principle as a pretextual argument to does DHS know the level at which the
• Cause immigrants to rely on public
conceal an intent to discriminate against fee increases become too high for
assistance;
racial minorities. applicants/petitioners to apply.
• Make it difficult to become
• Raising the citizenship application documented; However, DHS disagrees that the fees
fee to over $1,000 is like imposing a • Cost DHS more money for will result in the negative effects the
‘‘poll’’ tax on future voters, which is deportations; commenters’ suggested. DHS believes
outlawed by the 24th amendment to the • Prevent nonimmigrants and their that immigration to the United States
U.S. Constitution. families from accessing the American remains attractive to millions of
• Naturalization is an especially Dream; individuals around the world and that
important immigration benefit, as it is • Make it difficult for immigrants to its benefits continue to outweigh the
the only one referenced in the make a better life for themselves and costs noted by the commenters.
Constitution. their families; Therefore, DHS believes the price
• Depriving low-income immigrants • Make it more difficult for immigrant elasticity for immigration services is
residents in South Carolina to maintain inelastic and increases in price will
of their due process rights through
lawful status, secure work have no impact on the demand for these
significant economic obstacles to
authorization, and provide support for services. This is true for all immigration
immigration benefits is contrary to the
their families; services impacted by this rule. DHS also
Equal Protection Clause of the 14th
Amendment.26 • Make it more difficult for people to does not believe that the NPRM is in
immigrate and for lawyers to obtain any way discriminatory in its
• The intent of the rule is application and effect. Therefore, DHS
clients;
unconstitutional because it is intended
• Dissuade citizens and lawful declines to make changes in this final
to directly exclude individuals based on rule in response to these comments.
permanent residents (LPRs) from
their economic class.
bringing their family members to the 5. Rule Will Have Negative Effects on
Response: DHS is not adjusting the U.S and family support is a relevant the Economy and Employers
USCIS fee schedule with any factor in economic mobility;
undisclosed motivation or intent other • Promote ‘‘healthcare avoidance’’ Comment: Multiple commenters
than to recover the estimate full cost of and exacerbate medical needs when stated that the NPRM would have
adjudication and naturalization immigrants finally emerge in care negative direct and indirect impacts on
services. The new fees are not systems, resulting in increased costs for local, state, regional and the United
insubstantial, but DHS disagrees with the health and human services sectors; States’ economy, as well as businesses
the commenters’ assertions that the fees • Cause significant negative effects on and employers. These comments are
in this final rule will have an effect on Latino immigrants; summarized as follows:
the economic class or number of • Punish immigrants who did their • Immigrants provide crucial labor in
applicants. DHS has no data that would utmost to obey immigration laws; agriculture, construction, healthcare,
indicate that the populations noted by • Adversely impact populations hospitality, and other industries, and
the commenters will be precluded from already much less likely to apply for they need an ample workforce from
submitting benefit requests. As stated in and obtain naturalization, such as which to draw.
other parts of this final rule, DHS must survivors of domestic violence, sexual • Lawful permanent residents
study the adequacy of its fee schedule assault, and human trafficking. Further becoming citizens is important to the
biennially. If this final rule results in a discouraging naturalization among these economy of the United States, and those
significant reduction in the number of populations would harm their chances positive economic impacts reach across
requests submitted for immigration of reuniting with family through generations.
benefits, DHS can adjust to address that immediate relative petitions and • Immigrants can contribute more to
result in a future fee rule. Therefore, undermine applicants’ sense of security the economy with access to legal
DHS does not agree that the new fees in the United States. documentation.
violate the U.S. Constitution. • The fee increases making • Higher fees affect lower-skilled
naturalization less accessible for low- laborers who are in demand in several
25 For constitutional claims against the $50
income immigrants would yield poor industries. Immigrants are key
asylum fee see the General Comments on the health outcomes among children. contributors to the U.S. labor force and
Asylum Fee section of this preamble.
26 The commenter likely meant the equal • The proposal, along with other the proposed fee change would impede
protection component of the Fifth Amendment Due policies, serves to disrupt access to immigration to the detriment of the
Process Clause. programs that address social labor force.
• The rule could cost the United increase economic and administrative would prevent applicants from being
States potential future taxpayers. This burdens on State and local government filed. DHS agrees that immigrants are
impact could result in a long-term workforces. crucial for agriculture, construction,
economic loss. • The destabilizing effects of barriers healthcare, hospitality, almost all
• Immigrants are the backbone of to naturalization would create undue industries, immigrants are a source of
industry and the economy, often financial burdens on municipalities that future U.S. labor growth, many
responsible for significant job creation outweigh any stated benefits of the immigrants are successful
and innovation. proposal. entrepreneurs, and that welcoming new
• An increase in fees will negatively • Immigrant entrepreneurs and small citizens helps the U.S. economy. DHS
affect U.S. companies that pay business owners generate ‘‘tens of acknowledges in its analyses
immigration fees on behalf of their billions of dollars’’ in business revenue. accompanying this rule that the higher
employees. • Immigrants make important fees must be paid by U.S. companies
• The proposed fee increases will contributions in research and science. that hire foreign nationals, but DHS has
result in the decrease of immigration Four of eight Nobel Prize Laureates from no data that indicates that higher fees
applications, negatively affecting the the United States in 2019 were foreign will affect the supply of lower-skilled
government. born and 34 percent of all Nobel Prize laborers, impede immigration to the
• The increased fees will create a Laureates from the United States were detriment of the labor force, result in
financial barrier to protection from immigrants. aliens being unable to work, cause
deportation and work authorization, • Scientific discovery is dependent employers to lay off employees,
thus making it more expensive to on the ability to travel freely and the undermine the jobs and wages of
participate on the U.S. economy. rule would limit the ability of scholars domestic workers with limited
• Immigrants will be the primary to study and work in the United States. education performing low-skill jobs, or
source of future U.S. labor growth. • The proposal would adversely
increase unemployment among
Limiting working class immigration is impact the direct care and nursing home
immigrant workers. DHS knows that
contrary to the interests of the U.S. industries’ abilities to hire and retain
immigrants make important
society and economy. Similarly, sufficient staff. These industries are
contributions in research, science, and
naturalization boosts American increasingly reliant on immigrants to
we have no data that supports the
democracy, economy, and diversity. staff positions.
• The H–2A program provides the assertion that the increased fees and
• Increased fees will negatively affect restrictions on fee waivers would result
the U.S. workforce because employees citrus industry with reliable foreign
labor. The cost increase for H–2A in many fewer residents accessing a
who may be eligible to naturalize will desired immigration status for which
no longer have access to naturalization. petitions was excessive and other cost
they are eligible simply because they
• The fees would be detrimental to in the industry were also increasing.
cannot afford to apply.
immigrant students’ success and the • The increased fees, coupled with
restrictions to fee waivers, would result Comment: A commenter requested
nation’s economic prosperity.
that DHS more thoroughly analyze the
• Improved immigration status allows in many fewer residents accessing a
desired immigration status for which costs of impeding access to
low-income immigrants to rise out of
they are eligible simply because they naturalization, which include long-term
poverty and contribute economically to
cannot afford to apply. reduced economic and social mobility
their communities with access to better
jobs and opportunities. • Impeding an individual’s ability to for affected populations.
• The rule will damage regional and achieve a secure immigration status Response: DHS recognizes the
national economies by stymieing because of poverty is unacceptable and contributions that naturalized citizens
immigration and the benefits that flow unconscionable. make to American society. However,
from it. Response: DHS knows that USCIS must fund itself through fees
• The proposed rule would have a immigrants make significant unless DHS receives a Congressional
negative ripple effect on U.S. citizens contributions to the U.S. economy, and appropriation to do so. DHS does not
because of the economic benefits this final rule is in no way intended to have any data to establish that these
derived from immigrants. impede or limit legal immigration. fees, though required, are a significant
• These changes would not only DHS’s rule in no way is intended to impediment to naturalization or
impact individual applicants who may reduce, limit, or preclude immigration economic and social mobility. DHS saw
be unable to work due to delays in their for any specific immigration benefit no or limited decreases in the number
pursuit of work authorization, but also request, population, industry, or group. of benefit requests submitted after its fee
family members and employers who DHS agrees that immigrants are an adjustments in 2007, 2010, and 2016
may have to lay off valuable employees. important source of labor in the United (e.g. N–400 filing volumes grew from
• Immigrant communities in rural States and contribute to the economy. less than 600,000 in FY 2009 to
areas with high levels of poverty live DHS does not have data that would approximately 750,000 in FY 2011;
paycheck to paycheck and the proposed indicate that the fees in this rule would similarly, N–400 filing volumes grew
fee increases would make immigration make a U.S. employer that is unable to from less than 800,000 in FY 2015 to
benefits less accessible to working-class find a worker in the United States forego nearly 1 million in FY 2017). In an effort
and vulnerable individuals. filling a vacant position rather than to apply fees more equitably to the
• Raising fees would undermine the submitting a petition for a foreign beneficiary of each benefit request, DHS
jobs and wages of domestic workers worker with USCIS. DHS saw no or must increase the fee for Form N–400,
with limited education performing low- limited decreases in the number of Application for Naturalization, in this
skill jobs. benefit requests submitted after its fee final rule. As stated in the proposed rule
• The proposed rule would increase adjustments in 2007, 2010, and 2016 and elsewhere in this final rule, DHS
unemployment among immigrant and has no data that would indicate that performs a biennial review of the fees
workers. the fees for family based benefit collected by USCIS and may
• The proposed fee increases and the requests, lawful permanent residence, recommend changes to future fees. DHS
revocation of fee waivers would and naturalization in this final rule declines to conduct further analysis on
this issue or make changes in this final for low-income and working-class adjust the USCIS fee schedule to reduce,
rule in response to this comment. people. limit, or preclude immigration in any
Comment: Many commenters wrote • The Immigrant Legal Resource way for any specific immigration benefit
about the benefits of naturalization, the Center and Stanford University’s request, population, industry or group,
effect of naturalization on the economy Immigration Policy Lab study including members of the working class.
and how the current application fee and demonstrates current fee levels already However, DHS must adjust the USCIS
proposed fee discourages naturalization. prevent a considerable share of low- fee schedule to recover the full cost of
These comments are summarized as income immigrants from applying for providing immigration adjudication and
follows: citizenship, as well as a 40 percent naturalization services. While fully
• Immigrants contribute to the increase in application rates when low- aware of the benefits that immigrants
economy by paying taxes, and they income immigrants are given vouchers provide to society, DHS must fund
should have easy access to to cover application fee costs. USCIS with fees unless DHS receives a
naturalization. • Compliance with immigration and Congressional appropriation to do so.
• Naturalization increases support for naturalized citizenship laws was DHS acknowledges that the fee for
American political institutions, already an ‘‘arduous and risky’’ process Form N–400, Application for
workforce diversity, strengthens and USCIS should estimate the impact Naturalization is increasing by a greater
employee productivity and retention, on compliance for immigrants seeking percentage than the total increase in
and creates well-informed community to follow such laws. USCIS costs and the average increase in
members. • USCIS should implement a system
fees generally. The fee for this form is
• Raising fees for naturalization could to account for individuals who cannot
increasing more than for most other
discourage immigrants from seeking afford to comply with immigration and
forms because DHS has historically held
citizenship, negatively affecting the citizenship laws due to the proposed fee
the fee for Form N–400, Application for
economy. increases.
• An analysis from the American Naturalization, below the estimated cost
• Naturalization is a key driver in to USCIS of adjudicating the form in
Immigration Council shows that the cost
allowing immigrants to fully integrate recognition of the social value of
of citizenship has become a systemic
into our society, economically citizenship. Immigration services
barrier and the proposal would raise
contribute to the U.S. economy. provide varying levels of social benefit,
naturalization fees even higher.
• Everyone benefits from residents • An analysis from the Center for and previously DHS accounted for some
naturalizing. Migration Studies that found 39 percent aspect of the social benefit of specific
• Naturalization increases net taxable of those eligible for naturalization live services through holding fees below
income, GDP, individual earnings, in households with incomes below 150 their cost. However, in this final rule
employment rates, homeownership, percent of Federal Poverty Guidelines DHS is emphasizing the beneficiary-
federal, state, and city tax revenues, and (FPG) and the proposal would price out pays principle of user fees. This
higher education, etc. naturalization-eligible individuals from approach means that the fee for Form
• Naturalization decreases pursuing citizenship to the detriment of N–400 will now represent the estimated
government benefit expenditures. their families and communities. full cost to USCIS of adjudicating the
• Citizenship promotes social • A hypothetical family of four would form, plus a proportional share of
benefits, higher rates of health have to pay an additional $3,115 over a overhead costs and the costs of
insurance, English proficiency, quality 3-year period to maintain their status providing similar services at reduced or
of employment, and buy-in to U.S. and secure citizenship. no charge to asylum applicants and
democratic principles. • The ‘‘road to naturalization other immigrants. In other words, the
• Naturalization increases eligibility may be lengthy, unpredictable fee for Form N–400 will now be
engagement in civic life. and costly,’’ and the proposed fee determined in the same manner as most
• The proposal would increase profits increases and changes to fee waiver other USCIS fees. Because DHS has held
for private companies that benefit from eligibility would impact immigrants the fee for Form N–400 below full cost
financial obstacles to naturalization. who must file concurrent applications in the past, adjusting to full cost
• In its proposal, DHS incorrectly for spousal petitions, work requires an increase in excess of the
stated that naturalization applicants will authorizations, and adjustment of status. volume-weighted average increase of 20
find some way to come up with the fee These changes would cost $4,680 over percent. If DHS did not increase the fee
and failed to prove that the proposal a 4-year period, an amount the for Form N–400 this amount, other fees
would not shrink revenues due to a commenter described as ‘‘prohibitive.’’ would need to increase further to
reduction in submitted applications. • Existing costs for immigration generate the revenue necessary to
• The proposed fee increases would benefits already pose challenges for recover full cost, including the costs of
place citizenship and the ‘‘American immigrant families and DHS should not the N–400 not covered by its fee. DHS
dream’’ out of reach for many increase fees by such an unprecedented believes the increase in the fee for Form
immigrants. amount. N–400 is fully justified. Finally, DHS
• Costs associated with naturalization Response: DHS recognizes the does not believe the new Form N–400
were already prohibitively high and economic and societal value of fee will deter naturalization or that the
DHS should refrain from any efforts to nonimmigrants, immigration, and new fees established in this final rule
make naturalization and other naturalization. DHS agrees that new will prevent immigrants from receiving
immigration benefits even less citizens and naturalization are of immigration benefits. DHS saw no or
accessible. tremendous economic and societal limited decreases in the number of

• Research from the Journal on value and generally agrees with the benefit requests submitted after its fee
Migration and Human Security that points made by, and the studies cited adjustments in 2007, 2010, and 2016
found there were approximately 9 by, commenters. DHS is not adjusting (e.g. N–400 filing volumes grew from
million LPRs eligible to naturalize and the USCIS fee schedule with an intent less than 600,000 in FY 2009 to
the proposed naturalization fee increase to impede, reduce, limit, or preclude approximately 750,000 in FY 2011;
would make naturalization unaffordable naturalization and did not propose to similarly, N–400 filing volumes grew
from less than 800,000 in FY 2015 to become finalized. One commenter wrote Some commenters suggested that
nearly 1 million in FY 2017). Therefore, that the proposal would present because the fee increases will
DHS declines to make any changes in challenges for non-profit organizations discourage many immigrants from
this final rule in response to this providing legal assistance to low- utilizing qualified legal assistance to
comment. income immigrants because it would assist with applications, USCIS will
Comment: One commenter stated that reduce the number of clients who encounter challenges and inefficiencies
the higher fees would result in fewer connect with services for which they are in processing due to less complete or
clients for their advocacy organization. eligible, and would require increased less accurate applications being filed.
As a result, the group might have to let outreach by an already overworked staff. Other commenters wrote that the
go of some staff. Another commenter Another commenter wrote that the proposal would increase the prevalence
wrote that the proposal would harm its proposal would interfere with state and of ‘‘notario’’ fraud and other types of
city’s efforts to create a welcoming local non-profit programs that provide consumer fraud against immigrants,
environment for immigrants. The services to help individuals navigate the who would be more likely to turn to
commenter described programs like immigration process. The commenter dishonest providers of legal and other
Citizenship Day in Boston intended to said that if the proposal is implemented, assistance due to the proposed fee
make immigration legal services more such programs in Washington State increases. Another commenter agreed
accessible and said the proposal would anticipate that the increased demand for that the fee increases would decrease
undermine these efforts. The proposed fee reimbursement will outpace other immigrants’ ability to afford counsel,
fee changes and elimination of fee services. The commenter wrote that and referred to a 2014 study from
waivers would harm agencies that carry many organizations providing Stanford Law School that found
out the DOJ’s Office of Legal Access immigration services are dependent on detained immigrants were three times
Programs mission as those agencies reasonable application fees and would more likely to win deportation cases
would lose clients as naturalization and be at risk of disappearing if fees increase when they were assisted by attorneys.
other applications become less above current levels. Another The commenter also cited research from
affordable, resulting in a reduction of commenter said the proposal would the New York Immigrant Family Unity
funding and potential staff layoffs. The interfere with its organizational mission Project from November 2017 that
commenter also said these agencies and would hamper the work done by demonstrated for every 12 individuals
would need to change their other non-profit entities serving who received counsel under the
informational and educational materials immigrant communities. The organization’s ‘‘universal representation
if the proposed rule is implemented, model,’’ 11 would have been deported
commenter wrote that its organization is
resulting in increased design, printing, without access to an attorney. The
funded primarily by city and state
and distribution costs. commenter concluded that non-profit
A commenter stated that while it does grants, with specific funding attached to
specific numbers of low-income organizations that are already under-
not provide direct social or legal
immigrants served and that the proposal resourced will have to step in to provide
services, it frequently fields questions
would undermine its ability to meet services if immigrants lack income to
from transgender individuals and their
grant requirements. The commenter said hire attorneys. Some commenters
family members, attorneys, and other
in the previous year, it had processed suggested that the proposed rule would
organizations about government policies
hundreds of applications that it would not only impact immigrant populations,
and individuals’ legal rights, including
not have been able to file under the but also legal aid organizations
questions about immigration. The
proposed removal of fee waivers for providing services to such populations
commenter wrote that if the proposed
certain application types. Many and students who benefit from programs
rule is adopted, it will need to expend
commenters wrote that the proposed fee and clinics designed to support low-
considerable resources to comprehend
and explain changes to the public and increases would deter immigrants from income populations.
will see an increase in requests for using qualified legal services, an Response: DHS recognizes the value
information. The commenter said USCIS outcome that the commenters stated of the various groups that assist
should also consider the impact of the would complicate USCIS processing. individuals navigate its regulations and
proposed rule on organizations like The commenter said that if these actors forms. However, USCIS strives to
theirs, and on organizations that provide are left unchecked, they will end up develop rules and forms that are user-
direct services to immigrants applying diverting thousands of dollars away friendly, can be easily completed by the
for immigration benefits. from the agency. public, and require no legal or
A commenter said the proposal would Commenters said the proposed fee professional assistance. As stated before,
harm its organization’s mission and increases and elimination of fee waivers DHS is changing USCIS fees to recover
ability to sustain itself financially. The would disrupt organizations that the costs of administering its
commenter said 90 percent of its provide legal assistance and other adjudication and naturalization
funding comes from the State of services to immigrants because of a services. DHS is not changing USCIS
Washington’s allocation for the reduction in the number of clients fees with the intent to deter requests
Washington New Americans Program served, an inability to meet contractual from low-income immigrants seeking
and is tied to certain contractual requirements, and loss of financial family unity or deterring requests from
obligations, including that the support through contracts or grants. One any immigrants based on their financial
organization complete 1,000 commenter said their city partners with or family situation. Previous fee
naturalization applications, host various immigration legal service organizations adjustments had no discernible effect on
workshop events, and screen around to help immigrants secure needed the number of benefit requests filed.
2,000 green card holders for eligibility benefits because income-based barriers This final rule amends fee waiver
each year, among other conditions. The to such benefits already exist. One requirements and divides the Form I–
commenter said its ability to meet these commenter said their office assists 1,000 129 into multiple forms, but otherwise
numbers and its success rate would be constituents annually who already face makes no major changes to any
adversely impacted if the proposed fee burdens navigating the immigration immigration benefit requests. DHS will
increases and elimination of fee waivers system. continue to explore efficiencies that
improve USCIS services. DHS may educational and professional • The fee increase is excessive
incorporate corresponding cost savings opportunities and better support their particularly for naturalization and
into future biennial fee reviews and families. adjustment of status.
rulemakings accordingly. Therefore, • Many DACA recipients have lived • Fee increases will frustrate the
DHS declines to make any changes in in the United States since early substantive policies promoted in the
this final rule as a result of these childhood, and this rule would place INA.
comments. them in danger of removal from the only • The proposal was a pretext for
Comment: One commenter cited a country they consider home. decreasing legal immigration.
Bureau of Labor Statistics study (2017– • DACA recipients have, in some • The fee of $2,000 to change the
2018), which indicates that the cases, shown to be dedicated to serving status of a single family member is a
unemployment rate for foreign-born their communities through Teach For thinly veiled effort to bring the recently
men (3.0 percent) was smaller than the America. enjoined public charge regulations and
unemployment rate for native-born men • Without the contributions of DACA health insurance proclamation to life
(4.2 percent), as a benefit to the United recipients the United States would lose and circumvent the judicial injunctions
States. $433.3 billion in GDP and $24.6 billion on that rule.
Response: DHS appreciates the in Social Security and Medicare • In emphasizing the beneficiary-pays
comment and agrees that foreign-born contributions. principle, the rule abandons prior
workers are dependable employees who • DACA renewals should be funded motivations to tailor fees based on users’
are important to the U.S. economy. by increased taxes rather than by ability to pay. The 2008 Government
6. Comments on the DACA Renewal Fee placing the burden on DACA requestors, Accountability Office (GAO) report to
who are vulnerable. Congress entitled, Federal User Fees: A
Comment: Many commenters
• USCIS needs to offer justification Design Guide, undermines USCIS’
generally opposed higher DACA fees. sudden switch to the beneficiary-pays
for increasing DACA fees from an
Commenters stated: principle, and USCIS has elevated the
economic standpoint.
• Current DACA fees are high and an beneficiary-pays principle as a pretext
increase to renewal fees would make it Response: In light of the concerns
raised by commenters, as well as the for restricting and deterring legal
difficult for people to afford legal immigration against the will of
immigration processes. recent Supreme Court Decision in DHS
et al v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. et Congress.
• It would be unjust to charge
al, No. 18–587 (S.Ct. June 18, 2020), • The rule’s objectives are pretextual,
students and families to pay more to
DHS will not impose a fee for Form I– and its goal of fully recovering costs is
maintain DACA.
821D. Therefore, there is no fee for Form undermined by the series of USCIS
• Many DACA recipients are in
I–821D, Consideration of Deferred policies and practices that increase the
school, early in their careers, or have
Action for Childhood Arrivals, in this agency’s costs and inefficiencies. USCIS
young children, and therefore cannot
final rule, and USCIS will not receive fails to describe alternatives to those
afford the fee increases.
• DACA fees would make it difficult revenue from Form I–821D. DHS has policies and practices in the proposed
for individuals to renew their work removed the estimated costs and staff rule.
permits and they could lose the ability directly attributable to the DACA policy • The proposed rule fails to
to work legally in the United States. The from its cost baseline used in its fee determine a social good that results
proposed fee increase would cause calculations for this final rule, from equity among application fees,
emotional and financial hardships for consistent with past practice. See 81 FR with no evidence, data, or rational
the families of DACA recipients. 26903, 26914 (May 4, 2016) (explaining connection between that good and the
• DACA fees will suppress/ that USCIS excludes from the fee stated goal of equity.
undermine the DACA policy while legal calculation model the costs and revenue • The agency failed to adequately
status is undetermined. associated with programs and policies describe the terms or substance of the
• The DACA renewal fee will that are temporary in nature such as proposed rule in accordance with APA.
discourage DACA recipients from DACA). In this final rule, DHS adjusts • The NPRM’s rationale and fee
seeking citizenship. other fees to recover the anticipated increases are arbitrary because the
• High fees are the reason only overhead and cost reallocation that the amount of revenue that would be
800,000 of the 1.3 million DACA- NPRM associated with DACA fees, generated is much bigger than the
qualified individuals have requested including Forms I–765 and I–821D. projected shortfall at USCIS and some
DACA. In light of the recent Supreme Court fees would increase more than others.
• The fee increases will reduce the ruling and attendant changes to DHS’ • Not all fees are being changed
number of DACA recipients who are operations relating to the DACA policy proportionally or rationally, and some
able to renew their deferred action and DHS will maintain the DACA fees as in fee decreases and increases appear
complete higher education. DACA effect before the rescission on completely arbitrary and do not align
recipients often live paycheck-to- September 5, 2017 at $410 for with the agency’s reasoning.
paycheck and must support family employment authorization and $85 for • The rule lacks a detailed
members financially. The renewal fees biometric services. New 8 CFR description of how or why the costs of
already present a burden and the 106.2(a)(32)(vi). adjudication have increased so
proposed increase would exacerbate the dramatically as to necessitate such a
D. Comments on Legal Adequacy of the large fee increase.
hardship.
Rule • The rule cites to INA section 286(m)

• DACA is a prerequisite for in-state
tuition in many states, and increased Comment: Multiple commenters multiple times for the Congressional
fees would cause many DACA stated that the rule was arbitrary and mandate that authorizes the DHS to
recipients to lose their DACA and give capricious, contrary to law, and in charge fees ‘‘at a level that will recover
up their pursuit of higher education. violation of the Administrative the full costs of adjudication,’’ but fee
• DACA has been instrumental in Procedure Act for various reasons, increases should be supported with
helping many recipients access better summarized as follows: details of what those ‘‘costs’’ actually
are, and they should be itemized in a pretext to implement the Inadmissibility notices. The commenter wrote that other
way that clearly justifies the price. on Public Charge Grounds final rule, as open-ended language in this proposal
• The public has the right to know indicated by a commenter. DHS notes also improperly subverts the legal
the specific details of the projected that the Public Charge final rule was requirements of this notice process by
budget shortfall and how proposed fee implemented nationwide on February granting exclusive powers to the
changes would be allocated to meet the 24, 2020, after the Supreme Court of the Attorney General to set such fees and
projected deficit. United States stayed the last remaining fee waiver regulations and create such
• Some fee increases were larger than injunction on that final rule on February USCIS forms without future public
others. 21, 2020. notices.
• It is arbitrary to eliminate fee caps This final rule also complies with the Response: DHS has provided
for some but not all categories, and the APA. DHS issued an NPRM in the sufficient details of the bases for the fee
rationale provided for not limiting fee Federal Register on November 14, 2019, adjustments in the NPRM, this final
increases for some benefit requests is and a Supplemental Notice on rule, and supporting documentation. As
inadequate. If limited fee increases were December 9, 2019. DHS accepted public clearly stated earlier, the INA authorizes
continued for all previously limited comments on the proposed rule through the use of fees for funding USCIS.
requests some proposed fees could February 10, 2020. DHS fully However, the law does not prescribe a
increase by as much as $1,185 with the considered the issues raised in the method for USCIS fee setting. As
average of those changes being an public comments and made some explained in the supporting
increase of $12 per immigration benefit adjustments in response, as detailed in documentation that accompanies this
request. responses throughout this final rule. final rule, USCIS follows guidance
• The rule contains clear and DHS disagrees with commenters’ provided by OMB Circular A–25 and
measurable hypocrisy in that USCIS assertions that the fees established in has leveraged an ABC methodology in
claims that prior policy must fall in the this final rule are unjustified because the last five fee reviews. USCIS’ use of
face of the agency’s newfound the fees differ in amount or are not commercially available ABC software to
insistence on the ‘‘beneficiary-pays being changed ‘‘proportionally.’’ In most create financial models has enabled it to
principle,’’ but it violates this principle instances, DHS sets the fees based on align with the Federal Accounting
for certain form types because USCIS the estimated full cost of providing the Standards Advisory Board’s (FASAB’s)
proposes to maintain a 5 percent limit relevant immigration adjudication or Statement of Federal Financial
on fee increases without specific naturalization service. Some services Accounting Standards Number 4 on
justification for each. cost USCIS more to provide than others,
• The proposed rule’s invocation of managerial cost accounting concepts,
resulting in fees that differ in relation to which provides guidelines for agencies
the ‘‘beneficiary-pays principle’’ is not how costly the applicable service is.
made in good faith in that USCIS is still to perform cost assignments in the
Furthermore, the costs to USCIS of following order of preference: (1)
willing to support subsidies for some providing a given service may evolve
users (e.g., adoptive parents and Directly tracing costs wherever feasible
over time in a manner that is different and economically practicable; (2)
religious institutions) and even a high than the cost of providing another
premium on others (e.g., ‘‘regional Assigning costs on a cause-and-effect
service. Thus, when DHS adjusts the
center’’ investment groups).’’regional basis; or (3) Allocating costs on a
USCIS fee schedule, not all fees are
center’’ investment groups). reasonable and consistent basis.27
adjusted ‘‘proportionally.’’ For example, USCIS is a worldwide operation of
• Contrary to DHS’s rationales for the as DHS explains in the NPRM and
rule, increased fees will not improve thousands of employees with myriad
elsewhere in this rule, DHS determined
USCIS’ efficiency or allow the agency to responsibilities and functions. The
that it would be appropriate to limit the
provide better service to applicants. commenter’s expectations of absolute
fee increase for several forms while not
Response: INA section 286(m), 8 precision are unattainable for setting the
limiting the fee increase for other forms
U.S.C. 1356(m) authorizes DHS to fees for such a large organization that
to reduce the cost burden placed upon
recover the full cost of providing provides a wide range of services and
other fee-paying applicants, petitioners,
immigration adjudication and immigration benefit requests. DHS has
and requestors.
naturalization services, including the DHS reiterates that this final rule provided rational connection to the law,
cost of services provided at reduced or complies with the all current laws. its needs, policy choices, calculations,
no charge to asylum applicants and Therefore, DHS declines to make and fees established in this final rule,
other immigrants through the USCIS fee changes in this final rule in response to even if the rational basis may require
schedule. This final rule complies with these comments. following mathematical calculations
the INA, as DHS estimated the cost of Comment: Numerous issues permeate and defensible estimates.
providing immigration adjudication and the NPRM and result in such a vague DHS declines to make changes in this
naturalization services over the biennial rule change as to invalidate the entire final rule in response to the comment.
period and adjusts USCIS’ fee schedule proposal. The NPRM fails to disclose Comment: Some commenters said that
to recover those costs. DHS has the actual weighted average fee increase the excessive fee increase and limiting
explained its rational basis for adjusting or fee increases associated with fee waivers would indirectly make
USCIS fees in the proposed rule and this individual form types and many wealth a dispositive requirement for
final rule. The docket and unrelated changes are proposed without immigration benefits, effectively
administrative record document the supporting documentation for each of adopting a ‘‘wealth test’’ for citizenship
bases for the changes and show that the these proposed changes. The commenter and similar immigrant benefits that will
fee adjustments in this final rule are not wrote that other open-ended language in deter non-citizens from seeking lawful
motivated by any purpose other than this proposal also improperly subverts immigration status in violation of the
those expressly stated in this the legal requirements of this notice INA and which the legislature never
rulemaking. This final rule intends to process by granting exclusive powers to 27 FASAB, Statement of Federal Financial
recover the estimated full cost of the Attorney General to set such fees Accounting Standards 4, available at http://
providing immigration adjudication and and fee waiver regulations and create files.fasab.gov/pdffiles/handbook_sffas_4.pdf (last
naturalization services and is not a such USCIS forms without future public viewed 03/06/2020).
intended. A commenter said DHS’s considered’’ these directives from commenter said the effect of the
proposal to eliminate most fee waivers Congress. Instead, the commenter said proposed rule will be to favor wealthy
and exemptions, coupled with dramatic the agency is eliminating fee waivers or higher-skilled immigrants over
fee hikes for most immigrants, breaks and naturalization fee reductions in families, and in turn reverse over a half
from decades of executive practice and direct contravention of Congressional century of bedrock immigration policy
ignores clear Congressional intent to will. A couple of other commenters also in the United States. The commenter
create a fair and accessible immigration cited the same Congressional directives, concluded that Congress did not
system. The commenter said DHS has stating that DHS has ignored these delegate DHS the authority to
declined, despite congressional directives without rational explanation. implement such sweeping reform of our
requests, to consider the effect of Another commenter said that, by immigration laws.
eliminating reduced fees on applicants solely focusing on ‘‘full cost recovery’’ Another commenter said Congress
for naturalization or to maintain fee regardless of an immigrant’s ability to needs a clear expenditure plan in order
waivers for such applicants. pay and under the false pretense of to monitor if the funds are being used
A commenter said USCIS’ policy of equity, DHS is restricting immigration to as warranted, which is not present in
recovering the full cost of application only those who can afford it. The the current proposal. Similarly, a
processing is a choice, not a legal commenter said this is a ‘‘backhanded commenter said the proposed fee
requirement. Specifically, the attempt’’ to introduce a merit-based schedule is inconsistent with statutory
commenter said USCIS cites INA immigration system without legislation. framework because it lacks a valid
section 286(m), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m) as the The commenter said Congress has analysis as to how the proposal might
basis of its policy, but this section states already shown it does not wish to enact achieve the policy objectives it
merely that the agency ‘‘may be set at a merit-based immigration system and ‘‘allegedly would further.’’
a level that will ensure recovery of the the DHS should not be able to go around Response: DHS adjusts the fees for
full costs of providing all such the will of Congress. Similarly, another immigration benefit requests in this
services.’’ Therefore, the statute is commenter said the changes serve to final rule to recover the estimated full
permissive, not mandatory. The circumvent Congressional oversight of cost of providing immigration
commenter went on to say that USCIS the immigration system by effectively adjudication and naturalization
also cites OMB Circular A–25, but this eliminating statutory paths to services, as provided by law. In
document is only policy guidance that immigration status by making them adjusting the fees, DHS is not imposing
lacks the force of law and, by its own unaffordable and inaccessible to those a ‘‘wealth test’’ or otherwise attempting
terms, provides for exceptions to this who qualify. to erect barriers to immigration and
general policy. The commenter also said Another commenter said these fees rejects any implication that its
that since USCIS has used its discretion would effectively impose a means test justifications for adjusting the fees are
to set fees for several forms at levels that for U.S. residence and citizenship, and pretexts to obscure any other
would not recover its full costs, it that these immigration benefits is of motivation.
should go further in shifting costs away such importance that any related policy INA section 286(m), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m)
from applications that would help should be determined by Congressional authorizes DHS to recover the full cost
working immigrant families acquire, legislation. A commenter said a limit of providing immigration adjudication
maintain, or document lawful status and should be placed on USCIS’ ability to and naturalization services, including
citizenship. Similarly, another raise fees without Congressional the cost of services provided at no
commenter said USCIS is not required approval, concluding that such policies charge to asylum applicants and other
by law to recover its costs on the backs should only be passed by Congressional immigrants through the USCIS fee
of applicants, many of whom are low- authority. schedule. This final rule complies with
income; the relevant section of the INA A commenter said the administration the INA, as DHS estimated the cost of
is permissive, not mandatory. is attempting to reshape American providing immigration adjudication and
A commenter said the proposed rule immigration policy, ignoring Congress’ naturalization services over the biennial
ignores Congressional intent, citing a plenary power and attempting to make period and adjusts USCIS’ fee schedule
2018 House Appropriations Committee the immigration process established by to recover those costs.
report (H. Rep. No. 115–948) and the Congress inaccessible to eligible This final rule also complies with the
bipartisan, bicameral conference report immigrants. Similarly, another APA. DHS issued an NPRM in the
accompanying the omnibus commenter said USCIS is imposing Federal Register on November 14, 2019,
appropriations act for Fiscal Year 2019 financial tests cloaked under the rule- and a Supplemental notice on December
(H. Rep. No. 116–9), both of which making process to reshape the 9, 2019. DHS accepted public comments
stated that ‘‘USCIS is expected to demographics of the American society on the proposed rule through February
continue the use of fee waivers for by excluding those who are not wealthy 10, 2020. DHS fully considered the
applicants who can demonstrate an and asylum-seekers who are largely issues raised in the public comments
inability to pay the naturalization fee. from Central America, Latin America, and made some adjustments in
USCIS is also encouraged to consider Africa, and Asia. response, as detailed elsewhere in this
whether the current naturalization fee is A commenter said the rule would final rule. DHS provides responses to
a barrier to naturalization for those significantly deter family-based those comments in this final rule.
earning between 150 percent and 200 immigration, contrary to Congressional Comment: One commenter stated that
percent of the federal poverty guidelines intent. The commenter said that the the proposed rule was not ripe for
(FPG), who are not currently eligible for effect of the rule will promote comment, because DHS did not provide
a fee waiver.’’ Although the NPRM employment-based immigration at the a final, definitive set of fees but instead
states that ‘‘USCIS appreciates the expense of family-based immigration provided a range of potential outcomes
concerns of this recommendation and because immigrants who arrive on that were possible.
fully considered it before publishing employment-based visas are typically Response: DHS disagrees that the
this proposed rule,’’ the commenter said well-educated, can speak English proposed rule was not ripe for
USCIS provides no evidence that it proficiently, have sufficient assets, and comment. DHS provided multiple
either ‘‘appreciates’’ or ‘‘fully have solid employment prospects. The options for proposed fee schedules and
explained that the final outcome would Another commenter said it is official’s office or prescribed by the
be one of the proposed scenarios or improper to issue a significant rule Secretary.’’ 6 U.S.C. 113(f).
another outcome within the range of the when the authority of DHS and USCIS On April 9, 2019, then-Secretary
alternatives proposed. The fee schedule leadership is in question. The Nielsen, who was Senate confirmed,
adopted in this final rule falls within commenter said the significant changes used the authority provided by 6 U.S.C.
the range of outcomes DHS provided in proposed are egregious when the agency 113(g)(2) to establish the order of
the NPRM. The policies implemented in lacks confirmed leadership to exercise succession for the Secretary of
this final rule are identical to, or are authority pursuant to the law. The Homeland Security. This change to the
logical outgrowths of, those contained commenter wrote that legal challenges order of succession applied to any
in the NPRM. to the authority of agency leadership are vacancy. Exercising the authority to
The intent of the comment period currently pending and a letter from the establish an order of succession for the
provided under the APA is to allow House Committee on Homeland Department pursuant to 6 U.S.C.
agencies to consider public feedback on Security to the GAO that questions the 113(g)(2), superseded the FVRA and the
proposed rules and make changes as legality Chad Wolf’s appointment as order of succession found in E.O. 13753.
appropriate. Because a single change Acting DHS Secretary and Kenneth As a result of this change and
made in response to public comments Cuccinelli’s appointment as Senior pursuant to 6 U.S.C. 113(g)(2), Mr.
may affect multiple fees, it is impossible Official Performing the Duties of the McAleenan, who was Senate confirmed
to provide a final set of fees in an NPRM Deputy Secretary. The commenter wrote as the Commissioner of CBP, was the
unless it were to be adopted without that the lack of responsible authorities next successor and served as Acting
any modification, thereby negating the makes it inappropriate for the agency to Secretary without time limitation.
value of public feedback. Therefore, the make the radical and untested policy Acting Secretary McAleenan was the
NPRM was fully ripe for public shifts it proposes. signing official of the proposed rule.
comment, and DHS declines to make Response: DHS disagrees that Mr. Acting Secretary McAleenan
any adjustments in response to this Cuccinelli was unlawfully appointed in subsequently amended the Secretary’s
violation of the Appointments Clause or order of succession pursuant to 6 U.S.C.
comment.
the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. In 113(g)(2), placing the Under Secretary
Comment: Two commenters wrote
any event, it is unnecessary to discuss for Strategy, Policy, and Plans position
that the NPRM has no force or effect third in the order of succession below
the merits of Mr. Cuccinelli’s
because Mr. Wolf does not have a valid the positions of the Deputy Secretary
appointment, because the proposed rule
legal claim to the office of DHS and Under Secretary for Management.
only proposed changes to DHS
Secretary. The commenters detailed the Because these positions were vacant
regulations and requested comments. It
required line of succession required by when Mr. McAleenan resigned, Mr.
did not effectuate any change that
Executive Order 13753 after the Wolf, as the Senate confirmed Under
would be amount to a final action taken
departure of Secretary Nielsen, which Secretary for Strategy, Policy, and Plans,
by Mr. Cuccinelli or any DHS official. In
according to the commenters should not addition, neither the NPRM nor this was the next successor and began
have led to Mr. McAleenan. The final rule were signed by Mr. Cuccinelli. serving as the Acting Secretary.
commenters then stated that, even if Thus, while DHS believes that Mr. Therefore, both the NPRM and this final
President Trump lawfully departed from Cuccinelli is lawfully performing the rule were lawfully signed by the Acting
E.O. 13753 when Mr. McAleenan was duties of the Director of USCIS and Secretary of Homeland Security.
designated, his authority was limited to using the title Senior Official Comment: A commenter opposed the
210 days under the Vacancies Act, but Performing the Duties of Director of proposal because it would result in
Mr. McAleenan purported to serve as USCIS, and the Senior Official family separation and would run
Acting Secretary for a year and a half. Performing the Duties of the Deputy counter to the family-based immigration
The commenters stated that, because Secretary of Homeland Security, system Congress intended to create
Mr. Wolf’s appointment to Secretary whether that is true is immaterial. through the INA. Another commenter
was a result of Mr. McAleenan’s The NPRM was signed by Kevin K. wrote that the proposal conflicts with
unlawful amendment to the order of McAleenan and this final rule is signed the principle of family unity because it
succession, Mr. Wolf has no valid legal by Chad F. Wolf, both as Acting interferes with the right to choose to live
claim to the office of the Secretary, and Secretary of Homeland Security. with family members and disrupts the
the action he has taken in promulgating Contrary to the comment, Secretary INA’s goal of family unity.
the proposed rule shall have ‘‘no force Wolf is validly acting as Secretary of Response: In adjusting the USCIS fee
or effect.’’ Homeland Security. Under INA section schedule in this final rule, DHS
Similarly, other commenters said the 103(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(1), the complies with all relevant legal
rule violates the Appointments Clause Secretary of Homeland Security is authorities. DHS does not intend to
and the Federal Vacancies Reform Act charged with the administration and erect barriers to family unity or
(FVRA) because it was promulgated enforcement of the INA and all other reunification. This final rule adjusts the
under the unlawful authority of immigration laws (except for the USCIS fee schedule to recover the
Kenneth Cuccinelli. The commenters powers, functions, and duties of the estimated full cost of providing
detailed the requirements of the FVRA Secretary of State and Attorney immigration adjudication and
and the succession line leading to Mr. General). The Secretary is also naturalization services.
Cuccinelli’s appointment. The authorized to delegate his or her DHS declines to adjust this final rule
commenters concluded that, since Mr. authority to any officer or employee of in response to these comments.
Cuccinelli has not succeeded to the the agency and to designate other Comment: A commenter wrote that
Acting Director of USCIS position officers of the Department to serve as the proposed transfer of $112.3 million
pursuant to the FVRA, his designation Acting Secretary. See 8 U.S.C. 103 and in IEFA ICE fees violates the
was void, and thus, the rule that was 6 U.S.C. 113(g)(2). The HSA further Appropriations Clause of the
proposed under his purported authority provides that every officer of the Constitution. The commenter wrote that
should have ‘‘no force or effect’’ and its Department ‘‘shall perform the the use of the IEFA to fund any
adoption would be unlawful. functions specified by law for the activities of ICE circumvented the
Appropriations Clause and other laws required by E.O. 12866, the APA, and and children, and is warranted because
that prohibit the transfer of funds the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). the proposed benefits justify the
without statutory authorization. Comment: One commenter wrote that financial impact on the family.
Another commenter wrote that USCIS promised to provide public Response: As stated in the Family
enactment of the FY 2020 review of its cost model software; Assessment Section of this final rule
appropriations package in December however, it did not provide access when (Section IV.H), DHS does not believe
clarified USCIS’ understanding of its the commenter reached out to the that this rulemaking will have a
Congressional mandate and spending provided contact. Later, that same negative financial impact on families.
authority, but that the agency had failed commenter along with several other DHS disagrees with commenter’s
to acknowledge this package in its commenters submitted a comment that assertions about the effects of the
January 2020 notice regarding the fee referenced a February 3, 2020, meeting proposed fees and does not agree that
proposal. The commenter wrote that during which USCIS hosted a the data provided by the commenter
funding provided by Congress in that demonstration of its ABC cost-modeling indicates that the fees established in this
bill should have resolved open software, as promised in the original final rule will affect the financial
questions about the fee schedule, and proposed rule. A commenter wrote that stability and safety of immigrant
that USCIS’ failure to propose a fee USCIS gave stakeholders just one week families. As stated elsewhere in
schedule based on ‘‘no transfer of to write comments on the cost- response to similar comments, based on
funding’’ in its January 2020 notice assignment software before the end of the number of filings received after past
precludes the public from providing the comment period. The commenter fee increases, DHS does not anticipate
fully informed feedback. said USCIS should never force that the fees would affect application
Response: DHS is not moving forward stakeholders to review and provide a levels or that it will create barriers to
with the proposed transfer of IEFA formal response to a complex financial family reunification or stymie
funds to ICE in this final rule. Please see proposal within the space of just one noncitizens seeking to adjust their status
the ICE Transfer Section (Section III.L) week, and it should not impose such an or naturalize. DHS must have sufficient
of this final rule for more information. impossible deadline upon analysis of a revenue to operate USCIS or its service
Comment: Multiple commenters sophisticated tool that is the foundation to all people who file immigration
requested that DHS extend the public of the rule. A commenter asked why the benefit requests could suffer, persons
comment period to 60 days to allow public’s ability to provide informed who are not eligible could improperly
more time to review the proposed rule comment on the software was unfairly be approved for a status, or a person
and to develop responses. Commenters limited to an in-person demonstration who wants to harm the United States
stated that the length of the NPRM was with no phone or online access, and its residents may not be properly
greater than that of earlier fee rules, but asserting that the process limited the vetted. Thus, the benefits of the fees
commenters had less time to respond to ability of stakeholders to request and outweigh the costs they impose.
this rule. Multiple commenters analyze relevant information. Another
suggested that the timing of the E. Comments on Fee Waivers
commenter also said USCIS’
comment period over multiple holidays presentation did not allow meaningful Comment: Many commenters, without
hindered the ability of the public to public engagement. Another commenter providing substantive rationale or
respond to the proposed rule. wrote that none of the information supporting data, stated that they oppose
Response: DHS understands that the received was made available to the rest the elimination of fee waivers in the
general policy of the Executive Branch of the public, which the commenter said rule. Some commenters stated that fee
is that agencies should afford the public would have generated additional waivers are a matter of public policy
a meaningful opportunity to comment important perspectives. and reflect American values. The
on any proposed regulation, which in Response: DHS met all requirements commenters further stated that the rule
most cases should include a comment under the APA in affording commenters would increase dependence on debt to
period of not less than 60 days, for rules who requested a meeting with DHS to finance applications, the fees are
that are determined to be significant by review the ABC software the already difficult to pay, and this change
OMB’s Office of Information and opportunity to provide public will allow only affluent individuals and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). See E.O. comments. The public was offered a families to immigrate legally.
12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, chance to meet with USCIS experts and Commenters indicated that the
58 FR 51735 (Oct 4, 1993), Sec. 6(a)(1). review the software and every party elimination of almost all fee waivers
(E.O. 12866). However, circumstances who requested an appointment to would cause a substantial burden and
may warrant a shorter comment period review the software was provided an prevent large numbers of people from
and the minimum required by the APA appointment and a review. DHS did not accessing immigration relief and
is 30-days. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). On January provide additional time beyond the end submitting a timely application, and
24, 2020, DHS reopened the comment of the public comment period for the even force applicants to forgo the
period for an additional 15-days and meeting participants to provide assistance of reputable and licensed
accepted public comments through feedback because doing so would have counsel in order to save money to pay
February 10, 2020. See 85 FR 4243. advantaged the feedback of those the fees.
Thus, the public was provided a commenters relative to the rest of the Commenters also stated that fee
comment period of 61 days to review public. waivers should continue to be available
the NPRM, revised information DHS declines to make changes in this for low-income individuals and their
collections, supporting documents, final rule in response to the comment. elimination would result in financial
other comments, and the entire docket Comment: A commenter said DHS has hardship for immigrant and mixed-
contents. In addition, comments not complied with the Treasury General status families, resulting in immigrants
received between December 30, 2019, Appropriations Act by failing to assess delaying or losing immigration status
and January 24, 2020, were also whether the proposed rule strengthens due to financial considerations.
considered. As a result, although in or erodes the stability or safety of the Commenters also discussed the benefits
three separate notices, the public was family, increases or decreases of fee waivers to immigrants, including
afforded more time to comment than disposable income or poverty of families helping families to improve their
stability, to financially support DHS acknowledges that this is a change including petitioners and recipients of
themselves, and to fully integrate into from its previous approach to fee setting SIJ classification and those classified as
their communities while allowing them and believes that these changes will Special Immigrants based on an
to allocate funds for higher education. make USCIS’ fee schedule more approved Form I–360 as an Afghan or
Commenters further stated that fee equitable for all immigration benefit Iraqi Translator or Interpreter, Iraqi
waivers help families be secure, stable, requests by requiring fees to be paid National employed by or on behalf of
and financially stronger, and help them mostly by those who receive and benefit the U.S. Government, or Afghan
integrate into their communities. from the applicable service. National employed by or on behalf of
Commenters stated that the proposed Additionally, DHS believes that making the U.S. government or employed by the
fee increases and elimination of fee these changes to the fee waiver policy International Security Assistance
waivers would prevent many would ensure that fee-paying applicants Forces. Although these changes do limit
individuals and families from engaging do not bear the costs of fee-waived the number of people eligible for fee
with the legal immigration system, immigration benefit requests. DHS does waivers, as previously discussed, the
including putting benefits such as not agree that individuals will be changes also limit increases to fees for
naturalization, lawful permanent prevented from filing applications or forms that previously had high rates of
residence, and employment receiving immigrant benefits. fee waiver use.
authorization out of reach for people DHS provided notice in its FY 2016/ Comment: Some commenters
who face financial hardship and low- 2017 USCIS fee rule that in the future provided information specific to a
income individuals by serving as a it may revisit the USCIS fee waiver geographic area or political subdivision.
‘‘metaphorical border wall.’’ guidance with respect to what One commenter added that reductions
Commentators indicated that fee constituted inability to pay under the in fee waivers would in turn cause
waivers are commonly used by low- previous regulation, 8 CFR 103.7(c). See sweeping consequences to applicants,
income and vulnerable immigrants, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration safety net programs, and state and
especially students and their families, Services Fee Schedule, Proposed Rule, county economies. One commenter
and the rule would leave essential 81 FR 26903–26940, 26922 (May 4, wrote that the proposal would
immigration benefits accessible 2016). INA section 286(m), 8 U.S.C. significantly harm New York as a whole
primarily to the affluent. 1356(m) authorizes, but does not because fee waivers allow indigent and
A commenter disagreed with USCIS’ require, that DHS set fees to recover the low-income immigrants to obtain lawful
statement in the NPRM that changes in full cost of administering USCIS status, which puts them on the path to
fee waiver policy would not impact adjudication and naturalization social and economic security. The
application volume because research services. That statute also authorizes commenter cited data showing that New
suggests price increases for setting such fees at a level that will York’s immigrants account for $51.6
naturalization applications are a recover the costs of services provided billion of the State’s tax revenue and
significant barrier for lower income without charge, but it does not require stated that New York would lose much
noncitizens. Another commenter that DHS provide services without needed support if fewer immigrants are
provided data from several sources and charge. unable to legally work and live in the
wrote that immigrants tend to have DHS declines to make changes in this United States. Another commenter cited
higher rates of poverty and that fee final rule in response to these data showing that immigrant-led
waivers are an important asset for comments. households in Oregon paid $1.7 billion
immigrants looking to maintain legal Comment: Several commenters stated in federal taxes and over $736.6 million
status. Another commenter stated that that USCIS has neither explained its in State taxes and stated that the
fee waivers serve to permit those with significant departure from its prior proposed change would prohibit many
an ‘‘inability to pay’’ the same reasoning and practice nor satisfactorily of these immigrant from fully
opportunity as others and denying justified limiting fee waivers for participating in their local economies.
access to fee waivers divides the naturalization and several other Another commenter calculated the costs
‘‘opportunity pool.’’ Another application categories. A commenter a family with an income of 150 percent
commenter wrote that applicants may, stated that the proposed changes of the FPG level would face living in
instead of going into debt, have to forego concerning fee waivers represents such Boston, writing that fee waivers are vital
other expenses such as housing, a ‘‘massive and inadequately explained to such families maintaining their
childcare, transportation, and healthcare shift in policy’’ that it would create a immigration status or naturalizing.
in order to apply. A commenter wrote crippling burden on low-income Response: DHS disagrees that the fee
that the elimination of fee waivers immigrants compounded with previous waiver regulations in this final rule
would force families to forego recent fee waiver changes. would prohibit immigrants from
necessities such as food, shelter, Response: DHS understands that the participating in local and state
transportation, education, and NPRM and this final rule represent a economies or affect safety net programs.
healthcare to pay for proof of lawful change from previous guidance on fee This final rule does not prevent any
status that allows them to work. A waivers. Due to the cost of fee waivers person from submitting a benefit request
commenter wrote that USCIS and inconsistency of current regulations to USCIS or prohibit immigrants from
eliminating the fee waiver altogether for with the beneficiary-pays principle obtaining services or benefits from state
non-humanitarian applications directly emphasized in the NPRM and this final or local programs. DHS declines to make
contradicts USCIS’ previous statements rule, DHS is limiting fee waivers to changes in this final rule in response to
regarding the revision to Form I–912. immigration benefit requests for which this comment.
Response: To align fee waiver USCIS is required by law to consider a Comment: Another commenter stated
regulations more closely with the request or where the USCIS Director that limiting fee waivers would result in
beneficiary-pays principle, DHS exercises favorable discretion as a greater number of applicants delaying
proposed to limit fee waivers to provided in the regulation, as well as a submitting applications due to financial
immigration benefit requests for which few other instances. In addition, DHS is hardship. The commenter wrote that
USCIS is required by law to consider a allowing fee waivers for certain applicants would therefore live without
fee waiver. See proposed 8 CFR 106.3. associated humanitarian programs authorization for which they are
lawfully eligible for a longer time NPRM or the Federal Register as the rule are not insubstantial to an applicant
period, resulting in negative impacts to commenter implies. Therefore, DHS of limited means, DHS does not believe
their financial and emotional security. does not believe this final rule that they make immigration benefits
Response: DHS acknowledges that the disregards the directive for reporting to inaccessible to low income applicants.
changes in the fee waiver provisions Congress and declines to make changes Thus, DHS will not shift the costs from
may impose a burden on applicants who in this final rule in response to these all low-income applicants to other fee-
may have previously been eligible for a comments. paying applicants and petitioners in this
fee waiver. However, DHS does not have final rule.
data indicating that individuals will 1. Limits on Eligible Immigration DHS declines to make changes in this
delay submitting applications and Categories and Forms final rule in response to these
petitions in response to the fee waiver Comment: Many commenters stated comments.
policy changes. USCIS accepts credit that USCIS should maintain fee waivers
for all current categories and that the a. Categories or Group of Aliens
cards to pay for a USCIS request sent to
one of the USCIS Lockboxes. While DHS proposed fee waiver changes would Comment: A commenter stated that
acknowledges that the use of a credit make essential benefits such as while USCIS may claim it is not
card may add interest expenses to the citizenship, green card renewal, and required to waive any fees for
fee payment, a person can generally use employment authorization inaccessible vulnerable applicants such as the
a debit or credit card to pay their benefit for low-income immigrants. disabled and elderly, federal laws, such
request fee and does not have to delay Response: DHS has always as the Americans with Disabilities Act
their filing until they have saved the implemented USCIS fee waivers based (ADA) and Rehabilitation Act, do
entire fee. DHS declines to make on need and since 2007, has precluded require that fees and benefits are kept
changes in this final rule in response to fee waivers for individuals that have within reach of protected and
this comment. financial means as a requirement for the vulnerable populations.
Comment: A few commenters said status or benefit sought. See Adjustment Response: DHS disagrees with the
that eliminating fee waivers is a racist of the Immigration and Naturalization commenter’s assertion. Section 504 of
attempt to prevent immigration from Benefit Application and Petition Fee the Rehabilitation Act, applicable to
poorer countries. Commenters indicated Schedule; Proposed Rule, 72 FR 4887– USCIS, provides that qualified
that eliminating fee waivers would be 4915, 4912 (Feb 1, 2007). As discussed individuals with a disability shall not be
discriminatory against immigrants who in the NPRM, under the ability-to-pay excluded from the participation in,
have limited incomes, who are willing principle, those who are more capable denied the benefits of, or be subjected
to work for everything they get, want a of bearing the burden of fees should pay to discrimination under any program or
better life for their children, desire to more for the service than those with less activity conducted by a federal
improve their communities, and the rule ability to pay. See 84 FR 62298. IEFA executive agency. USCIS immigration
would put immigration benefits out of fee exemptions, fee waivers, and benefit request fees are generally
reach for people who face financial reduced fees for low income households applicable and do not violate that
hardship. adhere to this principle. Applicants, provision. Congress did not specifically
Response: DHS changes to fee waiver petitioners, and requestors who pay a provide for an immigration benefit
availability in this rule have no basis in fee cover the cost of processing requests request fee exemption or waiver for
race or discriminatory policies. DHS is that are fee-exempt, fee-waived, or fee- individuals with disabilities. DHS
not limiting fee waivers to discriminate reduced. For example, if only 50 percent generally does not assess fees to
against any group, nationality, race, or of a benefit request workload is fee- applicants for any accommodations
religion, to reduce the number of paying, then those who pay the fee will requested by the applicants for physical
immigrants, or limit applications for pay approximately twice as much as access to USCIS facilities when required
naturalization. Rather, the change is to they would if everyone paid the fee. By for interviews, biometrics submission,
alleviate the increase of fees for other paying twice as much, they pay for their or other purposes. Therefore, the USCIS
applicants and petitioners who must benefit request and the cost of the same fee schedule established in this final
bear the cost of fee waivers as benefit request for which someone else rule does not violate the Rehabilitation
previously discussed. DHS does not did not pay. Act. The ADA does not generally apply
anticipate a reduction in receipt In prior years, USCIS fees have given to USCIS programs, but to the extent
volumes because of the fee waiver significant weight to the ability-to-pay that it provides guidance on the
policy changes. DHS declines to make principle by providing relatively liberal expectations for a Federal agency’s
changes in this final rule in response to fee waivers and exemptions and placing accommodations for a qualified
these comments. the costs of those services on those who individual with a disability, the fees
Comment: A few commenters stated pay. In the FY 2016/2017 fee rule, DHS that DHS is establishing in this final
that the curtailment of fee waivers noted that the estimated annual dollar rule also fully comply with the ADA.
disregards a Senate Appropriations value of waived fees and exemptions DHS declines to make changes in this
Committees’ directive that USCIS was to has increased markedly, from $191 final rule in response to these
‘‘report on the policies and provide data million in the FY 2010/2011 fee review comments.
on the use of fee waivers for four fiscal to $613 million in the FY 2016/2017 fee Comment: Commenters stated that the
years in 90 days,’’ which is not provided review. See 81 FR 26922 and 73307. proposed limits on fee waivers would
in the NPRM. DHS set the fees in the FY 2016/2017 threaten disabled immigrants and deny
Response: DHS has previously fee rule based on those estimates of the them access to citizenship. The
provided the required reports to level of fee waivers and exemptions by commenter wrote that disabled lawful
Congress. The Congressional reporting increasing other fees accordingly. To the permanent residents rely on
requirements do not include a limit on extent that waivers and exemptions Supplemental Security Income (SSI),
USCIS fees or limit the authority of DHS exceed the estimates used to calculate but that LPRs must naturalize within 7
to provide discretionary fee waiver fees, USCIS forgoes the revenue. While years to sustain this benefit. The
eligibility criteria or guidelines. They DHS acknowledges that the fee commenter stated that removing the
also do not require publication in the adjustments established in this final naturalization fee waiver would drive
these disabled LPRs to homelessness the full fee. The fee waiver application that DHS may impose fees for the
and desperation, with negative societal process would better allow USCIS to consideration of asylum and
consequences and no benefit. A detect fraud while serving as a sworn employment authorization applications
commenter added that LPRs with statement of financial status, that are not to exceed the estimated
disabilities lose SSI benefits 7 years circumventing the need for universal costs of adjudicating the applications.
after their entry, and, thus, that the verification which consumes agency See INA section 208(d)(3), 8 U.S.C.
proposed rule could deny members of resources. 1158(d)(3).29 INA section 208(d)(3) also
this population access to basic The fee waiver for asylum states, ‘‘[n]othing in this paragraph shall
necessities. A commenter wrote that applications would, according to this be construed to require [DHS] to charge
citizens are eligible for SSI, but such commenter, enable indigent applicants fees for adjudication services provided
benefits are only available to some non- to be granted asylum, upholding the to asylum applicants, or to limit the
citizens for up to seven years. The U.S.’s non-refoulement obligations. The authority of [DHS] to set adjudication
commenter wrote that the increase in commenter also stated that defensive and naturalization fees in accordance
naturalization fees would ‘‘create an applications should be subject to the with section 286(m).’’ Thus, DHS is
insurmountable barrier’’ for disabled same fees as affirmative applications, so permitted to charge asylum applicants
non-citizens to naturalize, and thus long as a fee waiver remains available. the same fee for employment
creates a ‘‘finite timeline’’ during which One commenter wrote that the authorization that it charges all others
a non-citizen can receive important elimination of fee waivers would for employment authorization. The fee
needed benefits like SSI. require immigrants with few economic for Form I–765 is calculated in
Response: DHS disagrees that resources to finance the cost of their accordance with INA section 286(m), 8
removing the application for own oppression referencing that U.S.C. 1356(m). DHS considered the
naturalization fee waiver would drive applicants who have a legal basis for effect of a non-waivable fee for the Form
disabled applicants into homelessness, asylum claims will be forced to pay the I–589 on affirmative asylum seekers and
despair, or deny them access to fees associated with that claim with no believes that the fee does not create a
citizenship. Normally, if an applicant discretion or real procedural mechanism barrier to asylum for indigent
entered the United States on or after for accessing a fee waiver. The applicants. The imposition of any fees
August 22, 1996, he or she is not eligible commenter indicated that immigrants for defensive asylum applications filed
for SSI for the first 5 years as a lawfully living in this country often arrived as with EOIR is a matter that falls within
admitted permanent resident, unless he economic refugees and do not have the jurisdiction of the Department of
or she is a qualified alien, as provided economic resources, especially given Justice, rather than DHS, subject to the
under the Personal Responsibility and the difficulties in obtaining employment laws and regulations governing fees
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of without status. The commenter stated charged in immigration court
1996 (PRWORA).28 Some categories of that forcing some of the most proceedings before EOIR. Under those
aliens who are eligible, including marginalized communities to pay, for regulations, EOIR charges the fee
asylees and refugee, may be limited to instance, a $1,170 filing fee (more than established by DHS for a DHS form and
a maximum of 7 years of SSI. Generally, 3 weeks wages for a low-income earner) determines the availability of a fee
an alien may apply for naturalization makes a mockery of the country’s waiver for a DHS form based on whether
after 5 years as an LPR. This final rule values. DHS allows such a waiver. See 8 CFR
does not prohibit eligible aliens from Response: DHS acknowledges the 1103.7(b)(4)(ii), (c).
obtaining SSI benefits or naturalizing. commenters’ concerns related to fees Further, the fees align with U.S.
DHS declines to make changes in this and fee waivers for asylum seekers and international treaty obligations and
final rule in response to these asylees. As stated in the NPRM and in domestic implementing law. As
comments. this final rule, DHS is not providing fee indicated in the NPRM, DHS believes
Comment: Commenters stated that fee waivers for the $50 asylum application that the asylum fee may arguably be
waivers should be available for both fee. DHS’s decision to establish a constrained in amount, but is not
affirmative and defensive asylum mandatory $50 fee is justified. The $50 prohibited, by the 1951 U.N.
seekers. One commenter stated that DHS fee would generate an estimated $8.15 Convention Relating to the Status of
failed to justify its decision to forgo fee million of annual revenue. If DHS Refugees (‘‘1951 Refugee Convention’’)
waivers for asylum applications, since permits fee waiver requests, it and the 1967 U.N. Protocol Relating to
the agency did not analyze data from legitimately assumes that the cost of
the Status of Refugees (‘‘1967 Refugee
other fee waiver processes to determine administering the fee waiver request
Protocol’’).30 See 84 FR 62318–19; 1951
whether the fee waivers would offset the review process may exceed the revenue,
Refugee Convention, 19 U.S.T. 6259,
cost recovery of the asylum fee. Another thereby negating any cost recovery
commenter said that if fee waivers will achieved from establishment of the fee. 29 This section states, ‘‘The Attorney General may
offset the revenue from the asylum fee, See 84 FR 62319. Although the INA impose fees for the consideration of an application
then the entire fee should be authorizes DHS to set fees ‘‘at a level for asylum, for employment authorization under
that will ensure recovery of the full this section, and for adjustment of status under
abandoned. section 209(b). Such fees shall not exceed the
One commenter said that the asylum costs of providing all such services, Attorney General’s costs in adjudicating the
fee should be established at $366 while including the costs of similar services applications. The Attorney General may provide for
allowing Form I–589 applications to be provided without charge to asylum the assessment and payment of such fees over a
applicants or other immigrants,’’ INA period of time or by installments.’’
submitted with a fee waiver application, 30 1951 Convention relating to the Status of
section 286(m), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m), DHS
stating that many asylees are able to pay Refugees, opened for signature July 28, 1951, 19
establishes a $50 fee for Form I–589, U.S.T. 6259, 189 U.N.T.S. 137; 1967 Protocol
28 See Title IV of Public Law 104–193, 110 Stat. which is well below the estimated full relating to the Status of Refugees, open for signature
2105, 2260–77 (Aug 22, 1996). For information on cost of adjudicating the application. Jan. 31, 1967, 19 U.S.T. 6223, 606 U.N.T.S. 267.
who is a qualified alien see eligible for SSI, see The statutory authorization for fees Although the United States is not a signatory to the
Under What Circumstances May A Non-Citizen Be 1951 Refugee Convention, it adheres to Articles 2
Eligible For SSI? available at https://www.ssa.gov/
allows, but does not require, imposition through 34 by operation of the 1967 Refugee
ssi/spotlights/spot-non-citizens.htm (last visited of a fee equal to the full cost of the Protocol, to which the United States acceded on
June 5, 2020). services provided. The INA provides Nov. 1, 1968.
189 U.N.T.S. 137; 1967 Refugee eligible to obtain an EAD due to an assault, human trafficking, gender-based
Protocol, 19 U.S.T. 6223, 606 U.N.T.S. asylum application pending for a certain abuses, and other crimes, as well as
267. The 1951 Refugee Convention and amount of time from the Form I–765 fee their children. A few commenters wrote
the 1967 Refugee Protocol, as or permitting fee waivers would have that access to fee waivers helps
incorporated by reference, address the further increased the proposed fee, survivors and their children rebuild
imposition of fees on individuals meaning that fee-paying EAD applicants their lives; break free from the cycle of
seeking protection, and limit ‘‘fiscal would pay a higher amount to fund the abuse; heal; and protect themselves,
charges’’ to not higher than those cost of EADs for asylum applicants. their children, and the community.
charged to their nationals in similar Therefore, DHS limited fee waiver Commenters stated that USCIS should
situations. See Article 29(1) of the 1951 availability to only those categories of instead focus on ensuring that low-
Refugee Convention, and 1967 Refugee humanitarian programs that had limited income and other vulnerable
Protocol, as incorporated by reference. populations to avoid increasing other immigrants have access to immigration
Domestic implementing law, which is fees. The limitation of fee waiver relief for which they are eligible.
consistent with international treaty availability conforms with the One commenter said that access to fee
obligations, authorizes the Attorney beneficiary pays principle, and unlike waivers is essential for survivors
General to ‘‘impose fees for the the asylum seeker, asylee, and refugee because it allows them to replace
consideration of an application for population, such limited fee waiver confiscated immigration documents
asylum, for employment authorization availability does not pass on a such as permanent resident cards or
under this section [208], and for significant burden to other applicants. employment authorization cards. The
adjustment of status under section Notwithstanding these considerations commenter stated that without fee
209(b).’’ INA section 208(a)(3), 8 U.S.C. and changes, DHS retains the authority waivers, survivors would be unable to
1158(a)(3). Thus, as provided in the in the final rule for the Director of pay these filing fees and would have to
NPRM and in this final rule, no fee USCIS to waive any fee if he or she choose between going without these
waivers are available to asylum seekers determines that such action is an documents or putting their lives in
in connection with filing Form I–589 or emergent circumstance, or if a major danger to retrieve documents from
for Form I–765 with USCIS. Notably, natural disaster has been declared in potentially dangerous situations.
unaccompanied alien children in accordance with 44 CFR part 206, Multiple commenters wrote that
removal proceedings who file an subpart B. See 8 CFR 106.3(b). As while fee waivers for certain survivor-
application for asylum with USCIS are provided in the NPRM, USCIS will related applications will remain, the
exempt from the Form I–589 fee. New continue to notify the general public of proposed rule ignores the fact that
8 CFR 106.2(a)(20). eligibility for fee waivers for specific survivors may pursue other routes to
As proposed in the NPRM and stated forms under this provision through secure immigration status other than
in this final rule, DHS exempts policy or website updates. See 84 FR those specifically designed for crime
applicants filing as refugees under INA 62300. Individuals who may qualify for survivors. The commenters stated that,
section 209(a), 8 U.S.C. 1159(a), from such a fee waiver will still need to meet by removing waivers for these other
the filing fee for adjustment of status the requirements to request a fee waiver routes, the proposed rule would harm
applications (Form I–485). See 8 CFR as provided in 8 CFR 106.3(b). survivors. One commenter indicated for
106.2(a)(17)(iii). Asylees are not exempt In this final rule, DHS consolidates a survivor of family violence, the ability
from the Form I–485 filing fee, and the provisions regarding the USCIS to apply for a fee waiver was crucial to
neither asylees nor refugees are exempt Director’s discretion to provide fee be able to obtain an EAD and gain some
from naturalization fees (Form N–400). waivers in the proposed 8 CFR 106.3(b) financial stability and independence
The fee waiver regulations are and 8 CFR 106.3(c), as proposed 8 CFR from her abusive spouse. The
consistent with the INA and 106.3(b) was redundant. commenter indicated that, as an
international treaty obligations, which Comment: Multiple commenters example, a fee waiver allows a client to
allow for the imposition of fees, and do wrote that the proposal eliminating the be able to maintain employment
not require that DHS offer these fee waivers would severely affect eligibility at her minimum wage job.
applicants fee waivers. See INA section vulnerable immigrants and survivor- Without the ability to apply for a fee
208(a)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1158(a)(3). based immigration. Several commenters waiver for all related applications the
DHS considered extending the fee stated that the elimination of fee client would have faced additional
waiver rules that apply to SIJ, SIVs, T, waivers will harm the most vulnerable barriers that would have prohibited her
U and VAWA applicants to asylum populations, such as domestic violence from obtaining financial independence
seekers, asylees, and refugees. However, or human trafficking survivors, and from the abuser and lawful status. One
in reviewing the data on the number of those in times of crisis. One commenter commenter stated that the proposal
applicants for various forms, DHS stated fee waivers should be available to ignores the fact that survivors of human
concluded that the populations of individuals seeking humanitarian relief trafficking may pursue other routes to
asylum applicants, refugees, and asylees and lacking the ability to pay. Several secure immigration status and in these
are substantial enough that a fee waiver commenters stated that the elimination instances, survivors will no longer have
would have caused a greater increase to of most fee waivers discriminates access to fee waivers. Some commenters
the I–765 and N–400 fees, for example, against immigrants who are low income, drew upon their experiences counseling
thereby increasing the burden upon elderly, and have disabilities and those seeking immigration benefits to
other applicants. As explained in the undermines humanitarian protection for underscore their opposition to further
NPRM, initial applicants with pending victims of gender-based violence and restricting access to legal immigration
asylum applications, aliens who have other crimes. Multiple commenters via unaffordable filing fees or the
not yet established eligibility for wrote that eliminating the availability of elimination of fee waivers. A
asylum, account for approximately 13 fee waivers would only create an commenter said the elimination of fee
percent of the total Form I–765 insurmountable economic barrier to waivers would place ‘‘the majority’’ of
workload volume forecast. See 84 FR low-income, vulnerable immigrants and its clients in a precarious position
62320. Continuing to exempt this lawful permanent residents, such as because they do not have funds to pay
population of aliens which is only survivors of domestic violence, sexual fees out of pocket and will have to
choose between borrowing money and vulnerable populations mitigates any Congressional intent, as reiterated in a
pursuing immigration benefits that concerns that the increase in certain fees December 2019 House Appropriations
would improve their lives. The would limit access for protected Committee report, by imposing fees on
commenter wrote that many of its categories of individuals. In addition, in individuals who have received
clients were ‘‘cut off’’ from financial response to commenters’ concerns humanitarian protection and
institutions and described the dangers regarding the ability for the VAWA, T subsequently seek adjustment of status
of borrowing from ‘‘predatory lending nonimmigrant, U nonimmigrant and and other immigration benefits which
mechanisms’’ or from family members Special Immigrant (Afghan and Iraqi they cannot afford. The commenters
who may use the debt owed as translators) populations to pay for the said low-income survivors will not
‘‘currency for their abusive behavior’’ in cost of naturalization applications, DHS apply for benefits due to the barriers
some circumstances. The commenter decided to expand the ability of these they will encounter in demonstrating
also said the increased fees for work populations to apply for a fee waiver for their eligibility for fee waivers and that
authorization would leave many Form N–400, Application for the proposed rule ‘‘undermines’’ bi-
immigrants vulnerable to victimization, Naturalization, Form N–600, partisan Congressional intent with
citing a report from Public Radio Application for Certificate of respect to VAWA-based relief.
International. Citizenship, and Form N–600K, Commenters stated that the language
Many commenters also wrote that the Application for Citizenship and runs counter to existing law as Congress
proposed changes for necessary Issuance of Certificate Under Section did not place any conditions on the
ancillary forms, including I–765, I–601, 322. See 8 CFR 106.3(a)(3). availability of fee waivers for survivors
I–192, and I–929, would impose Comment: One commenter referred to when it codified the use of fee waivers
significant fee increases that survivors a study from the National Resource for filing a VAWA self-petition, a T
often cannot afford. Another commenter Center on Domestic Violence that found nonimmigrant status application or U
stated that the elimination of fee means-tested benefits support financial nonimmigrant status petition, or an
waivers, combined with the increased security and independence and are application for VAWA cancellation or
fees for N–400, would put those ‘‘critically important’’ for survivors of suspension of deportation. Other
escaping violence in the position of domestic violence, sexual assault, and commenters wrote that USCIS should
having to choose between expending human trafficking. The commenter said automatically waive fees for all forms
resources to become a U.S. citizen or recipients of means-tested benefits are, associated with applications for T
covering basic necessities for their by definition, of limited financial means nonimmigrant status, U nonimmigrant
families. and need these benefits to meet their status, and VAWA self-petitioners to
A commenter said individuals with U basic needs. The commenter said make humanitarian immigration relief
nonimmigrant status or other restricting the availability of fee waivers accessible to victims.
humanitarian-based immigration would harm survivors of domestic Response: DHS exempts VAWA self-
benefits should not be ‘‘priced out’’ of violence and other forms of gender- petitioners, applicants for T
remaining with their families. Another based violence, and cited research nonimmigrant status, and petitioners for
commenter said more than 94 percent of demonstrating the widespread U nonimmigrant status from paying a
domestic violence survivors suffer incidence and devastating economic fee for the main benefit forms: Form I–
financial abuse, and many receive some impacts of such violence. 360 for VAWA, and Forms I–914 and I–
form of means-tested benefits that may Response: DHS does not intend to 918 for T and U nonimmigrants
preclude them from applying for fee further harm domestic violence or including family members, respectively.
waivers in the naturalization process. human trafficking survivors. In fact, the Thus, DHS is making relief accessible to
The commenter said fee waivers were rule continues to exempt those applying the populations noted by the
critical for ensuring such vulnerable for VAWA, T, and U benefits from commenters.
individuals have the opportunity to certain fees and allows them to request Further, this final rule complies with
pursue citizenship. fee waivers for other forms as provided the law’s requirements 31 to permit these
Response: DHS is not intending to by statute. DHS believes that applicants to apply for a waiver of any
further harm survivors of domestic maintaining access to fee waivers for fees associated with filing an
violence, human trafficking, or other these populations mitigates any application for relief through final
crimes. In fact, DHS continues to concerns that the increase in certain fees adjudication of the adjustment of status.
exempt VAWA self-petitioners, would limit access for protected See new 8 CFR 106.3(a)(1). DHS agrees
individuals who are victims of a severe categories of individuals. See 8 CFR that Congress did not place any
form of human trafficking and who 106.3(a). conditions on the availability of fee
assist law enforcement in the Comment: A commenter stated that waivers for a VAWA self-petition, a T
investigation or prosecution of those Congress mandated that DHS permit nonimmigrant status application, or U
acts of trafficking or qualify for an applicants to apply for a waiver of any nonimmigrant status petition, or an
exception (who may qualify for T fees associated with VAWA benefits, T application for VAWA cancellation or
nonimmigrant status), and individuals nonimmigrant filings, U nonimmigrant suspension of deportation, but DHS
who are victims of certain crimes and filings, or an application for VAWA disagrees that any legislation requires or
have been, are being, or are likely to be cancellation of removal or suspension of implies or that Congress intended that
helpful to the investigation or deportation. In doing so, Congress USCIS provide free adjudications for all
prosecution of those crimes (who may recognized that ensuring equal access to of their associated benefit requests.
qualify for U nonimmigrant status) from immigration protections was crucial for Congress has codified several fee
paying a fee for the main benefit forms: crime survivors to achieve safety and exemptions or fee limits. See, e.g., INA
Form I–360 for VAWA, and Forms I–914 security. Many commenters also wrote section 328(b)(4), 8 U.S.C. 1439(b)(4)
and I–918 for T and U nonimmigrants that the proposed rule undermines (fee exemption for Military
including family members, respectively. Congressional intent to make Naturalization Based on Peacetime
See 8 CFR 106.2(a)(16)(ii), (a)(45) and humanitarian relief accessible to Service); INA section 244(c)(1)(B), 8
(a)(46). DHS believes that maintaining victims. Another commenter stated that
access to fee waivers for these the proposed rule clearly violates 31 See INA section 245(l)(7), 8 U.S.C. 1255(l)(7).
U.S.C. 1254a(c)(1)(B) (the registration protections and exemptions for of the country, such as the San
fee for TPS is limited to $50, although humanitarian visa categories because Francisco Bay Area, where living
additional fees may be collected for the proposed rule contained expenses and housing costs are high.
biometrics and associated services, See contradictory and confusing language They said such a fee increase also does
8 U.S.C. 1254b. Congress has also and many potential applicants would not consider the mandatory expense of
appropriated funds for adjudication and not necessarily be aware of special the obligatory medical exam (Form I–
certain naturalization services. See, e.g., protections to which they are entitled. 693, Report of Medical Examination and
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019, Other commenters requested that Vaccination Record) that in their
Public Law 116–6, div. A, tit. IV (Feb. USCIS withdraw the proposed rule, experience ranges anywhere from $300
15, 2019) and Consolidated because it would create barriers to to $700 and for which there is no fee
Appropriations Act, 2020, Public Law accessing immigration benefits for waiver.
116–93, div. D, tit. IV (Dec. 20, 2020). victims, and immigration benefits are Response: DHS acknowledges the
Congress has not provided for a fee essential for survivors to escape abuse concerns commenters have raised and
exemption, fee cap, or appropriated and become self-sufficient after they does not intend to unduly burden any
funds for VAWA self-petitioners, T have been victimized. Commenters alien, particularly those who have been
nonimmigrant status applicants, and U stated that the rule ignores survivors of victimized. To avoid confusion and
nonimmigrant status petitioners. To the domestic violence, who have a spotty clarify the applicability of the rule, DHS
contrary, the statute directs DHS to employment history or lack of savings, reiterates that the rule continues to
allow applications for fee waivers, or both, and survivors of human exempt the VAWA, T, and U
rather than to waive all such fees, trafficking, who may spend many populations from fees for the main
evidencing Congress’s intent for DHS to months waiting for compensation from benefit forms and allows them to submit
evaluate the individual merits of such litigation or before they are able to fee waiver requests for any associated
requests. DHS appreciates the concerns recuperate their lost wages. forms up to and including the
about affordability, but, while many Other commenters detailed how application for adjustment of status, as
victim requesters are in poor financial economic abuse affects survivors’ provided by statute. For example, there
condition, being a victim does not finances, including precluding victims are no fees for the following forms:
equate to being poor, and DHS may from working, destroying their work VAWA-based Form I–360, Petition for
require that the victim requester uniforms and equipment, preventing Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special
document eligibility for a fee waiver. them from getting to work or an Immigrant; Form I–914, Application for
Therefore, DHS makes no changes in the interview, and other tactics that impact T Nonimmigrant Status; and Form I–
final rule as a result of these comments. a victim’s financial independence and 918, Petition for U Nonimmigrant
Comment: Commenters stated that impede their ability to pay filing fees. Status. In addition, VAWA, T, and U
while applications and petitions for One commenter specifically noted that filers may submit a request for a fee
survivor-based relief do not have fees, VAWA self-petitioners often have waiver for associated forms, including
applicants must frequently file ancillary limited financial means, are often Forms I–765, I–131, I–212, and I–601,
forms whose fees are increasing under homeless after escaping their abusers, among other forms.
the proposed rule or may seek status and suffer from physical and mental Additionally, in response to
through other immigration categories. health issues. The commenter stated commenters’ concerns regarding the
The commenter stated that by that the little money they do have is ability for the victim population to pay
eradicating fee waivers for other types of needed to help them maintain for the cost of naturalization
applications and petitions, the proposed independence from their abusers and applications, DHS will permit this
rule ignores the facts that survivors of provide for their families. One population to request a fee waiver for
domestic violence, sexual assault, commenter wrote that USCIS should Form N–400, Application for
human trafficking, and other gender- focus on ensuring vulnerable Naturalization; Form N–600,
based abuses may pursue other routes to immigrants have access to immigration Application for Certificate of
secure immigration status which lack relief for which they are eligible. The Citizenship; and Form N–600K,
such explicit protections. They also commenters stated that fee waivers for Application for Citizenship and
noted that fee waivers will no longer be survivor-based immigration protections Issuance of Certificate Under Section
available for any naturalization have helped survivors improve their 322. The table below provides the full
applications and many other forms in lives by allowing them to obtain list of forms these applicants and
non-survivor based cases, like legal employment authorization and legal petitioners may apply for that are either
permanent residence applications; work status without having to request funds exempt from fees or eligible for fee
permit applications; and Form I–751, from their abusers or forgo food or waivers. DHS repeats these applicants,
Petition to Remove Conditions on housing in order to pay fees. In the generally, do not have to pay the fees for
Residence; among others. Another context of VAWA, T, and U applicants, the initial main benefit forms that
commenter said the final rule would another commenter stated that the fee provide the immigration status or
need to more explicitly address the increases did not take into account areas benefit.
TABLE 3—CATEGORIES AND FORMS WITHOUT FEES OR ELIGIBLE FOR FEE WAIVERS
Category Main immigration benefit requests 32 Associated forms
Violence Against Women Act Form I–360, Petition for Amerasian, Form I–131, Application for Travel Document.34
(VAWA) self-petitioners and Widow(er), or Special Immigrant (no fee for Form I–212, Application for Permission to Reapply for Admis-
derivatives as defined in INA VAWA-based filings). sion into the United States After Deportation or Removal.
section 101(a)(51) or individ- Form I–485, Application to Register Perma- Form I–290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion.
uals otherwise self-petitioning nent Residence or Adjust Status. Form I–601, Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmis-
for immigrant classification or Form I–751, Petition to Remove Conditions sibility.
seeking adjustment of status on Residence. Form I–765, Application for Employment Authorization (no
due to abuse by a qualifying Form I–881, Application for Suspension of initial fee for principals).35
relative 33. Deportation or Special Rule Cancellation of Form N–400, Application for Naturalization.
Removal (Pursuant to Section 203 of Public Form N–600, Application for Certificate of Citizenship.
Law 105–100 (NACARA)). Form N–600K, Application for Citizenship and Issuance of
Certificate Under Section 322.
Victims of Severe Form of Traf- Form I–914, Application for T Nonimmigrant Form I–131, Application for Travel Document.
ficking (T nonimmigrant) 36. Status (no fee). Form I–192, Application for Advance Permission to Enter as
Form I–914 Supplement A, Application for a Nonimmigrant.
Family Member of T–1, Recipient (no fee). Form I–193, Application for Waiver of Passport and/or Visa.
Form I–914, Supplement B, Declaration of Form I–290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion.
Law Enforcement Officer for Victim of Traf- Form I–539, Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant
ficking in Persons (no fee). Status.
Form I–485, Application to Register Perma- Form I–601, Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmis-
nent Residence or Adjust Status. sibility.
Form I–765, Application for Employment Authorization (no
initial fee for principals).
Form N–400, Application for Naturalization.
Form N–600, Application for Certificate of Citizenship.
Form N–600K, Application for Citizenship and Issuance of
Victims of Criminal Activity (U Form I–918, Petition for U Nonimmigrant Sta- Form I–131, Application for Travel Document.
nonimmigrant) 37. tus (no fee). Form I–192, Application for Advance Permission to Enter as
Form I–918, Supplement A, Petition for Quali- a Nonimmigrant.
fying Family Member of U–1 Recipient (no Form I–193, Application for Waiver of Passport and/or Visa.
fee). Form I–290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion.
Form I–918 Supplement B, U Nonimmigrant Form I–539, Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant
Status Certification (no fee). Status.
Form I–929, Petition for Qualifying Family Form I–765, Application for Employment Authorization (no
Member of a U–1 Nonimmigrant. initial fee for principals).
Form I–485, Application to Register Perma- Form N–400, Application for Naturalization.
nent Residence or Adjust Status. Form N–600, Application for Certificate of Citizenship.
Employment authorization for Form I–765V, Application for Employment Au- None.
battered spouses of A, G, E– thorization for Abused Nonimmigrant
3, or H nonimmigrants 38. Spouse (no initial fee).
Battered spouses or children of None with USCIS ............................................ Form I–601, Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility.
a lawful permanent resident or Form N–400, Application for Naturalization.
U.S. citizen and derivatives Form N–600, Application for Certificate of Citizenship.
under INA section Form N–600K, Application for Citizenship and Issuance of
240A(b)(2) 39. Certificate Under Section 322.
Temporary Protected Status 40 ... Form I–821, Application for Temporary Pro- Form I–131, Application for Travel Document.
tected Status. Form I–601, Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmis-
Biometric Services Fee. sibility.
Form I–765, Application for Employment Authorization.
Special Immigrant Juveniles Form I–360, Petition for Amerasian, Form I–131, Application for Travel Document.41
(SIJ) who have been placed in Widow(er), or Special Immigrant (no fee). Form I–212, Application for Permission to Reapply for Admis-
out-of-home care under the Form I–485, Application to Register Perma- sion into the United States After Deportation or Removal.
supervision of a juvenile court nent Residence or Adjust Status. Form I–290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion.
or a state child welfare agency Form I–601, Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmis-
at the time of filing. sibility.
Form I–765, Application for Employment Authorization.
Form N–400, Application for Naturalization.
TABLE 3—CATEGORIES AND FORMS WITHOUT FEES OR ELIGIBLE FOR FEE WAIVERS—Continued
Category Main immigration benefit requests 32 Associated forms
Special Immigrant as an Afghan Form I–360, Petition for Amerasian, Form I–131, Application for Travel Document (no fee).
or Iraqi Translator or Inter- Widow(er), or Special Immigrant (no fee). Form I–290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion (no fee).
preter, Iraqi National employed Form I–485, Application to Register Perma- Form I–765, Application for Employment Authorization (no
by or on behalf of the U.S. nent Residence or Adjust Status (no fee). fee).
Government, or Afghan Na- Form I–212, Application for Permission to Reapply for Admis-
tional employed by or on be- sion into the United States After Deportation or Removal.
half of the U.S. government or Form I–601, Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmis-
employed by the International sibility.
Security Assistance Forces. Form N–400, Application for Naturalization.
Although DHS is increasing fees for the recommendation to automatically U filings. Organizations providing
various forms to account for the cost of waive fees for all forms associated with services to the VAWA, T, and U
adjudication, the victim populations VAWA, T, and U filings or to withdraw population will continue to be able to
identified here will be eligible to apply the rule in its entirety. USCIS is funded request fee waivers for forms associated
for a fee waiver for most forms if their through fees, and taxpayer dollars are with these filings in addition to a fee
income is at or below 125 percent of the not used to fund USCIS adjudication exemption for the main benefit request
FPG. As stated previously, the law does and naturalization services. The cost (i.e., Form I–360, Form I–914, and Form
not require, and DHS declines to adopt, associated with applications and I–918 have no fee for these populations).
petitions that have been fee waived is Comment: One commenter stated that
32 Some immigration benefit requests may not paid from fees collected from other the proposed Form I–912 instructions
have a fee for the specific category. benefit requests. DHS believes that
33 See INA sections 101(a)(51) and 204(a), 8 ‘‘create additional burdens that are ultra
maintaining access to fee waivers for vires to the statute permitting fee
U.S.C. 1101(a)(51) and 1154(a); INA section
245(l)(7), 8 U.S.C. 1255(l)(7); Public Law 110–457, these vulnerable populations mitigates waivers for survivor-based cases,
122 Stat. 5044 (Dec. 23, 2008); 22 U.S.C. 7101 et any concerns that the increase in the notably with the phrase ‘due to your
seq. This category includes applicants for waivers fees will limit access for protected
of the joint filing requirement for Form I–751 based victimization.’ ’’ The commenter stated
on battery and extreme cruelty; victims of battery
categories of individuals. that survivors should not have to
or extreme cruelty as a spouse or child under the As the commenters point out, the law
demonstrate a nexus between their
Cuban Adjustment Act Public Law 99–603, 100 provides specific immigration benefits
victimization and their lack of income
Stat. 3359 (November 6, 1986) (as amended), 8 for those who have been victimized and
U.S.C. 1255a; applicants adjusting based on or proof of income. The commenter also
provides protections and flexibilities for
dependent status under the Haitian Refugee stated that this non-statutory
Immigrant Fairness Act, Public Law 105–277, 112 these populations to address their
particular concerns. This final rule requirement is burdensome on
Stat. 2681 (October 21, 1998), 8 U.S.C. 1255, for
battered spouses and children; and applicants for complies with those provisions. survivors, as they may face obstacles
Suspension of Deportation or Special Rule Comment: Another commenter obtaining or providing proof of income
Cancellation of Removal (Form I–881) under the
provided statistics describing the for reasons that may or may not be
Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American related to their victimization and will
Relief Act, Public Law 105–100, 111 Stat. 2163 economic condition of the population
(Nov. 19, 1997), for battered spouses and children. served by non-profit legal service prevent many survivors from accessing
34 Currently, fees for Form I–131 are exempt if
providers in its State and wrote that the critical benefits. Several commenters
filed in conjunction with a pending or concurrently proposal would increase the strain on said low-income survivors will not
filed Form I–485 with fee that was filed on or after apply for benefits due to the barriers
July 30, 2007. See 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(M)(4). these important organizations. The
However, DHS implements changes to this policy commenter noted that nearly 90 percent they will encounter in demonstrating
in this final rule as explained in this preamble. New of the 25 legal service providers their eligibility for fee waivers and that
8 CFR 106.2(a)(7)(iv). surveyed in its state represented the proposed rule undermines bi-
35 Form I–360 allows a principal self-petitioner to
applicants for humanitarian partisan Congressional intent with
request an EAD incident to case approval without
submitting a separate Form I–765. Form I–765 is immigration benefits, such as VAWA respect to VAWA-based relief. Many
required for employment authorization requests by petitions, trafficking victims on T commenters stated that the additional
derivative beneficiaries. nonimmigrant applications, or asylum limits on fee waiver eligibility criteria
36 See INA section 101(a)(15)(T), 8 U.S.C.
applicants. The commenter stated the combined with the stringent
1101(a)(15)(T) (T nonimmigrant status for victims of documentation requirements for fee
a severe form of trafficking in persons). proposal would create a chilling effect
37 See INA section 101(a)(15)(U), 8 U.S.C. on all clients served by these waivers (e.g., Form I–912 instructions
1101(a)(15)(U) (U nonimmigrant status for victims organizations, regardless of the benefits that survivors need to ‘‘demonstrate a
of certain criminal activity). for which they qualify, and could nexus between their victimization and
38 See INA section 106, 8 U.S.C. 1105a.
ultimately jeopardize these lack of income or proof of income) will
39 See INA section 240A(b)(2), 8 U.S.C.
organizations’ budgets due to a prevent many survivors from qualifying
1229b(b)(2), and INA section 245(l)(7), 8 U.S.C.
or applying for fee waivers. A
1255(l)(7). reduction in the number of cases served.

40 See INA section 244, 8 U.S.C. 1254a. Response: As stated previously, DHS commenter stated that, whether
41 Currently, fees for Form I–131 are exempt if appreciates the services that charitable, intentional or not, the proposed rule
filed in conjunction with a pending or concurrently community based, non-governmental, will act as a barrier to status for the
filed Form I–485 with fee that was filed on or after and non-profit organizations provide to crime survivors we serve and, coupled
July 30, 2007. See 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(M)(4).
However, DHS proposes changes to the policy in
the immigrant community. DHS with the stringent documentation
this final rule as explained later in this preamble. declines, however, to exempt from fees requirements for fee waivers, will
New 8 CFR 106.2(a)(7)(iv). all forms associated with VAWA, T, and prevent many survivors from qualifying
for fee waivers.’’ A commenter said the why they are unable to obtain such of most low to moderate income
proposed Form I–912 instructions create documentation and submit other applicants and that the inability to
additional burdens for crime survivors evidence to demonstrate their eligibility. access identity documents exacerbates
from qualifying for fee waivers, and Obtaining information from the IRS in homelessness and unemployment,
USCIS should continue to accept transcripts, a W–2, or proof of non- concluding that elimination of fee
applicant-generated fee waiver requests. filing, if applicable, is sufficient waivers is arbitrary and capricious.
One commenter said USCIS had documentation to establish the Response: DHS acknowledges the
received many comments on a previous necessary income or lack of income. concerns of the commenter related to
attempt to modify the fee waiver form Comment: A few commenters the availability of fee waivers for
from stakeholders concerned about the discussed the processing times for refugees and asylees, and other
negative impact those changes would survivor-based forms of immigration vulnerable applicants and petitioners.
have on immigrant survivors of violence protections, citing increased DHS will continue to provide a fee
and wrote that the current proposal adjudication time for filings such as exemption for the initial Form I–765 for
would make these problems worse. The petitions for U nonimmigrant status and individuals who were granted asylum
commenter said survivors of violence Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) (asylees) or who were admitted as
would be adversely impacted by the self-petitions. Commenters said slow refugees. See 84 FR 62301. DHS is also
heightened documentation processing times can lead to increased continuing to provide a fee exemption
requirements, specifically the provision homelessness, violence, or a return to to refugees for Form I–485. See 84 FR
that survivors would have to abusive relationships for victims and 62360; new 8 CFR 106.2(a)(17)(iii). In
demonstrate that their inability to that USCIS has failed to address how addition, the fee that DHS charges for
comply with documentation these fees will improve processing refugee travel documents will continue
requirements was due to their times. One commenter cited several as a lesser fee, linked to the fee for a
victimization. The commenter said the sources and wrote that new fees would U.S. passport book, rather than the
proposal failed to reference any not result in improved processing but estimated full cost of adjudication. See
exceptions to the vague ‘‘victimization’’ instead would contribute to, and 84 FR 62306.
standard despite USCIS’ prior escalate, violence. At the USCIS Director’s discretion,
recognition that the requirement to Response: DHS understands the USCIS may waive or exempt the fee for
provide documentation from the commenter’s concerns regarding any form, including those filed by
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) would processing times. Processing times are asylees and refugees. See 8 CFR
disadvantage immigrant survivors. impacted by several factors, and any 106.3(b), (e). That provision is similar
changes based on the rule would to, but somewhat more limited than, the
Response: To obtain a fee waiver, an limitedly impact these populations. The authority that was in 8 CFR 103.7(d) for
applicant must demonstrate that he or rule continues to exempt the VAWA, T, the Director of USCIS to provide for the
she is at or below 125 percent of the and U populations from certain fees and waiver or exemption of any fee if doing
FPG, meet the other criteria as provided allows them to submit fee waiver so was in the public interest. The new
in the rule, and provide the information requests for any forms up to adjustment provision provides that the Director
and evidence available in order to of status. See new 8 CFR 106.2(a)(16), determines that such action is an
establish eligibility. The applicant need (a)(32)(ii), (a)(45) and (a)(46); 8 CFR emergent circumstance or if a major
only provide sufficient information to 106.3(a)(3). In the final rule DHS is natural disaster has been declared in
establish why the documentation is not permitting a request for a fee waiver on accordance with 44 CFR part 206,
available and not that it is unavailable the application for naturalization or subpart B. See 8 CFR 106.3(b), (e). As
directly or indirectly as a result of the certificate of citizenship for these was stated in the NPRM, USCIS will
victimization. The form provides space categories. See new 8 CFR 106.3(a)(3). notify the public of the availability of
for explanations and attachments are DHS disagrees that this final rule would fee waivers for specific forms under this
accepted, but a separate declaration is result in increased processing times or provision through external policy
unnecessary. Although not required by contribute to escalating violence on guidance, website updates, and
statute, USCIS has provided flexibilities these populations, particularly as the communication materials. See 84 FR
in the instructions for the VAWA, T, additional resources made available 62300. Individuals who qualify for such
and U populations permitting them to from increased fees may enable USCIS a fee waiver would still need to meet the
submit information regarding their to limit growth in pending caseloads. As requirements to request a fee waiver as
inability to obtain documentation on DHS states elsewhere in this rule, DHS provided in the new 8 CFR 106.3(b) and
their income with their fee waiver is adjusting fees in this final rule (d). In this final rule, DHS consolidated
request. DHS will presume that the because they are insufficient to generate the provisions regarding the USCIS
inability of this group of applicants to the revenue necessary to fund USCIS at Director’s discretion in 8 CFR 106.3(b)
submit certain evidence is the result of levels adequate to meet its processing and 8 CFR 106.3(c), as the proposed
the victimization and abuse and not time goals. The new fees will allow provision in the NPRM, 8 CFR 106.3(b),
require proof of a nexus between USCIS to hire more people to adjudicate was redundant.
victimization and the inability to pay, cases and possibly prevent the growth of In response to commenters’ concerns,
but the request must demonstrate backlogs. DHS will also allow petitioners for and
inability to pay to the extent necessary Comment: A commenter stated that recipients of SIJ classification who, at
for USCIS to grant a discretionary fee the proposed rule is not detailed enough the time of filing, have been placed in
waiver. All applicants for a fee waiver about whether refugees are exempt from out-of-home care under the supervision
are subject to the evidence requirements fees including the Form I–765 fees and of a juvenile court or a state child
as provided in the revised form whether asylees and SIJ petitioners and welfare agency, to submit requests for
instructions, which include more recipients will be eligible for fee fee waivers for Form I–485 and
flexible rules with respect to the groups waivers. The commenter also stated that associated forms, as well as Forms N–
these comments mention. If individuals DHS fails to understand that individuals 400, N–600, and N–600K. See 8 CFR
are unable to obtain documents without are forced to file fee waivers when DHS 106.3(a)(2)(i). DHS does not believe that
contacting the abuser, they can explain places fees for benefits out of the reach the final rule eliminates fee waivers for
these applicants or blocks access to Act requirements, which apply to commenter stated that in passing the
identity documents. information that is maintained in a Trafficking Victims Protection
Comment: Several commenters stated ‘‘system of records’’ from which Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA),45
that the elimination of fee waivers will information is retrieved by the name of Congress made amendments to the SIJ
harm the most vulnerable populations, an individual or by some identifying statute to provide ‘‘permanent
such as domestic violence or human number, symbol, or other identifier protection for certain at-risk children.’’
trafficking survivors, and those in times particular assigned to the individual. The commenter further stated that not
of crisis. One commenter stated fee Information from forms is collected and providing fee waivers to SIJs would
waivers should be available to maintained consistent with the Privacy preclude at-risk children from accessing
individuals seeking humanitarian relief Act of 1974 43 (Privacy Act) and the fee waivers and thus clearly violate
and lacking the ability to pay. One System of Records Notice (SORN), Congressional intent to permanently
commenter suggested that it would which identifies the purpose for which protect these at-risk children. Another
make better fiscal sense and would Personally Identifiable Information (PII) commenter said that the hardship
result in better outcomes for USCIS if is collected, from whom and what type would be particularly acute for those SIJ
the agency automatically waives fees for of PII is collected, how the PII is shared petitioners in foster care, who have
all forms associated with applicants for externally (routine uses), and how to limited or no access to the funds
T nonimmigrant status, petitioners for U access and correct any PII maintained necessary to seek adjustment of status
nonimmigrant status, and VAWA self- by DHS.44 With regard to 8 U.S.C. 1367 with USCIS.
petitioners because fee waivers would protections, DHS remains committed to Response: The TVPRA 46 requires
facilitate non-profits’ efforts to help our obligations under the statute and DHS to permit certain applicants to
these applicants file these forms applies the required protections to all apply for fee waivers for ‘‘any fees
quickly. A commenter wrote that delays information pertaining to individuals associated with filing an application for
in application submission due to with a pending or approved VAWA, T, relief through final adjudication of the
limitations on fee waivers would result or U petition or application, which adjustment of status.’’ INA section
in delayed justice for individuals includes information provided on Form 245(l)(7), 8 U.S.C. 1255(l)(7), provides
because immigration practitioners will I–912. that ‘‘The Secretary of Homeland
be forced to spend more time on each Comment: Several commenters stated Security shall permit aliens to apply for
case. that SIJ petitioners and recipients, a a waiver of any fees associated with
Response: DHS acknowledges the vulnerable group, are missing from filing an application for relief through
commenters’ concerns and clarifies that USCIS’ list of groups retaining access to final adjudication of the adjustment of
this final rule continues to exempt the fee waivers. A commenter stated that status for a VAWA self-petitioner and
VAWA, T and U populations from this proposal will hinder the ability of for relief under sections 1101(a)(15)(T),
certain fees and allows them to request juveniles who receive SIJ classification 1101(a)(15)(U), 1105a, 1229b(b)(2), and
fee waivers on other forms as previously to fully integrate into the United States, 1254a(a)(3) of this title (as in effect on
discussed. See 8 CFR 106.2(a)(16)(ii), due to excessive costs, and that it will March 31, 1997).’’ These provisions do
(a)(45) and (a)(46), 8 CFR 106.3. result in other unintended not include SIJ petitioners or recipients.
Furthermore, in response to concerns consequences, particularly for Therefore, DHS is not mandated to
expressed by the public, DHS provides unaccompanied minors. Such allow SIJs to apply for fee waivers.
in this final rule that those populations consequences include difficulty finding Nevertheless, after considering the
may also request a fee waiver for Forms sponsors and a lower level of legal commenters’ concerns, DHS agrees that
N–400, N–600, and N–600K. See 8 CFR representation. Commenters further SIJ petitioners who are wards of the
106.3(a)(3). DHS believes that by noted that the proposed fee increases state are particularly vulnerable.
continuing to provide the opportunity to would burden SIJ petitioners and Therefore, DHS will allow petitioners
request fee waivers, the final rule will recipients who have no means to pay for for and recipients of SIJ classification
not unduly burden these populations or the fees when applying for adjustment who, at the time of filing, have been
delay the submission of their of status. The commenter stated that SIJ placed in out-of-home care under the
applications and petitions. petitioners and recipients are children supervision of a juvenile court or a state
Comment: A commenter opposed the who have suffered abuse, neglect, or child welfare agency, to request that the
new form’s request for applicants to abandonment by at least one of their fees for Form I–485 and associated
self-identify as survivors. The parents. The commenter stated that SIJs forms be waived. See 8 CFR
commenter stated that most types of benefit immensely from obtaining work 106.3(a)(2)(i).
humanitarian relief covered by Form I– authorization, as working lets the SIJs In addition, DHS is including Forms
912 ‘‘are subject to certain protections take control over their lives, provide for N–400, N–600, and N–600K as forms
and sanctions’’ relating to privacy and themselves, and begin to build a eligible for a fee waiver for multiple
confidentiality and requested that brighter future. The commenter stated categories of applicants. See 8 CFR
USCIS clarify that the disclosure of that adjustment offers them the chance 106.3(a)(3). Table 3 above provides a list
personal information in these sections to permanently put down roots in the of forms eligible for fee waivers based
complies with protections codified at 8 United States, putting the trauma in on SIJ classification.
U.S.C. 1367. their pasts behind them. One Comment: A commenter stated that
Response: DHS takes seriously its limits on categories eligible for fee
responsibility to properly protect strict controls to minimize the risk of compromising waivers and elimination of a need-based
sensitive information in its the information that is being stored.’’).
43 See 5 U.S.C. 552.

benefit as a way to qualify for a fee
possession.42 DHS follows the Privacy 44 See generally Notice of Modified Privacy Act
45 See The William Wilberforce Trafficking
System of Records, 82 FR 43556, 43564 (Sept. 18,
42 See generally Notice of Modified Privacy Act 2017) (‘‘DHS/USCIS safeguards records in this Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008
System of Records, 82 FR 43556, 43564 (Sept. 18, system according to applicable rules and policies, (TVPRA), Public Law 110–457, 112 Stat. 5044 (Dec.
2017) (‘‘DHS/USCIS safeguards records in this including all applicable DHS automated systems 23, 2008).
system according to applicable rules and policies, security and access policies. USCIS has imposed 46 See title II, subtitle A, sec. 201(d)(3), Public
including all applicable DHS automated systems strict controls to minimize the risk of compromising Law 110–457, 122 Stat. 5044 (2008); INA section
security and access policies. USCIS has imposed the information that is being stored.’’). 245(l)(7), 8 U.S.C. 1255(l)(7).
waiver will have an especially heavy b. Fee Waivers for Specific Forms as the form is necessary to renew
impact on the homeless, who often have Comment: Commenters opposed permanent resident cards. The
difficulty providing required documents eliminating the fee waiver for commenters stated that without the fee
and must file applications for naturalization, as well as lawful waiver, applicants would be unable to
replacement of lost or stolen permanent residence, employment renew their status and escape poverty.
immigration documents. authorization, and other applications. A commenter wrote that eliminating a
Response: This final rule does not Numerous commenters opposed the fee waiver option for an I–90 would be
prohibit aliens who are homeless from proposed elimination of fee waivers for ‘‘egregious.’’ The commenter stated that
applying for or receiving a fee waiver if Form I–90, Form I–765, Form I–485, immigrants with expired legal status or
he or she is a member of one of the forms for applicants exempt from the employment authorization often get
designated categories. public charge inadmissibility ground, caught in a vicious cycle of being unable
Comment: Multiple commenters Form I–751, and naturalization and to prove they have permission to work,
opposed lowering the income limit for citizenship-related forms. preventing them from earning funds to
fee waivers to 125 percent of the FPG as Response: DHS is not eliminating all cover filing fees and thus perpetuating
it would disqualify many immigrants, fee waivers for Forms I–485 and I–765 their inability to procure work
including survivors of crime who are and is allowing fee waiver requests for authorization.
statutorily protected, from receiving fee certain humanitarian programs for Several commenters stated that
waivers for immigration benefits. Many naturalization and citizenship related removing fee waivers for forms such as
commenters stated that the proposed forms as applicable. See 8 CFR 106.3(a). the I–90 and the N–565 would prevent
rule fails to acknowledge that See Table 3: Categories and Forms or significantly delay applicants from
immigrants, especially survivors of Without Fees or Eligible for Fee being able to apply for and maintain
crimes, often do not have access to Waivers. DHS will continue to accept employment. The commenters stated
financial documents or proof of their fee waiver requests from applicants who that the change could likewise prevent
income for various reasons, including meet the requirements of INA section applicants from having proof of their
informal jobs (e.g., babysitting or yard 245(l)(7), 8 U.S.C. 1255(l)(7). Id. As eligibility for certain public benefits, as
work) that pay cash; the fact that limited explained in the NPRM, the INA many applicants, especially survivors of
earnings do not require taxes to be filed; requires DHS to permit fee waiver crime and homeless immigrants, have
and that abusers often have control of requests from certain immigrant primary documents that have been
all financial documents, destroy categories and for certain forms; limiting stolen, lost, or destroyed, often by
records, or prevent victims from fee waiver requests reduces the fee abusers.
attaining financial independence. One increases for all immigration benefits Response: DHS disagrees that
commenter wrote that since many and places the fee costs on the benefit eliminating the fee waivers for the I–90
individuals would not fall within the recipient instead of an unrelated party. would be ‘‘egregious,’’ or that it will
proposed, narrower financial eligibility DHS notes, however, that the law prevent or significantly delay applicants
criteria, victims of labor trafficking may requires DHS to ‘‘permit aliens to apply from being able to apply for and
turn to jobs with exploitative employers for a waiver of any fees associated with maintain employment. Applicants
or back to traffickers in order to pay the filing an application for relief through would still be eligible to obtain proof of
fees for adjustment of status or other final adjudication of the adjustment of status, and public benefit granting
ancillary forms. status for a VAWA self-petitioner and agencies have access to the Systematic
for relief under sections 101(a)(15)(T), Alien Verification for Entitlements
Response: DHS acknowledges that
101(a)(15)(U), 106, 240A(b)(2), and (SAVE) program which validates an
some applicants may no longer qualify
244(a)(3) (as in effect on March 31, alien’s immigration status. DHS declines
for fee waivers if their income was
1997).’’ DHS appreciates that aliens will to make changes in this final rule in
higher than 125 percent of the FPG but
often file multiple requests response to these comments.
lower than 150 percent of the FPG.
simultaneously or shortly after each Comment: A commenter wrote that
However, many applicants may
other, including requests for asylum, SIJ children should not be subject to fees
otherwise have income below 125
classification, T nonimmigrant status, U for Form I–485 or for EAD applications
percent and, therefore, still qualify.
nonimmigrant status, humanitarian while their asylum or adjustment of
Consistent with the statute, this final
parole, or deferred action. However, that status application is pending because
rule specifically permits aliens
a request may be filed simultaneously doing so would impose multiple
described in the TVPRA, including
with a status included in section hardships. The commenter stated that
those seeking benefits under VAWA, as
245(l)(7), 1255(l)(7), or while it is EADs serve as a de facto identification
well as T and U nonimmigrants,47 to
pending, does not make such a request document and are frequently a
request fee waivers for ‘‘any fees
an ‘‘application for relief’’ ‘‘associated precursor to obtaining access to state
associated with filing an application for
with filing’’ for the purposes of fee and federal services, as well as access to
relief through final adjudication of the
waiver eligibility under that provision a social security number, which is a
adjustment of status.’’ 48 The TVPRA
of law. USCIS will generally reject a fee common prerequisite for enrolling in
provision requires DHS to allow these
waiver request and the associated school, obtaining health insurance, or
applicants to request fee waivers;
benefit request that asserts that it is receiving preventative care.
however, the TVPRA does not require
fee exemptions or set the FPG level for ‘‘associated’’ and eligible for a fee A commenter wrote that senior
waiver simply because it is citizens have extremely limited
waivers. DHS declines to make changes

in this final rule in response to this simultaneous or filed while another financial situations but are often able to
comment. benefit request is pending. renew their Permanent Resident cards
DHS will not make changes to its fee or apply for citizenship with a fee
47 See title II, subtitle A, sec. 201(d)(3), Public
waiver regulations in this final rule in waiver. The commenter stated that
Law 110–457, 122 Stat. 5044 (2008); INA section response to these comments. eliminating this fee waiver, while also
245(l)(7), 8 U.S.C. 1255(l)(7). Comment: A few commenters said the raising the form fees, would put these
48 See id. Form I–90 should remain fee waivable, applications out of reach.
Response: DHS disagrees that this Comment: A few commenters stated Comment: A few commenters
final rule prevents asylees, children, or that eliminating fee waivers for work opposed the elimination of fee waivers,
seniors from obtaining documentation authorization applications would cause including for Form I–765, which would
of status. Immigrants are provided a further harm to asylum seekers. At least unfairly limit the access to immigration
stamp in their passports that they can one commenter stated that elimination benefits for students who cannot afford
use as documentation of lawful of fee waivers for asylum seekers would their request for employment
permanent resident status upon have a disproportionately negative authorization.
adjustment of status or their entry into impact on the people who most need Response: USCIS must incur the costs
the United States as a lawful permanent asylum. Another commenter wrote that of adjudicating a Form I–765 submitted
resident. Further, an alien’s LPR card, individuals with pending asylum cases by a student, and DHS does not believe
which provides documentation of LPR before USCIS are required to renew their it should shift that cost to other fee
status, and therefore employment employment authorization every year, payers. Moreover, certain nonimmigrant
eligibility, is generally valid for 10 and without fee waivers, employment students are required to establish the
years. For those without approved authorization filing fees would cut financial means to support themselves
status, applicants may use their receipt significantly into their paychecks and for the duration of their stay. See 8 CFR
notices to identify they have applied for make it more difficult for them to 214.2(f)(1)(i)(B); see also 8 CFR
the applicable immigration status. provide for their families. Another 214.2(m)(1)(i)(B). That requirement also
Schools, insurance companies, and commenter said USCIS should neither applies to students who are eligible to
doctors’ offices should not require a eliminate the waiver of the initial filing request employment authorization for
permanent resident card or an fee for Form I–765, Application for pre- and post-completion training
employment authorization document Employment Authorization, nor programs. Therefore, DHS believes that
from a child and DHS cannot adjust the increase the filing fee. The commenter this final rule would not cause undue
fees for obtaining such documents based further stated this would make it harder burdens to student visa holders. DHS
on such unofficial uses and unnecessary for asylum seekers to apply for an EAD. declines to make changes in this final
requirements. Further, DHS disagrees rule in response to these comments.
Response: DHS acknowledges the
that this final rule imposes greater concerns of the commenters related to c. Form N–400 Fee Waivers
burdens on these aliens accessing public asylum seekers applying for EADs. Comment: Numerous commenters
benefits or services. Public benefit Charging a fee for adjudication services said that USCIS should maintain
granting agencies verify the immigration is in line with INA section 208(d)(3), existing fee waivers for naturalization
status of aliens through the SAVE which provides that ‘‘[n]othing in this applications, especially given the
program. DHS declines to make changes paragraph shall be construed to require proposed increase of naturalization fees.
in this final rule on the basis of these the Attorney General to charge fees for Citing a 2017 Report to Congress,
comments. adjudication services provided to several commenters stated that
Comment: A commenter wrote that it asylum applicants, or to limit the naturalization is one of the most
is unjust to allow fee waivers for Form authority of the Attorney General to set frequently requested application types
I–751 for VAWA self-petitioners but not adjudication and naturalization fees in for fee waivers and that over 500 of their
for individuals who are submitting a accordance with section 1356(m) of this clients a year would probably forgo the
waiver for joint spousal filing of Form title.’’ Noncitizens are generally opportunity to become citizens of the
I–751 due to battery or cruelty by the required to pay adjudication fees, and United States if the proposed rule were
U.S. citizen spouse. A commenter said asylum seekers, in particular, are subject adopted. Commenters wrote that
the petition to remove conditions on to several statutory and regulatory removal of fee waivers will price many
residence should remain accessible, requirements that carefully regulate the individuals out of naturalization and
especially for survivors of domestic circumstances under which they may would discourage individuals from
violence. Similarly, a few commenters qualify for employment authorization, applying for fee waivers and
stated that, if USCIS were to eliminate including a mandatory waiting period citizenship. Citing various studies, a few
fee waivers for Form I–751, some before they may even apply for commenters detailed how fee waivers
victims of violence could be subject to employment authorization. USCIS is increased naturalization rates. Citing to
deportation or to the threats of their continuing to provide a fee exemption the USCIS Fee Waiver Policies and Data,
abusers. for the initial Form I–765 filing for Fiscal Year 2017 Report to Congress,
Response: DHS recognizes the individuals who were granted asylum USCIS (Sept. 17, 2017), a commenter
concerns of commenters and clarifies (asylees) or who were admitted as stated because of the benefits of
that this final rule continues to allow an refugees. Therefore, there is no fee naturalization, the naturalization
individual to request a fee waiver when waiver request necessary for asylees application is one of the form types
he or she is filing a waiver of the Form filing an initial Form I–765. Asylees and most frequently associated with fee
I–751 joint filing requirement because refugees will generally continue to be waiver requests. Several commenters
they were subject to battery or extreme required to pay the fee for renewal emphasized the importance of fee
cruelty. See 8 CFR 106.3(a). The term EADs. Finally, as a point of clarification, waivers to naturalization, citing the
‘‘VAWA self-petitioner’’ as defined in DHS notes that, at the time of number of applicants who qualify for
INA section 101(a)(51)(C), 8 U.S.C. publication of this rule, the validity fee waivers through City University of
1101(a)(51)(C), includes individuals period for an EAD for asylum seekers is New York’s CUNY Citizenship Now!
filing a waiver of the joint filing two years (not one year, as asserted by program. One commenter stated that
requirement based on battery or extreme the commenter) which should be CUNY Citizenship Now!, which runs
cruelty. Thus, USCIS will continue to sufficient time for asylum seekers to one of the most prominent citizenship
accept requests for fee waivers for Form factor the required renewal EAD fee into and naturalization clinics in New York,
I–751 when filed with a waiver of the their budget. Therefore, for the reasons reports that 54.8 percent of
joint filing requirement based on battery above, DHS declines to make changes in naturalization applicants they assist
or extreme cruelty, as provided by this final rule in response to these qualify for fee waivers, while the same
statute. comments. is true for 75.6 percent of Form N–600
applicants and 65.8 percent for Form I– access to waivers as a result of the burden of higher fees placed upon other
90 applicants. proposed rule. immigration benefits.
An individual commented that the Some commenters wrote that without Comment: Some commenters stated
proposed naturalization fee increase fee waivers, applicants for that eliminating fee waivers for
would prevent residents from seeking naturalization would take longer to naturalization and other form types
citizenship, citing data on financial and apply or not apply and this would also most frequently associated with fee
administrative barriers as bars to hinder state and local governments’ waiver requests undermines
naturalization. Commenters also cited a efforts to facilitate naturalization. Some Congressional intent. Commenters
2018 Stanford Immigration Policy Lab commenters stated that fee waivers have stated that Congress has called on
study from Hainmueller et al. in stating been essential to increasing USCIS to keep the pathway to
that the application fees discourage naturalization and that they pay for citizenship affordable and accessible,
naturalization. Other commenters cited themselves many times over. A and opposed the proposed elimination
the same study and stated that offering commenter requested that DHS more of fee waivers for applicants who can
‘‘fee vouchers’’ increased naturalization thoroughly analyze the costs of demonstrate an inability to pay the
application rates by about 41 percent or impeding access to naturalization, naturalization fee.
from 37 percent to 78 percent. Several which include long-term reduced Response: USCIS appreciates the
commenters wrote that immigrants want economic and social mobility for concerns of this recommendation and
to naturalize, citing the Migration Policy impacted populations. fully considered it before publication.
Institute figures on rising annual rates of Response: DHS agrees that the Nevertheless, DHS determined that the
naturalization. Commenters also cited a naturalization application is one of the current trends and level of fee waivers
Yasenov et al. study demonstrating that forms affected by the limitation of the are not sustainable. Work that USCIS
the introduction of Form I–912 waivers fee waivers. Fees for other applicants provides for free or below cost affects
had the greatest impact on and petitioners must increase to recover other fee-paying applicants by making
naturalization applicants with low the cost of adjudicating fee-waived their fees higher, so DHS can recover
applications and petitions. In this final USCIS’ full cost. DHS is trying to make
levels of income and education. A
rule, DHS limits the availability of fee the USCIS fee schedule more consistent
commenter cited a surge of
waivers for Form N–400 to mitigate the with the beneficiary-pays principle. As
naturalization applications before a fee
additional cost burden that other fee- shown in the supporting documentation
increase in 2008 as evidence of the role
paying applicants must bear. This is that accompanies this final rule, the
of fees in naturalization decisions.
consistent with the beneficiary-pays number and dollar value of approved
A few commenters stated that, since principle emphasized throughout the fee waiver requests has remained high
naturalization is one of the form types NPRM and this final rule. If USCIS during periods of economic
for which fee waivers are most continued to accept fee waiver requests improvement. That indicates that, as the
frequently submitted, the change would for Form N–400 under the previous economy declines the number of fee
have a profound negative impact on eligibility criteria, the fee would be waiver requests could increase to a level
vulnerable immigrants, including higher than established in this final that could threaten the ability of USCIS
asylum seekers, who must naturalize to rule. The reduction in the availability of to deliver programs without disruption.
obtain legal rights. A commenter stated fee waivers for Form N–400 is not DHS declines to make changes in this
that 2.1 million immigrants are eligible intended to discourage, deter, or final rule in response to these
for naturalization in the State of otherwise limit access to naturalization comments.
California, of whom 1 million for any group, category, or class of Comment: A few commenters stated
individuals would be severely impacted individual. In response to public that the NPRM violates Congressional
by a rise in the cost of an application fee comments received on the NPRM, DHS intent since USCIS has not supplied any
and 768,024 live in Los Angeles County. is expanding the immigration benefit data, research, or other actual factual
Other commenters also provided figures requests for which it will accept fee evidence to show whether the current
on the numbers of immigrants eligible waiver requests from statutorily naturalization fees would be ‘‘a barrier
for naturalization in Minnesota, and protected populations to include Forms to naturalization for those earning
Washington. Other commenters N–400, N–600, and N–600K, and to between 150 percent and 200 percent
provided similar figures for programs in certain SIJs and Afghan and Iraqi FPG,’’ let alone the effect of the proposal
California, Michigan, Boston, Houston, interpreters as described elsewhere in to significantly increase the
and New York. A commenter cited a this final rule. DHS believes that naturalization fees and eliminate fee
Fortune article stating that, in 2017, expanding fee waiver eligibility waivers.
almost 40 percent of naturalization mitigates concerns that the fee increase Response: DHS is unaware of any
applications received a fee waiver. for Form N–400 unduly burdens or statute that requires DHS to document
Commenters wrote that 9 million otherwise prevents naturalization for that the fees it establishes to recover
permanent residents are eligible for these populations. USCIS’ costs will not be a barrier to
citizenship across the United States, DHS acknowledges that the fee for naturalization. DHS has complied with
citing an Office of Immigration Statistics Form N–400 increases in this final rule the economic analysis requirements of
publication, a study by Warren and by more than most other forms. The Executive Orders. There is no legal
Kerwin, and a Pew Research paper. A large fee increase for Form N–400 is requirement to comply with language in
few commenters wrote that, of these, 3 because DHS previously held the fee for a Congressional briefing that does not
million are under 150 percent of the Form N–400 below the full estimated become law, aside from cooperation
FPG, 1 million are between 150 and 200 cost of adjudication. In this final rule, with the Congressional oversight
percent of FPG, and 1.7 million are DHS emphasizes the beneficiary-pays function. DHS has carefully considered
between 200 and 300 percent FPG. principle and declines to hold the fee Congress’ view of these issues, as well
Another commenter cited a 2014 for Form N–400 artificially low. DHS as the statutory and fiscal limitations
University of Southern California study believes that increasing the Form N–400 under which USCIS operates and
in concluding that over half of fee to the estimated full cost of its declines to make changes in this final
naturalization applicants would lose adjudication will alleviate the increased rule in response to these comments.
Comment: Several commenters noted As the commenters point out, and as and USCIS fails to recognize that
that without fee waivers many explained in the NPRM, USCIS issued encouraging exemptions and waivers for
naturalized citizens who required policy guidance in 2011 to streamline individuals in vulnerable circumstances
waivers to become citizens would not fee waiver adjudications and make them or who are unable to pay fees would
have been able to afford to apply for more consistent across offices and form actually advance equity. The commenter
naturalization and that a high types nationwide. See Policy stated that 125 percent of the FPG is not
percentage of applicants currently use Memorandum, PM–602–0011.1, Fee an appropriate marker to whether an
or apply for waivers. Waiver Guidelines as Established by the individual can afford to pay a large fee
Response: DHS recognizes the Final Rule of the USCIS Fee Schedule; on top of normal living expenses and so
commenters’ concerns. However, as Revisions to Adjudicator’s Field Manual the fee waiver qualification threshold
stated elsewhere throughout this final (AFM) Chapter 10.9, AFM Update should remain at 150 percent of poverty
rule, USCIS must recover its costs AD11–26 (Mar. 13, 2011) (‘‘2011 Fee level, ‘‘to serve as an apt indicator of
through user fees. DHS does not believe Waiver Policy’’). The 2011 Fee Waiver whether a potential applicant for
that current high levels of fee waiver Policy provided that USCIS would naturalization or other benefits can
usage are sustainable. Further, DHS generally waive fees for applicants who afford to support him- or herself and, in
believes that it would be equitable for are receiving a means-tested benefit, addition, to pay significant application
fee-paying applicants to continue to have a household income at or below fees of hundreds or thousands of
bear the high costs of fee waiver usage 150 percent of the FPG, or were dollars.’’ Another commenter stated that
through the fees that they pay. DHS experiencing financial hardship. The DHS rationalized that 125 percent is an
declines to make changes in this final 2011 Fee Waiver Policy interpreted 8 appropriate marker for FPG because it is
rule in response to these comments. CFR 103.7(c) regarding what would be the minimum required to qualify as a
considered inability to pay and the sponsor for an intending immigrant. The
2. Fee Waiver Income Requirements evidence required. The 2011 Fee Waiver commenter stated that these situations
Comment: Many commenters opposed Policy established the 150 percent of the are not comparable because sponsoring
restricting the income requirements FPG income level that the commenters an immigrant may not cost very much,
from 150 percent of FPG to 125 percent recommended retaining, but that policy and sponsored immigrants are generally
because such a restriction would be was not binding on USCIS officers and authorized to work and do not actually
unjustified, especially since no the three criteria were not codified as a rely upon sponsors for subsistence. The
estimates were provided as to how regulation. DHS proposed in the NPRM commenter stated that in contrast, when
many people it would impact. Many to codify an income level based on the determining eligibility for a fee waiver,
commenters stated that lowering the FPG that would be a binding USCIS must consider whether an
standard to 125 percent will negatively requirement for future fee waivers. individual can afford to pay a large fee
DHS recognizes that the FPG are not on top of their normal living expenses,
affect many in cities and states across
responsive to differences in the cost of and it is therefore appropriate that FPG
the country who are unable to pay fees
living around the nation. However, DHS remain at 150 percent.
and still have a very low income.
establishes the fee waiver eligibility Several commenters provided figures
Household income does not take into
criterion of household income of less of the numbers of clients they serve who
account the dramatically different costs
than 125 percent of FPG in this final are below the 150 percent FPG line and
of living throughout the country, rule because it is consistent with the qualify for waivers. A commenter
complex living arrangements (such as income necessary to provide an affidavit specifically calculated the costs that a
mixed-status households or households of support necessary to sponsor an family at the 150 percent FPG limit
supporting family members in another immigrant. See 8 CFR 106.3(c). would face living in Boston, writing that
country), or the variety of circumstances Furthermore, DHS does not generally fee waivers are vital to such families
that may render individuals unable to provide special consideration for maintaining their immigration status or
pay fees. One commenter stated that the residents of a particular geographic area. naturalizing.
income requirement would negatively DHS believes that these changes will One commenter cited a study of 21
impact many individuals because even make the fee increase more equitable for cities which showed that 33 percent of
those above the 125 percent FPG are all immigration benefit requests by those eligible to naturalize had incomes
unable to provide for their daily requiring fees for services to be paid by up to 150 percent of FPG. The study
essentials due to the high cost of living those who benefit. In addition, DHS also found that 16 percent of LPRs
in Los Angeles County. A commenter believes that making these changes to eligible to naturalize of Mexican origin
went on to state that the income the fee waiver policy will ensure that have incomes between 150 and 200
standard should be tied to an inability fee-paying applicants do not bear the percent FPG, compared to 8 percent of
to pay particular fees at the time of increasing costs of application fees European-origin immigrants eligible to
application since fee waiver being waived. In response to public naturalize. The commenter used this
consideration is focused on an comments received on the NPRM, DHS data to support their comment that the
individual’s financial circumstances at is expanding the immigration benefit income requirements would reduce or
that particular point. requests for which it will accept fee eliminate access to citizenship for all
Response: As provided in the NPRM, waiver requests from statutorily but the wealthy and privileged.
because of the costs of fee waivers, and protected populations to include Forms Response: The 150 percent of the FPG
because the current fee waiver N–400, N–600, and N–600K. Although threshold currently used for fee waiver
regulations are inconsistent with the DHS acknowledges that the rule reduces eligibility is higher than the threshold
beneficiary-pays principle, DHS the number of applicants eligible for fee used in the public charge
proposed to limit fee waivers to waivers, DHS does not agree that aliens inadmissibility and affidavit of support
immigration benefit requests for which will be prevented from filing contexts. DHS has decided that limiting
USCIS is required by law to consider a application or receiving immigrant fee waivers to households with incomes
fee waiver or where the USCIS Director benefits. at or below 125 percent of the FPG is
decides a fee waiver should be Comment: A few commenters wrote appropriate because it would be
available. See 8 CFR 106.3. that ‘‘equity is not a federal policy goal’’ consistent with other determinants of
low income or financial wherewithal under its previous fee waiver inadmissibility ground under INA
used in USCIS adjudications, such as regulations. Before 2010, USCIS allowed section 212(a)(4), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4);
the affidavit of support requirements fee waiver applicants to submit requests and (3) a request for a fee waiver must
under INA sections 212(a)(4) and 213A, in a variety of ways and undertook a be submitted on the form prescribed by
8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4) and 1183a. See 8 holistic analysis of the applicant’s USCIS in accordance with the form
CFR 106.3(c). DHS declines to make finances to determine inability to pay. instructions. Proposed 8 CFR 106.3(d);
changes in this final rule in response to 75 FR 58974. In 2010, DHS decided that 84 FR 62363.
these comments. the USCIS fee waiver process would DHS is adopting the general fee
Comment: A commenter stated that benefit from standardization. Id. By the waiver eligibility guidelines as proposed
USCIS should respect the rights of 2010 rule DHS amended 8 CFR 103.7(c) with a clarification. New 8 CFR 106.3.
veterans to petition for a fee waiver for to provide, on a discretionary basis, fee Proposed 8 CFR 106.3(d)(1) and (d)(2)
spouses and children regardless of waivers for certain services, subject to (not permitting a fee waiver for a
income. two conditions: (1) The applicant is requestor who is subject to the affidavit
Response: DHS appreciates the ‘‘unable to pay’’ the fee; and (2) a of support, already a sponsored
sacrifices of members of the Armed ‘‘waiver based on inability to pay is immigrant, or subject to the public
Forces and veterans. USCIS charges no consistent with the status or benefit charge inadmissibility ground) are not
Form N–400 fee to an applicant who . . . .’’ 8 CFR 103.7(c)(1). DHS also applicable to applicants who are
meets the requirements of INA sections required that waiver requests be in statutorily eligible for fee waivers or
328 or 329 with respect to military writing and state the reasons for and those additional immigration benefit
service as provided by the law. See 8 provide evidence in support of the requests (SIV and certain SIJ applicants)
CFR 106.2(b)(3(c). In addition, there is claim of inability to pay. Id. at that we are making eligible for a fee
no Form N–600 fee for any application 103.7(c)(2). After the 2010 rule, DHS waiver in this final rule. Therefore, DHS
filed by a member or veteran of any developed a new form to facilitate the removed those limitations from the
branch of the U.S. Armed Forces. See 8 fee waiver process: Request for Fee general fee waiver provision and
CFR 106.2(b)(63(c). DHS proposed Waiver, Form I–912.49 See Agency included it in 8 CFR 106.3(b) governing
adjustments to USCIS’ fee schedule to Information Collection Activities: Form waivers provided by the USCIS Director.
ensure full cost recovery. DHS did not I–912; New Information Collection; New 8 CFR 106.3.
target any particular group, or class of Comment Request, 75 FR 40846 (July By removing the more ambiguous
individuals or propose changes with the 14, 2010). USCIS also published the term ‘‘inability to pay’’ in favor of more
intent to deter requests from any 2011 Fee Waiver Policy providing clearly defined, straightforward
immigrants based on their financial or further guidance as to adjudication of requirements, DHS is imposing on the
family situation or to block individuals fee waiver requests. The 2011 guidance fee waiver request process greater
from access immigrant benefits. With provided that as proof of inability to pay consistency and equity. Receipt of any
limited exceptions as noted in the under 8 CFR 103.7(c), USCIS would means-tested benefit would no longer
NPRM and this final rule, DHS accept: (1) Evidence of receipt of a automatically satisfy the new
establishes its fees at the level estimated means-tested benefit; (2) evidence of regulation’s requirements for
to represent the full cost of providing household income at or below 150 demonstrating inability to pay. USCIS
adjudication and naturalization percent of the FPG; or (3) evidence of has also considered if means-tested
services, including the cost of relevant financial hardship. benefits that are awarded using 125
overhead and similar services provided In the NPRM, DHS proposed multiple percent of the FPG would be acceptable
at no or reduced charge to asylum changes to the then-existing fee waiver evidence of the 125 percent of the FPG
applicants or other immigrants. This regulations, explained our need to and household income requirement in
rule is consistent with DHS’s legal reasoning for doing so, and in addition to the other criteria in new 8
authorities. See INA section 286(m), 8 accordance with the Paperwork CFR 106.3(d). However, implementing
U.S.C. 1356(m). DHS proposed changes Reduction Act, posted the proposed that criterion would require USCIS to
in fee waiver policies to ensure that revised Form I–912, Request for Fee determine the income requirements that
those who benefit from immigration Waiver, and its instructions in this final all jurisdictions across the United States
benefits pay their fair share of costs, rule’s docket for the public to review use to determine eligibility for each
consistent with the beneficiary-pays and comment on its information means-tested benefit. In addition, USCIS
principle as described in the collection requirements. See 84 FR would be required to continually
Government Accountability Office 62296–62301, and 62356. The proposed monitor those requirements for any
report number GAO–08–386SP. In regulations for fee waivers provided that changes by individual jurisdictions and
addition, there is no law that requires a DHS would provide, on a discretionary programs. Therefore, DHS has
fee waiver or exemption for spouses or basis, fee waivers for certain services, determined that such a policy would be
children of members of the Armed subject to the following conditions: (1) unnecessarily burdensome for USCIS to
Forces or veterans. DHS declines to A waiver of fees would be limited to administer and decided not to revise the
make changes in this final rule in aliens with annual household incomes Form I–912 instructions to permit any
response to these comments. at or below 125 percent of the FPG; (2) usage of a means-tested benefit as
a waiver of fees would not be provided evidence for a fee waiver.
3. Means-Tested Benefits Comment: One commenter noted that
to a requestor who is seeking an
Comment: A commenter immigration benefit for which he or she: using the Paperwork Reduction Act to
recommended that USCIS use proof of introduce a revised fee waiver form,
Is subject to the affidavit of support

receipt of a means-tested public benefit requirements under INA section 213A, 8 with new requirements, in October 2019
as evidence to demonstrate inability to U.S.C. 1183a, and is already a sponsored in lieu of using a NPRM and then
pay the prescribed fee under the new immigrant as defined in 8 CFR 213a.1, eliminating fee waivers in this rule, was
rule. or is subject to the public charge a waste of the public’s time to review
Response: The commenter is both documents. A few commenters
requesting that USCIS continue to 49 The form is now called Form I–912, Request for stated that eligibility based on receipt of
follow guidance that USCIS issued Fee Waiver. a means-tested benefit was due to be
eliminated by the revised fee waiver Paperwork Reduction Act and the Office testing requirements for other
form challenged in City of Seattle v. of Information and Regulatory Affairs, government programs where individuals
DHS, 3:19–cv–7151–MMC (N.D. Cal., OMB (OIRA) approved the form changes have already passed a thorough income
filed Oct. 31, 2019) but the court in that on October 24, 2019.50 On October 25, eligibility screening by government
case preliminarily enjoined the revised 2019, USCIS published the revised agencies. Several commenters
fee waiver form on a nationwide basis, Form I–912 and instructions, along with specifically requested maintaining the
thereby affecting USCIS’ plans to corresponding revisions to the USCIS means-tested benefits criterion as it is
constrict eligibility standards for fee Policy Manual and a Policy Alert. The the least burdensome and most
waivers. Other commenters stated that revised Form and Manual took effect on accessible application criterion for
USCIS has already eliminated the December 2, 2019. vulnerable immigrant populations.
means-tested benefit criterion for fee DHS did not consider this Response: DHS understands that
waivers, which drastically limited rulemaking’s impact when undertaking removing the means-tested benefit
access to immigration benefits, and that the Form I–912 revisions that took effect criterion will require people to obtain
the proposed rule narrows the criteria on December 2, 2019, because DHS was different documentation than they
for fee waivers even further and proposing comprehensive reforms to fee previously would have to establish
eliminates the financial hardship waivers which were not certain to occur eligibility for a fee waiver. DHS agrees
criterion entirely which means 400,666 and the rulemaking was separate and that the burden will increase but has
individuals annually would be independent of the form and policy determined that the documentation
detrimentally affected. Another change that took effect on December 2, required to establish income is the best
commenter stated that changes in Form 2019. USCIS was forgoing hundreds of approach to establish eligibility. DHS
I–912 and fee waiver requirements in millions of dollars each year to fee does not believe that the burden that
the NPRM are an attempt to get around waivers, and it decided not to wait for will be imposed by the new
the injunction of the 2019 fee waiver the comprehensive DHS fee rulemaking requirements is excessive for a requestor
rules because it eliminates fee waivers while it continued to forgo increasing to receive the free adjudication of his or
for most applicants. The commenter amounts of revenue as more fees were her immigration benefit request. USCIS
stated that the proposal seeks to restrict waived. 84 FR 26138 (June 5, 2019). is 96 percent funded by fees and must
legal immigration and naturalization for Nonetheless, on December 11, 2019, the charge fees to cover its costs. Although
poor and non-white people. Another U.S. District Court for the Northern the means-tested benefits criterion will
commenter recommended that while the District of California held that the Form no longer be an option under the revised
Form I–912 revision is enjoined by the I–912 revisions that took effect on fee waiver regulations, eligible
U.S. District Court for the Northern December 2, 2019 required notice and applicants may request fee waivers
District of California, USCIS should comment rulemaking to effectuate, and under the criterion of having income at
request public comment on a new the revised Form I–912, the Policy or below 125 percent of the FPG. Thus,
proposed Form I–912 that maintains Manual revisions, and an October 25, staff and volunteers at nonprofit
options to demonstrate qualification 2019 Policy Alert announcing the community organizations should
through receipt of means-tested benefits, revisions were preliminarily enjoined already be familiar with the remaining
financial hardship, or income of up to nationwide. See Order Granting Pls.’ criterion for fee waiver eligibility. DHS
150 percent of the FPG. The commenter Mot. for Nationwide Prelim. Inj., City of has considered the burden on applicants
Seattle v. DHS, 3:19–cv–7151–MMC and those that provide them aid and
wrote that USCIS is required by the
(N.D. Cal., Dec. 11, 2019). By stipulation determined that the benefits of the
injunction to restart the information
of the parties and as agreed to by the policy change exceed the potential
collection request clearance process
court, that injunction will remain in additional burden. DHS disagrees that
anew for a revised Form I–912 that
place pending publication of this final its fee waiver income requirements are
conforms to the Court’s decision. The
rule. The injunction in City of Seattle duplicative with state means-tested
commenter wrote that the Form I–912
does not impose any requirements on benefit requirements because, as stated
proposed with the USCIS’s November
subsequent revisions of the Form I–912 earlier, many public benefits have
14, 2019 NPRM does not meet the
nor otherwise affect USCIS’s ability to different income thresholds for
Court’s specifications, and USCIS may
move forward with implementation of eligibility in different states. Therefore,
not move forward with implementation
the Form I–912 revised in accordance DHS has determined that relying on a
of this revised Form I–912 based on the consistent income threshold and not
present notice-and-comment process.’’ with the notice-and-comment process
completed by this rulemaking. In fact, using a means-tested benefits for
Response: These comments refer to eligibility will best provide consistency
the injunction in City of Seattle
the effort by USCIS to revise the USCIS in applying the requirements.
contemplates that the 2019 fee waiver
policy guidance on fee waivers. On
policy changes were lawful but for 4. Public Charge Rule
September 28, 2018, USCIS published a
compliance with the procedures
60-day notice in the Federal Register Comment: Comments stated that DHS
required by the Administrative
requesting comments on the then- claims that USCIS uses 125 percent of
Procedure Act that are met by
proposed revised Form I–912 and the FPG as the standard for public
publication of this final rule.
instructions and posted the documents charge and affidavit of support purposes
Comment: Commenters stated that
for review in docket USCIS–2010–0008 and cites 8 CFR 212.22(b)(4)(i)(A), but
proving household income through
at www.regulations.gov. See 83 FR DHS’s proposed public charge rule is
USCIS’ process is needlessly
49120 (Sept. 28, 2018). The revisions to currently enjoined. The commenters
burdensome, intended to discourage

Form I–912, Request for Fee Waiver, state that because of court orders, USCIS
applications, and that the fee waiver
revised the evidence USCIS would has not been using 125 percent of the
application process and 125 percent
consider in evaluating inability to pay, federal poverty guidelines as the
FPG limit is duplicative with means-
required federal income tax transcripts standard for public charge purposes to
to demonstrate income, and required 50 The approved package is available at https:// date, and this rule is an improper
use of the Form I–912 for fee waiver www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_ attempt to codify the enjoined public
requests. USCIS complied with the nbr=201910-1615-006# (last visited Feb. 17, 2020). charge rule.
Response: On February 24, 2020, DHS requested using the financial hardship expressed worry that barring fee waivers
implemented the Inadmissibility on criterion were minimal, accounting for for individuals subject to the public
Public Charge Grounds Final Rule only 1.2 percent of all requests. A charge ground of inadmissibility would
nationwide after the Supreme Court of detailed distribution of the approved add more strain on an already
the United States stayed the last Fee Waiver Requests can be found in the overburdened legal service providers to
remaining injunction.51 In addition, the RIA. See Section D, Tables 5–8. While low-income immigrants, resulting in a
125 percent of the FPG threshold is not DHS acknowledges that the fee general decrease in capacity of pro bono
only used in public charge adjustments established in this final services. A few commenters stated that
inadmissibility determinations, but also rule are not insubstantial to an applicant there is no burden on USCIS to continue
is the standard by which the sufficiency of limited means, DHS does not believe processing fee waiver applications for
of an affidavit of support is based, as that they make immigration benefits immigrants subject to affidavit of
established by Congress under INA inaccessible to low income applicants support nor any basis to disqualify those
section 213A, 8 U.S.C. 1183a. As who have financial hardships. DHS is subject to affidavits of support from
provided in the NPRM, USCIS generally therefore not making changes based on receiving fee waivers.
uses 125 percent of the FPG as the this comment.
minimum income threshold to be Response: DHS agrees that, in general,
6. Public Charge Ground of family sponsored immigrants are subject
considered a positive factor in the
Inadmissibility and Affidavit of Support to the public charge ground of
totality of the circumstances in public
Requirements inadmissibility and are required to
charge inadmissibility determinations as
the threshold. Congress also identified Comment: Several commenters submit a sufficient affidavit of support
125 percent of FPG as a threshold for disagreed with USCIS’ claim that it under INA section 213A, 8 U.S.C.
establishing the sufficiency of the would be appropriate to restrict 1883a, and therefore may not be eligible
affidavit of support under INA section household income criteria to 125 to request a fee waiver under this final
213A, 8 U.S.C. 1183a. The threshold for percent FPG to be consistent with the rule. The NPRM generally limited fee
fee waiver eligibility under previous public charge inadmissibility final rule waiver eligibility to those statutorily
regulations of 150 percent of the FPG and the statutory and regulatory eligible for fee waivers, which are
was higher than the threshold used in requirement applicable to affidavit of limited to VAWA, T, U and TPS
the public charge inadmissibility and support, writing that they are separate applicants. Family and employment
affidavit of support context. DHS and unrelated legal concepts. Multiple related benefit requests were not
believes limiting fee waivers to commenters opposed the proposal to generally included as being eligible for
households with incomes at or below make fee waivers unavailable to fee waivers in the NPRM. As discussed
125 percent of the FPG, as set forth in applicants who are subject to the public in the NPRM, under IIRIRA, certain
this final rule, and aligning the fee charge ground of inadmissibility, those immigrant categories are required to
waiver rule with the public charge who are subject to the affidavit of submit an enforceable affidavit of
inadmissibility rule and the affidavit of support requirement under INA section support executed by a sponsor.52
support requirements set forth in INA 213A, 8 U.S.C. 1183a, and those who are Although sponsors are not required to
sections 212(a)(4) and 213A, 8 U.S.C. already sponsored immigrants. The assist an alien with fees associated with
1182(a)(4) and 1183a, will best provide commenters stated that the proposal immigration benefits, sponsors generally
consistency in applying the income would disproportionately harm low- must demonstrate that they are able to
requirements in immigration benefit and moderate-income families, maintain the sponsored alien at an
administration. including many immigrant survivors annual income of not less than 125
and their children. Many commenters percent of the FPG.53 INA section 213A,
5. Financial Hardship stated that most family-sponsored 8 U.S.C. 1183a, formalized requirements
Comment: One commenter wrote that immigrants must supply an affidavit of of a legally enforceable affidavit of
the proposed elimination of fee waiver support regardless of income. They support, specified who is eligible to be
eligibility based on extraordinary stated that, because the affidavit of a sponsor, which aliens require an
hardship (sic financial hardship) was support contract terminates only after Affidavit of Support Under Section
not explained and is alarming and specific criteria are met (e.g., sponsored 213A of the INA, the scope of a
unjustified. USCIS does not immigrant becomes a U.S. citizen, dies, sponsor’s obligations, and how the
acknowledge or explain its apparent or departs the United States), barring affidavit may be enforced.54 These
decision to cease accepting evidence or these immigrants from receiving fee provisions were intended to ‘‘encourage
granting fee waivers related to waivers would result in an additional immigrants to be self-reliant in
temporary illness and injury, recessions, barrier for low-income immigrants accordance with national immigration
bankruptcy, or any other of the myriad regardless of their actual need and policy.’’ 55 DHS believes it is
situations that may render qualified would have a disproportionate effect on inconsistent with the affidavit of
people unable to pay fees but that low-income Asian immigrants and U.S.
cannot be characterized as natural citizens of Asian descent, especially as 52 See INA sections 212(a)(4) and INA 213A, 8
disasters. The commenter wrote that most Asian immigrants become U.S.C. 1182(a)(4), and 1183a. See also Div. C, Title
this change would prevent deserving permanent residents through family V of Public Law 104–208, 110 Stat. 3009, 3009–670
individuals from accessing immigration sponsorship and require affidavits of (September 30, 1996).
53 See INA section 213A. A sponsor who is on
and naturalization benefits and violate support. A commenter wrote that the
active duty (other than active duty for training) in
the principles of due process that proposal will further punish people
the U.S. armed forces and who is petitioning for a

govern rulemaking and other federal who have the misfortune of poor health, spouse or child only has to demonstrate the means
administrative action. are struggling to survive, and have to maintain an annual income equal to at least 100
Response: DHS believes that a chronic, severe pain. The commenter percent of the FPG.
54 See INA section 213A, 8 U.S.C. 1183a. See
provision for financial hardship is wrote that such individuals are too sick
Section 551 of the IIRIRA, Public Law 104–208, 110
unnecessary as past fee waivers to work full-time and require an Stat. 3009 (1996).
affidavit of support from family 55 See H.R. Rep. 104–828, at 241 (Sept. 24, 1996)
51 See Wolf v. Cook County, 140 S.Ct. 681 (2020). members or friends. A few commenters (Conf. Rep.).
support requirements to allow this DHS would look to the immigrant or 7. Discretionary Fee Waivers
population to request fee waivers.56 nonimmigrant category the alien holds
Further, the current fee waiver or is seeking and their income in order Comment: Several commenters
regulation allows people who are to determine whether he or she qualifies opposed narrowing discretionary
applying for immigration benefits for to submit a fee waiver request. authority that would prevent many
which a public charge inadmissibility family-based immigrants from receiving
DHS notes that VAWA self-petitioners fee waivers and would disadvantage
determination is not made—advance
permission to enter as a nonimmigrant, as defined under INA section 101(a)(51) recipients of certain humanitarian
a waiver for passport and/or visa, and anyone otherwise self-petitioning benefits, such as Special Immigrant
adjustment of status, or a waiver of the due to battery or extreme cruelty Juveniles (SIJs) and Cuban Adjustment
grounds of inadmissibility—to file a fee pursuant to the procedures in section Act applicants.
waiver request. See 8 CFR 103.7(c)(4) 204(a), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(51) and 1154(a), Some commenters said the proposed
(stating that certain fees may be waived T nonimmigrants, U nonimmigrants, limitations on the Director’s discretion
‘‘only for an alien for which a battered spouses of A, G, E–3, or H to grant fee waivers are arbitrary and
determination of their likelihood of nonimmigrants, battered spouses or unsupported by any evidence. The
becoming a public charge under section children of a lawful permanent resident commenters stated that no explanation,
212(a)(4) of the Act is not required at the or U.S. citizen as provided under INA data, or examples were provided
time of an application for admission or section 240A(b)(2), and TPS applicants indicating why the concern over the
adjustment of status’’). are generally not subject to the public Director having too much discretion
The rule provides that an alien who charge inadmissibility provision or the requires changing well-established
is subject to the affidavit of support affidavit of support requirements. precedent. Another commenter stated
requirements under INA section 213A, 8 Therefore, under this final rule, these that the rule does not provide a basis for
U.S.C. 1183a, or is already a sponsored applicants are not precluded from the guidelines of how the Attorney
immigrant as defined in 8 CFR 213a.1 requesting a fee waiver. See 8 CFR General shall determine which
unless the applicant is seeking a waiver 106.3. Furthermore, certain Special designated group of victims of
of the joint filing requirement to remove Immigrant Juveniles and Afghan and calamities will be granted access to fee
conditions on his or her residence based Iraqi translators are also not precluded waivers.
on abuse; or subject to the public charge from requesting a fee waiver under this Response: In this final rule, DHS
inadmissibility ground under INA final rule, as they are not subject to the retains the authority in the regulations
section 212(a)(4), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4) is public charge inadmissibility for the Director of USCIS to waive any
not eligible for a fee waiver. See New 8 determination or the affidavit of support fee if the Director determines that such
CFR 106.3(b). DHS declines to make any requirement.57 Id. DHS has updated the action is an emergent circumstance, or
changes in this final rule in response to provision to clarify these aliens are not if a major natural disaster has been
these comments. subject to these eligibility requirements.
Comment: One commenter stated that declared in accordance with 44 CFR
See new 8 CFR 106.3(c). part 206, subpart B. DHS notes that the
the proposal would place an
unnecessarily cumbersome requirement Comment: Multiple commenters said Director’s discretionary provision has
on those who are already receiving some that, because abusive spouses may be never been and is not intended for
form of assistance and require the sponsor holding the affidavits of whole categories of aliens to request fee
additional assistance in order to support, it was critical to keep fee waivers directly to the Director. See 75
improve their immigration status. waivers available to those subject to the FR 58974 (encouraging those who
Another commenter stated that many affidavit of support under INA section believe that they have a sufficiently
survivors of crime and domestic 213A, 8 U.S.C. 1183a. The commenter sympathetic case or group of cases in
violence would be negatively impacted wrote that doing so would help ensure any type of benefit request to submit a
because many survivors receive that immigrant survivors are not request to their USCIS local office for a
CalWORKS, a California public benefits compelled to return to their abusers to waiver under 8 CFR 103.7(d)). The
program. seek immigration benefits. discretionary provision is meant to
A commenter stated that the proposal provide for discrete and limited fee
Response: An applicant under the
is unfair and discriminatory because it waivers when there are emergent
VAWA provisions is generally not
could severely affect the naturalization circumstances. See 75 FR 33464. DHS
subject to the affidavit of support
process based on receiving public has further consolidated the Director’s
requirements.58 In addition, fee waiver
benefits, even if this occurred years discretionary provisions as it is not
requests do not require information
before an application for citizenship. limited by category but is also not
regarding the income of an abusive
The commenter also stated that intended to allow for individual
spouse. DHS believes that its continued
temporary assistance in a time of applications from broad categories of
provision of fee waivers for VAWA, T,
hardship should not be an opportunity individuals. In addition the provisions
and U categories mitigates any concerns
for any country to deny its people the regarding eligibility were consolidated
that changes to fee waiver eligibility
path to citizenship. to clarified who may not qualify based
will unduly burden or otherwise harm on the alien being subject to the
Response: This final rule does not the victims of abusive spouses. See
prevent individuals from requesting or affidavit of support requirements under
Table 3: Categories and Forms Without section 213A of the Act or already a
receiving any public benefits, as defined Fees or Eligible for Fee Waivers. DHS sponsored immigrant as defined in 8
in, PRWORA, 8 CFR 212.21(b), or other declines to make changes in this final
provision, for which they are eligible. CFR 213a.1 (unless the applicant is
rule in response to these comments. seeking a waiver of the joint filing
Further, this final rule does not consider
the receipt of public benefits as part of requirement to remove conditions on
57 See INA sections 212(a)(4) and 213A,8 U.S.C.
the eligibility requirements. Instead, his or her residence based on abuse), or
1182(a)(4) and 1183a. See also 8 CFR 212.23(a)(4)
and (10). being subject to the public charge
56 See Div. C, Title V of Public Law 104–208, 110 58 See INA section 212(a)(4)(E)(i), 8 U.S.C. inadmissibility ground under section
Stat. 3009, 3009–670 (September 30, 1996). 1182(a)(4)(E)(i). See also 8 CFR 212.23(a)(20). 212(a)(4) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4).
Further, DHS does not believe that the Table 3: Categories and Forms Without required to pay the relevant fee for
rule disadvantages recipients of Fees or Eligible for Fee Waivers. renewal EADs. As indicated previously,
humanitarian benefits. For example, Comment: A few commenters wrote DHS has clarified the provisions
DHS believes that the imposition of a that, at a minimum, USCIS should allow regarding the USCIS Director’s
fee or a lack of a fee waiver does not a proactive application process for discretion as it relates to fee waivers in
infringe upon the ongoing protections discretionary fee waivers. These would 8 CFR 106.3(b), as the individual
offered by the Cuban Adjustment Act of allow individuals to alert USCIS to their provision in the proposed 8 CFR
1966 (CAA). The CAA allows Cuban need for a waiver of an application fee 106.3(b) was redundant.
natives or citizens living in the United rather than having to wait to receive an
invitation from USCIS first. 8. Fee Waiver Documentation
States who meet certain eligibility
requirements to apply to become lawful Response: DHS has clarified the Comment: A commenter
permanent residents.59 Applicants USCIS Director’s fee waiver provision at recommended that USCIS expand the
under the CAA have previously paid 8 CFR 106.3(b) and 106.3(c) in this final types of documentary evidence accepted
fees. Under the CAA, a native or citizen rule because it was not necessary to in support of fee waiver applications.
of Cuba who has been inspected and have a separate section authorizing the Several commenters stated that
admitted or paroled into the United Director to waive fees for groups or applicants should not be required to
States and who has been physically individuals. See new 8 CFR 106.3(b). procure additional new documents,
present in the United States for at least Proposed 8 CFR 106.3(c) could be used such as federal tax transcript, to
one year may apply for permanent to grant group or individual fee waivers, demonstrate household income. The
residency in the United States. An alien thus proposed 8 CFR 106.3(b) was commenters stated that, obtaining a
under the CAA submits Form I–485, redundant. As provided in new 8 CFR transcript would substantially
Application to Register Permanent 106.3(b), the Director of USCIS may complicate the process of applying for a
Residence or Adjust Status, and does authorize the waiver, in whole or in fee waiver because individuals may not
not need to file a visa petition or have part, of a form fee required by 8 CFR have access to a computer and several
an immigrant visa immediately 106.2 that is not otherwise waivable days to six weeks or more may be
available to him or her.60 Generally, under this section, if the Director required to wait on delivery via the
when an alien has a pending Form I– determines that such action is an mail. Some commenters indicated that
485, he or she may apply for emergent circumstance, or if a major the proposal creates a burdensome new
natural disaster has been declared in requirement that many applicants will
employment authorization by filing a
accordance with 44 CFR part 206, be unable to meet, either because it’s too
Form I–765, Application for
subpart B. New 8 CFR 106.3(b) difficult to obtain the documentation or
Employment Authorization.61 For this
authorizes the Director to designate a because they were too poor to file taxes
reason, DHS believes that aliens who
group eligible for fee waivers as with a foreign government.
benefit from the CAA have unique Response: USCIS currently requests
appropriate. As previously indicated,
advantages compared to other copies of income tax returns from
DHS notes that the Director’s
humanitarian populations, such as applicants requesting fee waivers. Tax
discretionary provision has never been
asylum seekers, who may have to wait transcripts are easily requested through
and is not intended for whole categories
months or years before being eligible to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
of aliens to request fee waivers directly
apply to become a lawful permanent website or paper filing and are free to
to the Director. See 75 FR 58974.
resident. The CAA does not prohibit the taxpayers. USCIS cannot accept
Although many applicants may believe
charging of fees for applicants, and DHS incomplete copies of tax returns or
they personally need a waiver of an
believes that the imposition of a fee or application fee, the discretionary copies that are not signed or submitted
a lack of a fee waiver does not infringe provision is meant to provide for to the IRS to support fee waiver
upon the ongoing protections that the discrete and limited fee waivers when requests, because they may not validly
CAA affords to qualified individuals. there are emergent circumstances and reflect the applicant’s household
As provided in the NPRM, USCIS will income. USCIS believes that the
the other eligibility requirements are
continue to notify the general public of proposed change will reduce its
met. Therefore, DHS is maintaining the
eligibility for fee waivers for specific administrative burden for fee waiver
provision that individuals may not
forms under 8 CFR 106.3 through policy processing and reduce the number of fee
directly submit requests for fee waivers
or website updates. Individuals who to the USCIS Director. waiver requests that are rejected because
may qualify for such a fee waiver will Comment: The commenter stated that of improper documentation, inadequate
still need to meet the requirements to the proposal to make Form I–765 fee information, and no signatures for
request a fee waiver as provided in 8 waivers discretionary for affirmative household members. In terms of the
CFR 106.3(b) and (d). asylum seekers may cause additional non-filing letter from the IRS, USCIS is
As discussed above, in response to burdens for low-income households. concerned about not receiving
commenters’ concerns, DHS will allow Response: DHS acknowledges the documentation of no-income. Therefore,
petitioners for and recipients of SIJ commenter’s concern; however, as obtaining information from the IRS in
classification who, at the time of filing, stated in the NPRM and in this final transcripts, a W–2, or proof of non-
have been placed in out-of-home care rule, fee waivers for the Form I–765 will filing, if applicable, is sufficient
under the supervision of a juvenile not be available to asylum seekers. See documentation to establish the
court or a state child welfare agency, to 84 FR 62296–62301. USCIS is necessary income or no income. DHS
submit requests for fee waivers for Form continuing to provide a fee exemption believes that, while this might place a
I–485 and associated forms, as well as for the initial Form I–765 filing for small additional burden on applicants,
Forms N–400, N–600, and N–600K. See individuals who were granted asylum the change will ultimately benefit
59 See https://www.uscis.gov/greencard/caa (last
(asylees) or who were admitted as applicants by mitigating future
accessed 03/10/2020).
refugees. Therefore, there is no fee rejections and ensuring that fees are
60 See Public Law 89–732 (1966). waiver request necessary for asylees waived for deserving applicants.
61 See https://www.uscis.gov/greencard/caa (last filing an initial Form I–765. Asylees and Comment: A commenter stated the
accessed 03/10/2020). refugees will generally continue to be proposed changes would increase the
inefficiencies in processing fee waiver increase in burden that this change may exemptions has increased markedly,
requests, place an unnecessary burden add for a small percentage of fee waiver from $191 million in the FY 2010/2011
on the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) requests. fee review to $613 million in the FY
for requests for documentation from Comment: A commenter 2016/2017 fee review.63 See 81 FR 26922
immigrants, and add burden on USCIS recommended that USCIS continue to and 73307. In the FY 2016/2017 NPRM,
increasing the complexity of allow use of applicant generated, non- DHS estimated that the increase in fee
adjudicating fee waiver requests. Plus, form fee waiver requests and objected to waivers accounted for 9 percent of the
USCIS would need to continuously option of a written statement being 21 percent weighted average fee
track the IRS transcript request eliminated for Form I–918, Petition for increase. See 81 FR 26910. In the same
processes. U Nonimmigrant Status. NPRM, DHS provided notice that in the
Response: As part of its regular Response: Adjudicating ad hoc fee future it may revisit the USCIS fee
operations, the Internal Revenue Service waiver requests has proven to be waiver guidance with respect to what
(IRS) provides customer service difficult for USCIS due to the varied constitutes inability to pay under 8 CFR
including providing tax transcripts. Tax quality and information provided in ad 103.7(c). See 81 FR 26922.
transcripts can be obtained by calling hoc letter requests. Form I–912 is easy In this final rule, DHS is aligning
the IRS or submitting a request online, to complete, and it provides USCIS’ fees more closely to the
through the mail or by fax. As the IRS, standardization that will assist USCIS in beneficiary-pays principle. Without the
and other federal, state, and local our review of requests. In addition, changes to fee waiver policy
agencies regularly provide information there is no filing fee for Form I–918. implemented in this final rule, fees
and services to their customers as part Therefore, DHS declines to make would increase by a weighted average of
of their daily operations, the proposed changes in this final rule in response to 30 percent, which is 10 percent more
form changes should have a minimal this comment and will require than in the fee schedule implemented in
impact on them. The Department of the submission of Form I–912 to request a this final rule. In an effort to mitigate
Treasury was provided with the fee waiver. the total weighted average fee increase
proposed and final rule to review, and 9. Cost of Fee Waivers and preserve equitable distribution of
they did not object to the requirement costs for adjudication and naturalization
for the tax transcript. Comment: Many commenters stated
services, DHS declines to make changes
Comment: A commenter stated that that DHS’ application of the beneficiary-
in this final rule in response to the
requiring separate fee waiver pays principle is arbitrary, capricious,
unsupported, and unjustified. comment.
submissions for derivative family Comment: Some commenters stated
members was overly burdensome and Commenters indicated that restricting
that USCIS’ justification to make the fee
provided USCIS data to demonstrate the income requirements from 150
schedule more equitable with the
that survivors applying for percent of FPG to 125 percent is
unjustified, especially because DHS did beneficiary-pays approach fails to
humanitarian protections frequently consider the effect on applicants or
included derivative family members in not estimate how many people the
change would affect. Multiple benefits resulting from fee waivers. A
their applications. Many commenters few commenters stated that setting fees
stated that requiring each applicant to commenters opposed the beneficiary-
pay model as it would not be a fair or at full cost recovery would be
submit their own form when applying inadequate as it does not take into
for fee waivers imposes a large, just system, writing that it ignores the
inequities that exist across incomes and account the benefits side of the
duplicative burden on applicants. equation, such as the added earnings of
Commenters recommended that family that the ability-to-pay model has been
working for years. A commenter wrote citizenship relative to prior earnings as
members should be allowed to continue a legal immigrant. The commenters
submitting a single fee waiver that DHS’ justification that the use of fee
waivers haves increased in a good stated that including benefits would
application with all relevant show that all costs are indeed paid and
information collected in one location. economy was faulty, writing that DHS
cited statistics for USCIS fee waivers covered.
Another commenter said survivors A few commenters wrote that USCIS
applying for humanitarian protections from FY 2008 to 2011—a period of
economic recession. Another has taken actions that increase operating
frequently included derivative family costs (e.g., extreme vetting, re-
members in their applications and commenter said that DHS’ argument
that fee waivers have become too costly interviewing individuals, enhanced
provided USCIS data to demonstrate background checks, decrease in staffing)
this fact. to sustain fails to account for recent fee
increases or indicate whether fee waiver which the department now seeks to pass
Response: Over 90 percent of the fee onto the public via the beneficiary-pays
waiver requests filed were for volume has changed. The commenter
wrote that fee waivers between 2016 principle and by eliminating fee
individual applicants 62 and many other waivers.
forms are already required to be and 2017 did not increase and the
NPRM does not acknowledge the recent Response: Consistent with historical
submitted individually. Therefore, DHS practice, this final rule sets fees at a
does not believe that requiring Form I– decline in fee waivers in FY 2018.
Response: DHS explained in the level to recover the estimated full
912 for each applicant or petitioner in operating costs of USCIS, the entity
NPRM that fee waivers had increased to
a household will unduly burden within DHS that provides almost all
unmanageable levels and that DHS had
applicants. The change will reduce the immigration adjudication and
to do something to curtail the amount of
number of fee waiver requests that are
free services being provided by USCIS.
rejected for failure to obtain all 63 Since USCIS includes a projection for fee
In prior years, USCIS’ fees have given
signatures of included family members. waivers/fee exemptions when setting its fees to
significant weight to the ability-to-pay recover full cost, it does not forgo revenue unless
DHS has determined that the benefit of
principle and shifted the costs of certain the total dollar amount of actual fee waivers/fee
fewer rejections exceeds the small exemptions exceeds the projected amount that was
benefit requests to other fee payers. In
included in the fee setting process. The dollar
62 See Tables 10–11. Distribution of Total the FY 2016/2017 fee rule, DHS noted amount of actual fee waivers/fee exemptions in
Approved Applicants per Fee Waiver Request that the estimated annual forgone excess of the projected amount included in the fee
(Form I–912) in the RIA. revenue from fee waivers and setting process is considered foregone revenue.
naturalization services. See Homeland • ‘‘In the FY 2019/2020 fee review, DHS determined that the current trends
Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107– USCIS determined that without changes and level of fee waivers are not
296, sec. 451, 116 Stat. 2142 (Nov. 26, to fee waiver policy, it would forgo sustainable. As shown in the supporting
2002) (6 U.S.C. 271). The statute revenue of approximately $1,494 documentation that accompanies this
authorizes recovery of the full costs of million.’’—supporting document states final rule, the number and dollar value
providing immigration adjudication and foregone revenue for 2017 was of approved fee waiver requests has
naturalization services. As provided in $367,243,540. remained high during periods when the
the NPRM and RIA, the fees account for • ‘‘The proposed fee schedule U.S. economy was improving. As the
all anticipated operational costs and estimates $962 million forgone revenue economy worsens, the number of fee
adjudicative actions based on the best from fee waivers and fee exemptions.’’— waiver requests could increase to a level
information available at the time USCIS no supporting documents. that could threaten the ability of USCIS
conducted the FY 2019/2020 fee review. • ‘‘The difference in forgone revenue to deliver programs without disruption.
DHS considered the effects of the is $532 million.’’—no supporting DHS declines to make changes in this
revised fee schedule on applicants and documents. final rule in response to these
petitioners, as documented in the RIA, • ‘‘Without changes to fee waiver comments.
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis policy, fees would increase by a Comment: One commenter wrote that
(FRFA), SEA and relevant sections of weighted average of 31 percent, which USCIS data is incomplete as it only
this final rule. As noted elsewhere in is 10 percent more than in the proposed shows fee waiver trends through FY
this preamble, DHS is not required to fee schedule.’’—no supporting 2017 and requested the data on fee
conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the documents. waiver approval rates for the past two
• ‘‘As shown in the supporting fiscal years be released.
impacts on all applicants of each change
documentation for this rule, the number Response: The NPRM contained
in a fee or change in USCIS fees or fee-
and dollar volume of fee waiver requests information USCIS had available at the
related regulations. As stated elsewhere
and foregone revenue has trended time it conducted the FY 2019/2020 fee
in this preamble,64 DHS is required by
upward during periods of economic review. It provides more than adequate
OMB Circular A–4 to include all total
improvement. That indicates that, data upon which to base the fee waiver
projected costs, benefits, and transfers
should the economy worsen, the regulatory changes made in this final
annualized and monetized over a
number of fee waiver requests will rule. However, in response to the
specified implementation period, which
increase to a level that could threaten commenter and to demonstrate that fee
for this final rule is 10 years. The final
the ability of USCIS to deliver programs waiver levels remain high, DHS has
rule intends to merely recover the
without disruption.’’—While there is included FY 2018 and FY 2019 fee
estimated full cost to USCIS of
supporting documentation for this waiver data in the supporting
providing immigration adjudication and
statement, its meaning is unclear as no documentation that accompanies this
naturalization services, including
analysis is given comparing the fee final rule for informational purposes.
services provided without charge to
waiver usage to economic performance. DHS has also included the actual dollar
asylum applicants and other • ‘‘In the FY 2016/2017 fee rule, DHS value of approved fee waiver requests
immigrants. noted that the estimated annual forgone for FY 2013–FY 2019.
However, this rule sets fees to offset revenue from fee waivers and
USCIS costs to provide immigration exemptions has increased markedly, 10. Changes to Form I–912, Request for
adjudication and naturalization services from $191 million in the FY 2010/2011 Fee Waiver
at an adequate level. DHS anticipates fee review to $613 million in the FY Comment: One commenter
that applicants and petitioner will 2016/2017 fee review.’’ recommended that USCIS revert to and
consider the potential benefits, • USCIS miscalculated the surcharge retain the previous version of Form I–
including the potential for increased needed to add onto other fees to make 912 (03/13/2018 edition).
earnings as noted by the commenter, up for lost revenue. Response: DHS declines to revert to
weigh those benefits against the cost of Response: All examples cited by the the previous version of the form as this
applying, including the fee, and decide commenter do not directly impact fee final rule establishes revised criteria for
if the benefits outweigh the costs. DHS calculations. Rather, they are byproduct eligibility. The Form I–912 version
believes that many LPRs will determine estimates of multiple operational data submitted with this final rule
that the benefits of naturalization, elements including fees, workload incorporates the relevant provisions.
including the prospect of additional receipts, and fee-paying receipts. Comment: One commenter
earnings, exceed the cost of the fee for Additional information on the historical recommended that USCIS restore
Form N–400. dollar value of approved fee waiver helpful language in instructions and
Comment: Another commenter wrote requests is located in the supporting forms that clarifies that applicants need
that there are errors and a lack of documentation that accompanies this only meet one of multiple possible
supporting documentation in the final rule. Additionally, DHS used the grounds of qualification for a fee waiver
NPRM. They stated that this lack of best available information at the time it and clarify that applicants only need to
information made it impossible to verify conducted the FY 2019/2020 fee review provide documentation for one basis. A
or understand calculations that USCIS to calculate fees and does not calculate commenter also noted that the proposed
relies on to justify the proposed changes a surcharge to add onto other fees. Form I–912 contains provisions that are
to the fee waivers. The commenter Instead, it estimates the total cost of difficult to understand, citing the
provided the following examples and performing USCIS’ anticipated request for applicants to include ‘‘a
criticisms: workload by form and divides those receipt number’’ (Part 1, Question A) as
costs by the estimated fee-paying an example. One commenter
64 Section IV A, Statutory and Regulatory
volume for each form. recommended that Part 1. Question
Requirements, Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Regarding the commenter’s question 1.A’s instruction should be changed to,
Planning and Review) and Executive Order 13563
(Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and
about the volume of fee waiver requests ‘‘[i]f available, provide the receipt
Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and increasing during periods of a good number’’ as the applicant may not yet
Controlling Regulatory Costs). economy, as indicated in the NPRM, have a receipt number.
Response: DHS clarified the provision without any adjustments.65 This then the card will be charged); offer fee
regarding the basis of eligibility for a fee clarification has been added to Form I– reductions; and lower the threshold to
waiver by indicating that the applicants 912 instructions. 150 percent or 175 percent instead. A
should select the basis for qualification. Comment: One commenter few commenters stated that partial fee
DHS added a clarification to the form to recommended increasing the chart in waivers, with mechanisms such as
indicate that the receipt number is only Part 3., Question 4 from four (4) spaces reduced fees, sliding scale fee
required if the applicant has already total for listing household members to schedules, and family caps, should be
been provided with a receipt number. six (6) spaces, along with instructions used to facilitate applications from low-
Comment: One commenter stated that above the chart for what to do if the and middle-income immigrants. Several
Part 1, ‘‘Question 1.B’s new guidelines applicant needs more spaces. commenters wrote that USCIS should
allowing fee waivers for those impacted Alternatively, they also recommend retain the previous fee waiver eligibility
by a disaster are unclear. The form providing the chart again in Part 7. for criteria.
states in Part 1 that in order to be those who need more space to list Response: DHS recognizes that filing
household members. fees are a burden for some people of
eligible, these applicants must have an
Response: Requestors should use the limited financial means. However, as
annual household income at or below
Additional Information section if more previously stated, the cost of fee waivers
125 percent of the FPG. They must then
space is required. DHS is not modifying and reduced fees are borne by all other
provide information about their income
the form in response to this comment. fee payers, because they must be
in Part 3, discussed in more detail
Adding additional charts or rows will transferred to those who pay a full fee
below. However, in Part 3, number 11
unnecessarily increase the form length. to ensure full cost recovery. DHS
they are asked to provide information
Comment: Commenters recommended believes that it is more equitable to base
about their expenses, debt, or losses
explicitly instructing applicants that fees on the beneficiary-pays principle.
incurred in the disaster. It is unclear
they need to attach a copy of their Thus, USCIS takes a relatively careful
why this additional information is position with respect to transferring
needed, if the applicant has already federal income tax transcripts.
Response: DHS has added an costs from one applicant to another
been required to document their income through the expansion of fee waiver
at or below 125 percent of the FPG. This additional form instruction to indicate
that requestors should provide income eligibility and discounting fees. To set
information request does not fit into the fees at various levels based on income,
eligibility guidelines based on income tax return transcripts.
Comment: One commenter stated that as suggested by the commenter, would
and is not relevant to USCIS’ require deviation from the underlying
adjudication. We recommend either Part 3., Question 10 ‘‘is a catch-all for
describing special circumstances. fee-setting methodology and require
deleting item 11 in Part 3, or expanding some of the costs for those applications
the eligibility guidelines to include Applicants could easily miss it. We
recommend adding a new item number to be reassigned to other benefit
financial hardship for those impacted by requests. Therefore, DHS did not
a disaster who are unable to document after 10 for those who have no income
or are homeless to describe their incorporate a reduced fee, sliding scale,
low income. The same commenter later or family cap in this final rule or the
noted that ‘‘Question #11 is redundant, circumstances, e.g., ‘[i]f you have no
income and/or are homeless, you may other suggestions provided by
as stated above, and we recommend that commenters.
it be deleted.’’ use this space to provide additional
Comment: Others suggested USCIS set
information.’ ’’
Response: DHS agrees that an a higher limit of at least 200 percent
Response: To limit the burden on
applicant or petitioner impacted by a instead of 125 percent FPG.
applicants, DHS will not be adding a Response: DHS will not adopt the
disaster who is otherwise eligible for a
question. However, question 10 has suggestion to increase the income
fee waiver would only need to provide
been updated to clarify that the space requirement to 200 percent of the
documentation of income at or below
may be used for additional information poverty line. As previously discussed,
125 percent of the FPG and would not
which may include a statement about DHS selected the 125 percent of the FPG
need to provide evidence of expenses,
lack of income. Although a homeless threshold as it is consistent with the
debt, or losses incurred in the disaster.
person without income would generally income threshold in other areas related
DHS has removed the additional
qualify for a fee waiver based on income to immigration benefit adjudication, the
question from the form.
at or below 125 percent of the FPG, public charge inadmissibility rule, and
Comment: One commenter stated that being homeless does not make an
Part 3 asks for gross income, but neither affidavit of support requirements under
applicant eligible for a fee waiver. INA section 213A, 8 U.S.C.1183a, and 8
the form nor the instructions define the
term. ‘Gross income’ needs to be 11. Suggestions CFR 212.22(b)(4).
explained, especially for those who are Comment: A few commenters F. Comments on Fee Exemptions
not able to simply refer to the ‘‘gross suggested alternatives to narrowing the Comment: One commenter opposed
income’’ line on their tax return. We requirements for fee waivers and USCIS’ proposal to remove most fee
recommend that USCIS define ‘gross changing their standards of evidence exemptions and to formalize limits to its
income’ on the form just below the including limiting fee waivers allowed discretion to provide fee exemptions.
heading for Part 3 and in the for specific applications (for example The commenter stated that USCIS failed
corresponding instructions. The the first 25,000 fee waivers for Form I– to provide any rationale to justify this
commenter also recommends that Part 90), have a lottery for fee waivers (for regulatory constraint. The commenter
3., Question 6 explicitly instruct example: For those paying with credit said narrowing the regulatory authority
applicants where to find their gross card they can be entered in a lottery and of the Director of USCIS to receive
income. if chosen the application is free, if not, requests and waive fees for a case or
Response: Gross income includes specific class of cases would
65 See IRS, Definition of Adjusted Gross Income,
wages, dividends, capital gains, unnecessarily tie the hands of future
available at https://www.irs.gov/e-file-providers/
business income, retirement definition-of-adjusted-gross-income (last visited policymakers. The commenter also
distributions as well as other income March 7, 2020). stated that it is unclear how this
authority would be exercised and how that may only be delegated to one other fee-paying benefit requests.66
USCIS would adequately publicize any person could result in an unmanageable Unfortunately, that goal was not
such exercise of discretion. level of requests. USCIS has approved achieved, and as stated in the NPRM,
Response: DHS authorized the USCIS waiver eligibility and group exemptions the current level of fee waivers is not
Director to approve and revoke in the case of natural disasters or sustainable. See 84 FR 62300. Thus,
exemptions from fees or provide that the significant USCIS errors. DHS explained prescribing a limit in the regulations on
fee may be waived for a case or class of in the proposed rule that it was the ability of future Directors to waive
cases that is not otherwise provided in concerned that the current authority or exempt fees on a discretionary basis
8 CFR 103.7(c) in 2010. See old 8 CFR provides too much discretion to a future was determined to be necessary.
103.7(d); 75 FR 58, 961, 58990. Since Director to expand fee exemptions and
Nevertheless, based on the use of 8 CFR
then, that provision has been waivers beyond what may be fiscally
implemented effectively without 103.7(d) by Directors since 2010, the
sound and shifting burden to just a few
providing publicly available guidance fee payers. In the 2010 fee rule, DHS restrictions are consistent with the relief
for how a person may request that the stated that it thought the limits that it that has been provided; thus new 8 CFR
Director exercise that authority for an was imposing in that rule on fee waivers 106.3(b) and (c) is not a major departure
individual who feels like he or she is would ensure that fee waivers are from how that provision has been
worthy of special consideration by the applied in a fair and consistent manner, applied.
Director. USCIS receives several million that aliens who are admitted into the Table 4 below provides a list of filing
fee-paying requests per year and to United States will not become public fee exemptions as provided in the rule.
permit an individual to request a fee charges, and that USCIS will not shift an See new 8 CFR 106.2.
waiver from the Director using authority unreasonable amount of costs to other
TABLE 4—FILING FEE EXEMPTIONS 67
Reason for filing Final rule
Form 68 Eligibility category Statutory or regulatory authority if applicable
(if applicable) regulation section
I–90, Application to Re- Applicant who has reached his or her 14th birthday N/A ................................... 8 CFR 106.2(a)(1) ........... 8 CFR 264.5(a).
place Permanent Resi- and the existing card expires after his or her 16th
dent Card. birthday.
I–102, Application for Re- For nonimmigrant member of the U.S. Armed Initial Filing ...................... 8 CFR 106.2(a)(2)(i) ........ 8 CFR 106.3(e)(5)—Agreement between U.S. gov-
placement/Initial Non- Forces. ernment and other nations.
immigrant Arrival-Depar- For a nonimmigrant member of the North Atlantic Initial Filing. 8 CFR 106.2(a)(ii). 8 CFR 106.3(e)(5)—Agreement between U.S. gov-
ture Document. Treaty Organization (NATO) armed forces or civil ernment and other nations.
component.
For nonimmigrant member of the Partnership for Initial Filing ...................... 8 CFR 106.2(a)(ii) ........... 8 CFR 106.3(e)(5)—Agreement between U.S. gov-
Peace military program under the Status of ernment and other nations.
Forces Agreement.
I–129CW, Petition for a For filing Form I–129CWR, Semiannual Report for N/A ................................... 8 CFR 106.2(a)(4)(B)(iii) 8 CFR 106.3(e)(5)—Agreement between U.S. gov-
CNMI-Only Non- CW–1 Employers. ernment and other nations.
immigrant Transitional
Worker.
I–129F, Petition for Alien For a K–3 spouse as designated in 8 CFR N/A ................................... 8 CFR 106.2(a)(5)(ii) ....... Previous regulations at 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(K).
Fiancé(e). 214.1(a)(2) who is the beneficiary of an immigrant
petition filed by a U.S. citizen on a Petition for
Alien Relative, Form I–130.
I–131, Application for Trav- Applicants who filed USCIS Form I–485 on or after Any application ................ 8 CFR 106.2(a)(7)(iv) ...... Required by regulations in effect at the time the re-
el Document. July 30, 2007, and before October 2, 2020 and quest was filed.
paid the Form I–485 fee.
Applicants for Special Immigrant Status based on Any application ................ 8 CFR 106.2(a)(7)(iv) ...... National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
an approved Form I–360 as an Afghan or Iraqi 2008, Public Law 110–181 (Jan 28, 2008) and
Interpreter, or Iraqi National employed by or on Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 Public Law
behalf of the U.S. Government or Afghan Na- 111–8 (Mar. 11, 2009).
tional employed by the U.S. Government or the
International Security Assistance Forces (‘‘ISAF’’).
I–360 Petition for • A petition seeking classification as an Amerasian; Any application ................ 8 CFR 106.2(a)(16) ......... Policy based on INA section 245(l)(7).
Amerasian, Widow(er), • A self-petition for immigrant classification as an
or Special Immigrant. abused spouse or child of a U.S. citizen or lawful
permanent resident or an abused parent of a
U.S. citizen son or daughter; or
• A petition for special immigrant juvenile classifica-
tion; or
A petition seeking special immigrant visa or status
an Afghan or Iraqi Interpreter, or Iraqi National
employed by or on behalf of the U.S. Govern-
ment or Afghan National employed by the U.S.
Government or the International Security Assist-
ance Forces (‘‘ISAF’’).
Form I–485, Application to Applicants for Special Immigrant Status based on Any application ................ 8 CFR 106.2(a)(17)(iii) .... National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
Register Permanent Res- an approved Form I–360 as an Afghan or Iraqi 2008, Public Law 110–181 (Jan 28, 2008) and
idence or Adjust Status. Interpreter, or Iraqi National employed by or on Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 Public Law
behalf of the U.S. Government or Afghan Na- 111–8 (Mar. 11, 2009).
tional employed by the U.S. Government or the
International Security Assistance Forces (‘‘ISAF’’).
Applicants filing as refugees under INA section Any application ................ .......................................... Previous 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(U)(3).
209(a).
66 75 FR 58973. Beneficiary, Form I–485 Supplement J, beneficiary birth siblings, no additional fee is
67 Ingeneral, USCIS exempts a fee for an Confirmation of Bona Fide Job Offer or Request for required.
application or request to replace a document based Job Portability Under INA Section 204(j), Form I– 70 No additional fee for a Form I–800 is required
on USCIS error. 539A Supplemental Information for Application to when filing for children who are birth siblings.
68 Some supplemental forms may not have fees as Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status. 71 Re-registration applicants must still pay the
69 If more than one Form I–600 is filed during the
the fees are part of the main form, including Form biometric services fee.
I–130A, Supplemental Information for Spouse Form I–600A approval period on behalf of
TABLE 4—FILING FEE EXEMPTIONS 67—Continued

I–485 Supplement A, Ad- When the applicant is an unmarried child less than N/A ................................... 8 CFR 106.2(a)(17)(iv) .... INA section 245(i).
justment of Status under 17 years of age, when the applicant is the
Section 245(i). spouse, or the unmarried child less than 21 years
of age of a legalized alien and who is qualified for
and has properly filed an application for voluntary
departure under the family unity program.
I–290B, Notice of Appeal For an appeal or motion for denial of a petition for a Any application ................ 8 CFR 106.2(a)(14)(ii) ..... National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
or Motion. special immigrant visa from an individual for a 2008, Public Law 110–181 (Jan 28, 2008) and
special immigrant status as an Afghan or Iraqi In- Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 Public Law
terpreter, or Iraqi or Afghan National employed by 111–8 (Mar. 11, 2009).
the U.S. Government or the International Security
Assistance Forces (‘‘ISAF’’).
I–539, Application to Ex- Nonimmigrant A, G, and NATO ................................ .......................................... 8 CFR 106.2(a)(19) ......... 8 CFR 106.3(e)(5)—Agreement between the U.S.
tend/Change Non- government and other nations.
immigrant Status.
I–589, Application for Asy- Applications filed by unaccompanied alien children .......................................... 8 CFR 106.2(a)(20) ......... Public Law 110–457, 122 Stat. 5044 (2008).
lum and for Withholding who are in removal proceedings.
of Removal.
I–600, Petition to Classify First Form I–600 filed for a child on the basis of an .......................................... 8 CFR 106.2(a)(21)(i) ...... Previous 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(Y), (Z).
Orphan as an Immediate approved Application for Advance Processing of
Relative 69. an Orphan Petition, Form I–600A, during the
Form I–600A approval or extended approval pe-
riod.
I–600A/I–600 Supplement Filed in order to obtain a first extension of the ap- .......................................... 8 CFR 106.2(a)(23)(i)(A) Previous 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(Y), (Z).
3, Request for Action on proval of the Form I–600A or to obtain a first time
Approved Form I–600A/ change of non-Hague Adoption Convention coun-
I–600. try during the Form I–600A approval period.
I–765, Application for Em- Refugee ..................................................................... Initial EAD ........................ 8 CFR 106.2(a)(32)(ii)(B) Policy.
ployment Authorization. Paroled as refugee .................................................... Initial EAD ........................ 8 CFR 106.2(a)(32)(ii)(B) Policy.
Asylee ........................................................................ Initial EAD ........................ 8 CFR 106.2(a)(32)(ii)(C) Policy.
N–8 or N–9 nonimmigrant ......................................... Initial EAD ........................ 8 CFR 106.2(a)(32)(ii)(G) 8 CFR 106.3(e)(5)—Agreement between the U.S.
government and another nation or nations.
Victim of severe form of trafficking (T–1 non- Initial EAD ........................ 8 CFR 106.2(a)(32)(ii)(D) Policy based on INA section 245(l)(7).
immigrant).
Victim of qualifying criminal activity (U–1 non- Initial EAD ........................ 8 CFR 106.2(a)(32)(ii)(E) Policy based on INA section 245(l)(7).
immigrant).
Dependent of certain government and international Initial EAD ........................ 8 CFR 106.2(a)(32)(ii)(F) Based on 106.3(e)(5)—An agreement between the
organizations, or NATO personnel. Renewal EAD, Replace- 8 CFR 106.2(a)(32)(iv)(C) U.S. government and another nation or nations.
ment EAD.
Taiwanese dependent of Taipei Economic and Cul- Initial EAD, Renewal N/A ................................... 8 CFR 106.3(e)(5)—An agreement between the
tural Representative Office TECRO E–1 employ- EAD, Replacement U.S. government and another nation or nations.
ees. EAD.
VAWA Self-Petitioners as defined in section Initial EAD ........................ 8 CFR 106.2(a)(32)(ii)(I) .. Policy based on INA section 245(l)(7).
101(a)(51)(D) of the Act (Applicant adjusting
under the Cuban Adjustment Act for battered
spouses and children (principal) who has a pend-
ing adjustment of status application (Form I–485)).
VAWA Self-Petitioners as defined in section Initial EAD ........................ 8 CFR 106.2(a)(32)(ii)(I) .. Policy based on through INA 245(l)(7).
101(a)(51)(E) of the Act (Applicant adjusting
based on dependent status under the Haitian
Refugee Immigrant Fairness Act for battered
spouses and children (principal) who has a pend-
ing adjustment of status application (Form I–485)).
VAWA Self-Petitioners as defined in section Initial EAD ........................ 8 CFR 106.2(a)(32)(ii)(I) .. Policy based on INA section 245(l)(7).
101(a)(51)(F) of the Act (Applicant adjusting
under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central
American Relief Act for battered spouses and
children (principal) who has a pending adjustment
of status application (Form I–485)).
Applicant for Special Immigrant Status based on an Initial EAD, Renewal 8 CFR 106.2(a)(32)(ii)(J) Public Law 110–181 (Jan 28, 2008) and Public Law
approved Form I–360 as an Afghan or Iraqi EAD, Replacement 111–8 (Mar. 11, 2009).
Translator or Interpreter, Iraqi National employed EAD.
by or on behalf of the U.S. Government, or Af-
ghan National employed by or on behalf of the
U.S. government or employed by the International
Security Assistance Forces (‘‘ISAF’’).
An applicant who filed USCIS Form I–485 on or Initial EAD, Renewal 8 CFR 106.2(a)(32)(ii)(A) Required by regulations in effect when form was
after July 30, 2007 and before [INSERT EFFEC- EAD, Replacement filed.
TIVE DATE OF 2018/2019 FEE RULE] and paid EAD.
the Form I–485 filing fee.
Principal VAWA Self-Petitioners who have approved Initial EAD ........................ 8 CFR 106.2(a)(32)(ii)(H) Policy based on INA section 245(l)(7).
petitions pursuant to section 204(a) of the Act.
Any current Adjustment of Status or Registry appli- Initial EAD, Renewal 8 CFR 106.2(a)(32)(iv)(A) Required by regulations in effect when form was
cant filed for adjustment of status on or after July EAD, Replacement filed.
30, 2007, and before [INSERT EFFECTIVE EAD.
DATE OF 2018/2019 FEE RULE] and paid the
appropriate Form I–485 filing fee.
Request for replacement Employment Authorization Replacement EAD ........... 8 CFR 106.2(a)(32)(iii) .... 8 CFR 106.3(e)(6).
Document based on USCIS error.
I–765V, Application for Em- Any applicant ............................................................. N/A ................................... 8 CFR 106.2(a)(32)(v) ..... Policy based on INA section 245(l)(7).
ployment Authorization
for Abused Non-

immigrant Spouse.
I–800, Petition to Classify The first Form I–800 filed for a child on the basis of Initial Filing ...................... 8 CFR 106.2(a)(33)(i) ...... 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(JJ), (LL).
Convention Adoptee as an approved Application for Determination of
an Immediate Relative 70. Suitability to Adopt a Child from a Convention
Country, Form I–800A, during the Form I–800A
approval period.
Form I–800A Supplement Filed in order to obtain a first extension of the ap- N/A ................................... 8 CFR 106.2(a)(35)(i)(A) 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(JJ)(1).
3, Request for Action on proval of the Form I–800A or to obtain a first time
Approved Form I–800A. change of Hague Adoption Convention country
during the Form I–800A approval period.
TABLE 4—FILING FEE EXEMPTIONS 67—Continued

I–821, Application for Tem- Any applicant ............................................................. Re-registration ................. 8 CFR 106.2(a) ............... INA section 245(l)(7).
porary Protected Sta-
tus 71.
I–821D, Consideration of Any requestor ............................................................ .......................................... 8 CFR 106.2(a)(38) ......... Policy decision based on DHS et al. v. Regents of
Deferred Action for the Univ. of Cal. et al., No. 18–587 (S.Ct. June
Childhood Arrivals. 18, 2010).
I–914, Application for T Any applicant ............................................................. N/A ................................... 8 CFR 106.2(a)(45) ......... Policy but based on INA section 245(l)(7).
Nonimmigrant Status.
I–918, Petition for U Non- Any applicant ............................................................. N/A ................................... 8 CFR 106.2(a)(46) ......... Policy but based on INA section 245(l)(7).
immigrant Status.
N–336, Request for a An applicant who has filed an Application for Natu- N/A ................................... 8 CFR 106.2(b)(2) ........... See INA secs. 328(b)(4), 329(b)(4).
Hearing on a Decision in ralization under sections 328 or 329 of the Act
Naturalization Pro- with respect to military service and whose appli-
ceedings (Under Section cation has been denied.
336 of the INA).
N–400, Application for Nat- An applicant who meets the requirements of sec- N/A ................................... 8 CFR 106.2(b)(3) ........... See INA secs. 328(b)(4), 329(b)(4).
uralization. tions 328 or 329 of the Act with respect to military
service.
N–565, Application for Re- Application is submitted under 8 CFR 338.5(a) or N/A ................................... 8 CFR 106.2(b)(5)(ii) ....... Policy based on 8 CFR 106.3(e)(6).
placement Naturalization/ 343a.1 to request correction of a certificate that
Citizenship Document. contains an error.
Form N–600, Application Member or veteran of any branch of the U.S. N/A ................................... 8 CFR 106.2(b)(6) ........... Based on National Defense Authorization provi-
for Certificate of Citizen- Armed Forces. sions.
ship.
Other—Claimant under Claimant .................................................................... N/A ................................... 8 CFR 106.2(c)(9) ........... INA 289.
section 289 of the Act.
1. EAD (Form I–765) Exemption obligations. The commenter said such withholding of removal claims in the
Comment: A commenter stated that individuals have an urgent, recognized context of removal proceedings before
DHS should not charge a fee for humanitarian need to live and work in them. The asylum process ‘‘does not
applications for employment the United States, and therefore, USCIS correspond to Article 33 of the 1951
authorization for individuals granted should continue its historic practice of Convention, but instead corresponds to
withholding of removal, indicating that exempting these individuals from work Article 34’’ of the 1951 Refugee
it violates United States treaty authorization fees. Convention, which provides that party
obligations under Article 17 of the Response: DHS is continuing to states ‘‘shall as far as possible facilitate
Refugee Convention. Individuals who provide a fee exemption for the initial the assimilation and naturalization of
have been granted withholding of Form I–765, Application for refugees.’’ See INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca,
removal have been found by an Employment Authorization, for 480 U.S. 421, 441 (1987) (quotation
immigration judge to meet the legal individuals who were granted asylum marks omitted). As the Supreme Court
definition of a refugee, and are (asylees) or who were admitted as has recognized, Article 34 is
authorized to remain lawfully in the refugees, consistent with Article 17(1) of ‘‘precatory’’ and ‘‘does not require [an]
United States for as long as that status the 1951 Convention relating to the implementing authority actually to grant
continues, citing to INA section Status of Refugees (as incorporated in asylum to all those who are eligible.’’ Id.
241(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3); 8 CFR the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status Further, although the United States is a
1208.16, 1208.24. The commenter of Refugees). See 84 FR 62302; 8 CFR party to the 1967 Refugee Protocol,
indicated that the U.S. Supreme Court 106.2(a)(32)(ii)(B). Consistent with past which incorporates both Articles 33 and
has recognized that withholding of practice, asylees and refugees 34 of the 1951 Refugee Convention, the
removal is the mechanism by which the submitting a Form I–765 for EAD Protocol is not self-executing. See, e.g.,
United States implements its obligation renewals will generally be required to Stevic, at 428 n.22. It is the withholding
under Article 33 of the Refugee pay the relevant fee. See 8 CFR statute at INA section 241(b)(3) and the
Convention to ensure that refugees are 106.2(a)(32). asylum statute at INA section 208 that,
not returned to a place where they will However, DHS is not providing a fee respectively, constitute the U.S.
face persecution, citing to INS v. exemption for initial requests for an implementation of these treaty
Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 440–41 EAD for individuals granted obligations. Nothing in either of these
(1987). The commenter wrote that just withholding of removal. See 84 FR two provisions precludes the imposition
as much as asylees, individuals granted 62301. Fees associated with access to of a filing fee for asylum applications or
withholding of removal have a right, protection and work authorization do work authorization for those granted
under Article 17(1) of the Refugee not jeopardize United States compliance withholding of removal. Imposition of
Convention, to obtain authorization to with its non-refoulement obligations asylum application and work
work on the most favorable terms that under Article 33 of the 1951 Refugee authorization filing fees are fully
the United States allows to nationals of Convention. The United States ensures consistent with United States domestic
a foreign country. The commenter also compliance with non-refoulement implementing law and Article 17 of the
indicated that Australia only charges the obligations not through the asylum 1951 Refugee Convention, which relates
equivalent of 25 U.S. dollars—half of process, but through the withholding of to refugees engaging in employment.
what DHS proposes to charge for asylum removal provisions, currently codified See Weinberger v. Rossi, 456 U.S. 25, 34
applications. at section 241(b)(3) of the INA. See INS (1982) (noting the general presumption
Another commenter said the v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407 (1984). USCIS that United States law conforms to U.S.
imposition of a fee for work uses the Form I–589 solely to adjudicate international treaty obligations). DHS
authorization for those individuals who affirmative applications for asylum. It is has further clarified the immigrant
have been granted withholding of immigration judges, within the categories eligible for fee exemptions
removal is in conflict with the U.S. legal Department of Justice, who evaluate and clarified which renewal and
replacement EAD are eligible for fee from $495 74 to $580.75 DHS notes that One commenter stated that USCIS has
exemptions. See new 106.2(a)(32). TPS applicants and re-registrants may failed to deliver promised
request fee waivers. See 8 CFR 106.3. improvements to its online filing
2. TPS The commenter correctly noted that abilities and other modernization
DHS did not incorporate the cost of initiatives that would result in more
Comment: Another commenter stated
biometrics into the cost of Form I–821, streamlined operations. The same
that fee exemption limitations would be
Application for Temporary Protected commenter stated that in 2019, legal
especially harmful to TPS applicants. Status. In this final rule, DHS service providers still reported many
The commenter added that USCIS is incorporates the cost of providing challenges in utilizing USCIS online
planning to charge TPS applicants a biometric services into the underlying filing systems, and that modernization
separate biometric service fee, even fee for most applications and petitions. continues to be pushed on to USCIS
though the proposal bundles that cost However, the maximum fee for Form I– customers even to the detriment of
for every other category of benefit 821, Application for Temporary customer service. A commenter wrote
applicant. The commenter concluded by Protected Status is set in legislation at that they were concerned about USCIS
saying TPS applicants would be $50 for initial TPS applicants and $0 for moving to online filing based on their
required to pay $570 to obtain TPS re-registrants. See INA section experiences with the Department of
protections and begin to earn an 244a(c)(1)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(c)(1)(B). State’s National Visa center; they were
income, which is unaffordable. Therefore, DHS is not able to increase frustrated by software glitches and
Response: In this final rule, DHS the fee for Form I–821 and cannot processing issues (e.g., lost documents,
removes the Form I–765 fee exemption incorporate the cost of biometrics into erroneous file rejection, lack of
the form fee. Thus, DHS maintains a information after lengthy waits on hold)
in 8 CFR 244.6(b) for TPS if the
separate biometric services fee for TPS which the commenter said should be
individual is an initial TPS registrant registrants and re-registrants and
and is under 14 years of age or over 65 addressed before fees are raised. One
requires the biometric services fee for commenter stated if USCIS wants to
years of age, and DHS establishes a re-registrants under age 14 to recover
biometric services fee of $30 for TPS save money, it should stop requiring an
the full cost of providing such services. endless flow of paperwork. The
applicants and re-registrants. As we New 8 CFR 106.3(a)(37)(iii) and commenter provided a list of forms that
stated in the NPRM, DHS is removing 244.17(a). businesses in the CNMI must fill out
the fee exemption because application DHS declines to make changes in this when new employees are hired and
fees from other form types have always final rule based on this comment. DHS stated that the redundancy wasted both
been used to fund the costs of also notes that 8 CFR 244.6(b) is their and USCIS’ time and resources.
processing fee-exempt filings. updated to be consistent with new 8 The commenter referred to a bill from
Continuing to exempt these populations CFR 106.2 and 106.3 in relation to the
Congressman Sablan that would give
from paying associated fees would Form I–765 fees for TPS.
long-term CW Visa personnel
result in the costs of their requests being G. Comments on Specific Fees permanent status and stated their hope
borne by the other proposed fees. Thus, that there will not be constant
DHS determined that initial TPS 1. Fees for Online Filing
paperwork required for those requests.
registrants under 14 years of age or over Comment: A few 545 suggested that, Response: On March 13, 2017, the
65 years of age should pay for their own rather than just raising the fees, USCIS President signed Executive Order 13781,
EAD. should focus on processing times and entitled ‘‘Comprehensive Plan for
becoming more efficient, stating that the Reorganizing the Executive Branch.’’ 76
The biometric services fee that TPS
process is ‘‘severely paper intensive’’ The order instructed the Director of
applicants and re-registrants must pay is and could benefit from a more
changed from $85 to $30, a reduction of OMB to propose a plan to improve the
streamlined electronic process. One efficiency, effectiveness, and
$55 per filing. This $30 fee, which will commenter cited a 2005 report from
be required regardless of age, reflects the accountability of the Executive Branch.
DHS Office of the Inspector General The resulting June 2018 OMB Report,
cost of providing biometric services to (OIG) which found that USCIS
TPS applicants and re-registrants. See ‘‘Delivering Government Solutions in
information technology (IT) systems the 21st Century’’ recognized that an
new 8 CFR 244.17(a). This biometric were primarily paper-based and overarching source of government
services fee will partially offset the duplicative, and that USCIS’ ability to inefficiency is the outdated reliance on
increase in the fee or the removal of the process immigration benefits was paper-based processes and prioritized
fee exemption for Form I–765, inefficient. Another commenter stated the transition of Federal agencies’
Application for Employment that USCIS has done little to shift to business processes and recordkeeping to
authorization, so that the total cost of digital applications despite prior fee a fully electronic environment.77 The
applying for Temporary Protected Status hikes. One commenter said paper filing report noted that Federal agencies
and requesting employment is extremely laborious for petitioners, collectively spend billions of dollars on
authorization for those who would not and that many of the concerns that led paper management, including the
have been exempt from the Form I–765 USCIS to propose higher fees and processing, moving, and maintaining of
fee is increasing from $545 72 to $630 for beneficiary limits could be solved by large volumes of paper records and
initial TPS applicants.73 The cost of re- implementing electronic filing. Another highlighted the key importance of data,
registering for TPS and requesting commenter outlined the benefits of accountability, and transparency.78
employment authorization will increase moving to electronic process, including

cost savings and the ability for 76 E.O. 13781, 82 FR 13959 (Mar 16, 2017).
72 Total of $545 equals $50 for Form I–821 plus ‘‘essential workers to arrive on time.’’ 77 OMB, Delivering Government Solutions in the
$85 biometric services fee plus $410 for Form I– 21st Century: Reform Plan and Reorganization
765. 74 Total of $495 equals $85 biometric services fee Recommendations 18 (2018), available at https://
73 Total of $630 equals $50 for Form I–821 plus plus $410 for Form I–765. www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/
$30 biometric services fee plus $550 for Form I– 75 Total of $580 equals $30 biometric services fee Government-Reform-and-Reorg-Plan.pdf.
765. plus $550 for Form I–765. 78 Id. at 100.
Even more significantly, it cites USCIS’ immediate cost savings and operational and stewardship of USCIS and to
electronic processing efforts as an efficiencies to both USCIS and filers— promote the objectives of the
example of an agency initiative that benefits that will accrue throughout the Government Paperwork Elimination
aligns with the prioritized reforms.79 immigration lifecycle of the individual Act, E-Government Act, and E.O.
DHS understands that, while USCIS and with the broader use of online filing 13781.81 Therefore, and in response to
has embraced technology in and e-processing. the public comments, USCIS has
adjudication and recordkeeping, it As various online functions are calculated the amount of upfront cost
remains bound to the significant developed, USCIS makes them available savings that it recognizes from an online
administrative and operational burdens to the public, providing the option of versus paper filing in the current
associated with paper submissions. The engaging with USCIS either online or on environment and determined that it
intake, storage, and handling of paper paper. DHS recognizes that, if presented saves approximately $7 per submission.
require tremendous operational with optional new technology, people To encourage the shift of those capable
resources, and the information recorded adopt new practices at varying rates.80 of filing online into the electronic
on paper cannot be as effectively In this case, the complexity of the channel and increase the usage of
standardized or used for fraud and immigration benefit request system may USCIS e-processing for those forms for
national security, information sharing, exacerbate the tendency toward the which online filing is currently
and system integration purposes. status quo. Those familiar with paper- available, DHS will set the fees for
Technological advances have allowed based forms and interactions may feel online filing at an amount $10 lower
USCIS to develop accessible, digital there is no reason to change a method than the fees established in this final
alternatives to traditional paper that has worked for them. rule for filing that form on paper. New
methods for handling requests. Every DHS agrees that transitioning to e- 8 CFR 106.3(d).82 See Table 5: Fees for
submission completed online rather processing for benefit requests is an Online Filing for a comparison of paper
than through paper provides direct and important step in improving the service and online filing fees.
TABLE 5—FEES FOR ONLINE FILING

Online Paper
Immigration benefit request Difference
filing fee filing fee
I–90 Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card ............................................................. $405 $415 $10
I–130 Petition for Alien Relative .................................................................................................. 550 560 10
I–539 Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status ........................................................ 390 400 10
N–336 Request for Hearing on a Decision in Naturalization Proceedings ................................. 1,725 1,735 10
N–400 Application for Naturalization ........................................................................................... 1,160 1,170 10
N–565 Application for Replacement Naturalization/Citizenship Document ................................ 535 545 10
N–600 Application for Certificate of Citizenship .......................................................................... 990 1,000 10
N–600K Application for Citizenship and Issuance of Certificate ................................................. 935 945 10
G–1041 Genealogy Index Search Request ................................................................................ 160 170 10
G–1041A Genealogy Records Request ...................................................................................... 255 265 10
DHS adjusts USCIS’ fee schedule in As for the comments directed at the Comment: A few commenters
this final rule to ensure it recovers the Department of State (DOS) online recommended USCIS maintain the
estimated full cost of providing processing, USCIS has no control over current fees for processing Form I–129
immigration adjudication and the efficacy of DOS systems. DHS may petitions for H–2A beneficiaries until
naturalization services. USCIS’ cost learn from the DOS issues, however, the online Electronic Immigration
baseline reflected in this final rule and will, of course, work to minimize System (ELIS) can be established and
accounts for the costs of intake and any glitches. USCIS can conduct a robust analysis to
adjudication of applications received more accurately determine an
Comment: Some commenters wrote
online and on paper. To provide for full appropriate fee schedule consistent with
that switching to online filing would
cost recovery, DHS adjusts the fees for Federal guidelines for user fees.
create a barrier to immigrants without
filing applications on paper when Response: USCIS must recover its full
access to technology, and the option
online filing is available to be higher cost of providing immigration
should exist to choose between e-filing
than those fees would be in the absence adjudication and naturalization
of the lower fees for online filing. The and paper submissions. services. DHS adjusts the fees for forms
increased revenue anticipated from the Response: USCIS does not require that that are currently eligible for online
higher fees for those forms when filed any immigration benefit request be filed filing to be $10 lower if filed online than
on paper will offset the reductions in online. Filing on paper remains a valid the fee for the same forms filed on paper
revenue anticipated from the lower fees option. However, this final rule to reflect the known cost-savings to
for online filing. USCIS will further specifies that forms currently eligible for USCIS of receiving an application
evaluate the effects of these changes in online filing will be $10 more if filed on electronically. DHS declines to delay
future biennial fee reviews. paper. adjusting the fee for Form I–129H2A
79 Id.at 101–02. Be Late (Jan. 26, 2016), available at https:// 82 U.S. Customs and Border Protection accepts
80 Brian Kennedy & Cary Funk, Pew Research www.wsj.com/articles/forget-early-adopters-these- USCIS Forms I–192 and I–212 online. Available at
Group, 28 percent of Americans are ‘strong’ early people-are-happy-to-be-late-1453827437. https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/e-
adopters of technology (July 12, 2016), available at 81 See President’s Management Council,
safe (last viewed Mar. 27, 2020). However, USCIS
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/12/ Executive Office of the President, President’s has no data on the cost of online filing with CBP.
28-of-americans-are-strong-early-adopters-of- Management Agenda 7 (2018), available at https://
Therefore, this $10 online fee reduction applies to
technology/; Charlie Wells, The Wall Street Journal, www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/
Forget Early Adopters: These People are Happy to ThePresidentsManagementAgenda.pdf. USCIS forms submitted to USCIS only.
because USCIS must recover its full adjudication, including providing services for CNMI long-term resident
costs. biometric services. DHS will not forego program in the ABC model for the
DHS does not provide for a lower any revenue associated with the NPRM. Therefore, the fee for Form I–
online filing fee for Form I–129H2A in biometric services fee because of this 765 does not include the costs for that
this final rule. As described above, DHS change. service. DHS proposed new 8 CFR
is increasing the fees for filing an DHS believes that this change in its 103.17 in contemplation of the need for
application on paper above the level it method of recovering the cost of a separate fee in the future if biometric
would otherwise establish when the biometric services will provide benefits services was required by regulations or
application is also eligible for online to applicants and USCIS. Most policy, but where the costs had not been
filing. This will provide for full cost applicants and petitioners will no considered in setting the benefit request
recovery by USCIS. However, because longer need to determine if they must fee. As a result, and consistent with the
online filing is not yet available for submit a separate biometric services fee actions taken for TPS, EOIR forms, and
Form I–129H2A, DHS cannot increase in addition to the fee for their request. in accordance with new 8 CFR 103.17,
the fee for a paper filing to offset the DHS believes that this will reduce DHS requires that CNMI long-term
anticipated reduction in revenue from a confusion among requestors and resident applicants and applicants for
lower fee for online filing and still decrease rejections for incorrect fees. asylum who are applying for
provide for full cost recovery. If DHS Fewer rejections for incorrect fees employment authorization submit a $30
raised the fee for filing Form I–129H2A should increase administrative biometric services fee with their Form I–
on paper in anticipation of future online efficiency for USCIS.As provided in 765. 8 CFR 106.2(a)(32)(i)(A), (B).
filing and a lower fee for filing online, new 8 CFR 103.17, DHS is also Comment: One commenter opposed a
USCIS would recover revenue in excess establishing a separate biometric separate biometric services fee for TPS
of its estimated full cost of adjudication services fee for additional requests for applicants, stating that USCIS is
until such time as online filing and a which it could not include the costs to breaching Congress’s $50 cap on TPS
lower online filing fee are available. USCIS of administering biometric filing by imposing a separate biometric
Thus, DHS cannot establish lower fees services in the ABC model used for the fee.
for online filing for Form I–129H2A, or NPRM. First, DHS codified revised 8 Response: The commenter is correct
any other applications for which online CFR 208.7(a)(1)(i), which requires that in stating that the fee for Form I–821,
filing is not yet available, and still biometrics be submitted for an Application for Temporary Protected
provide for full cost recovery. DHS may application for employment Status, is statutorily limited to $50 for
consider a lower fee for Form I–129H2A authorization from an applicant for initial TPS applicants and $0 for re-
if filed online in future rulemakings if asylum or to renew such an EAD. See registrants. See INA section
Form I–129H2A is available for online Asylum Application, Interview, and 244a(c)(1)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(c)(1)(B).
filing. Employment Authorization for However, the commenter is incorrect in
Applicants, 85 FR 38532, 38626 (June stating that charging TPS applicants and
2. Biometric Services Fee re-registrants a separate biometric
26, 2020); new 8 CFR 208.7(a) (1)(i).
Comment: One commenter questioned That rule takes effect on August 25, services fee constitutes a breach of any
why USCIS would forego approximately 2020. Second, on February 19, 2020, statute. DHS has specific statutory
$220,884,315 in biometric services fee USCIS implemented the Commonwealth authority to collect ‘‘fees for
revenue. The commenter added that the of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) fingerprinting services, biometric
NPRM allows for biometric services fees services, and other necessary services’’
long-term resident status program. It
for TPS applicants and those filing EOIR when administering the TPS program.
was created by the Northern Mariana
forms; therefore, there should continue See 8 U.S.C. 1254b.
Islands Long-Term Legal Residents
to be a fee for this service. The Before this final rule, all TPS
Relief Act. 48 U.S.C. 1806(e)(6).83
commenter concluded that if DHS Applicants must file Form I–955, applicants and re-registrants aged 14
implements this proposal, it will be Application for CNMI Long-Term years and older were subject to the $85
confusing for applicants, attorneys, and Resident Status, together with Form I– biometric services fee, in addition to
government staff to implement and it 765, Application for Employment any applicable fees for Forms I–821 and
will lead to delays in proper filing of I–765. Therefore, adjusting the
Authorization, by August 17, 2020.
applications and petitions. The same biometric services fee for TPS
When the CNMI long-term resident
commenter recommended that USCIS applicants and re-registrants to $30
status program was established, USCIS
use the biometric services fee to represents a $55 reduction in the
required that a biometric services fee be
supplement fraud investigations or biometric services fee that these
submitted with the Form I–765.84
consider raising this fee in order to individuals may pay. DHS also notes
Because the CNMI long-term resident
provide additional revenue. that TPS applicants and re-registrants
Response: The commenter program and fee NPRM were under
may apply for fee waivers based on
misunderstands DHS’s approach to development simultaneously, DHS was
eligibility criteria established by USCIS.
recovering the estimated full cost of unable to include the cost of biometric In this final rule, DHS removes the
providing biometric services. Although 83 See, CNMI Long-Term Resident Status,
Form I–765 fee exemption in 8 CFR
DHS eliminates the separate biometrics available at https://www.uscis.gov/working-united- 244.6(b) for TPS if the individual is an
service fee of $85 for many application states/cnmi-long-term-resident-status (last initial TPS registrant and is under 14
types in this final rule, it establishes reviewed/updated Feb. 19, 2020). years of age or over 65 years of age, and
84 See USCIS Form I–765, Application for
fees for most forms to reflect the DHS establishes a biometric services fee
Employment Authorization, page 23 (stating,

estimated full cost of adjudication, ‘‘Special Instructions for Applicants for
of $30 for TPS applicants and re-
including the cost of biometric services Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands registrants. As we stated in the NPRM,
that are typically associated with that (CNMI) Long-Term Resident Status—(c)(37). All DHS is removing the fee exemption
form. Thus, DHS will continue to applicants under this category must pay the because fees from other form types have
biometric services fee of $85. The biometric services
recover the cost of providing biometric fee and the filing fee for the I–765 application
always been used to fund the costs of
services, but it will do so by adjusting cannot be waived.’’). Available at https:// processing fee-exempt filings.
form fees to reflect the total cost of an www.uscis.gov/i-765. Continuing to exempt these populations
from paying associated fees would because of the evidence and other Response: DHS recognizes
result in the costs of their requests being factors that adjudicators may consider. commenters’ concerns regarding the
borne by the other proposed fees. Thus, Therefore, DHS establishes its fees, scope of the fee increases for Forms G–
DHS determined that initial TPS unless otherwise noted, at a level 1041 and G–1041A in the NPRM. The
registrants under 14 years of age or over sufficient to recover the estimated full proposed increase reflected changes in
65 years of age should pay their own cost of adjudication. DHS calculated the USCIS’ methodology for estimating the
Form I–765 fee and biometric services Form I–485 fee to reflect the full cost of costs of the genealogy program to
fee. The biometric services fee that TPS adjudication, including the average cost improve the accuracy of its estimates. In
applicants and re-registrants must pay is of biometric services associated with response to public comments on the
changed from $85 to $30, a reduction of those applications. proposed genealogy fee increases,
$55 per filing. This $30 fee, which will DHS declines to make changes in this USCIS further refined the methodology
be required regardless of age, reflects the final rule in response to these used to estimate genealogy program
cost of providing biometric services to comments. costs. Based on the refined
TPS applicants and re-registrants. See methodology, this final rule establishes
new 8 CFR 244.17(a). 3. Genealogy Fees, Forms G–1041, a fee for Form G–1041, Genealogy Index
DHS declines to make changes in this Genealogy Index Search Request, and Search Request, when filed online as
final rule in response to the comment. G–1041A, Genealogy Records Request $160 and $170 when filed on paper.
Comment: A few commenters stated Comment: Numerous commenters Using the same methodology
that including a biometrics screening generally opposed increasing fees for refinement, DHS establishes a fee for
and fee for children under 14 is genealogy search and records requests. Form G–1041A, Genealogy Records
unnecessary and that it is inappropriate Other commenters, many identifying Request, when filed online as $255 and
to charge a single fee for Form I–485 themselves as professional genealogists $265 when filed by paper.
that includes the cost of biometrics to and/or individual family genealogists, INA section 1356(t)(1) authorizes DHS
both adults and children under 14 years opposed the proposed increased fees, to set the genealogy fee for providing
of age who do not submit biometric stating that they oppose the fee increase genealogy research and information
information. A few commenters stated for the following reasons: services at a level that will ensure the
that imposing a biometric services fee • No other government record or recovery of the costs of providing
where USCIS does not capture biometric research request fees are close to the genealogy services separate from other
data would deter families from entering proposed increased costs. adjudication and naturalization
the United States as a unit. • The 500 percent fee hike is service’s fees. USCIS must estimate the
Response: As explained previously, costs of the genealogy program because
unjustified, especially after fees tripled
DHS will expand the collection of it does not have a discrete genealogy
3 years ago.
biometric information for TPS re- program operating budget. Nor does
registrants under the age of 14, remove • The NPRM did not present data or
specifics to substantiate the costs. DHS USCIS discretely identify and track
the biometrics fee exemption from 8 genealogy program expenditures. The
CFR 244.17(a), and revise the form cannot claim such fees are necessary to
same office that researches genealogy
instructions for Form I–821 to require a cover costs when USCIS did not provide
requests, the National Records Center,
$30 biometrics service fee from every cost analysis to support the claim. The
also performs other functions, such as
TPS registrant regardless of age. See 84 proposed fees for G–1041 and G–1041A
FOIA operations, retrieving, storing, and
FR 62303 and 62368. This change are arbitrary and capricious.
moving files. In the FY 2016/2017 fee
assigns the costs of TPS applications • The nature of genealogical research
rule, DHS estimated the costs of the
and re-registrations to those who benefit often requires broad investigation,
genealogy program indirectly using
from them. DHS uses biometrics beyond requiring several search and record projected volumes and other
criminal history background checks to requests. information. The projected costs
include identity management and Some commenters stated that the included a portion of Lockbox costs,
verification in the immigration lifecycle. reasoning presented in the NPRM does genealogy contracts, and other costs
Therefore, biometrics will be collected not make sense, and expressed doubt related to the division that handles
without age limitation, although it may that the cost of providing these services genealogy, FOIA, and similar USCIS
be waived at DHS’s discretion. could possibly have risen enough in 3 workloads. See 81 FR 26919. This
DHS also acknowledges that this final short years to justify an increase of this estimation methodology underestimated
rule increases the fees for children magnitude, including: the total cost to USCIS of processing
under 14 years old who file an I–485 • Workload volume submitted in genealogy requests by not fully
concurrently with a parent filing an I– Tables 1 and 5 are the same and do not recognizing costs associated with the
485 by eliminating the reduced I–485 indicate any increase in workload after staff required to process genealogical
child fee. This final rule establishes the the increase in fee schedules; requests. Therefore, other fees have been
fee for Form I–485, Application to • Table 4 shows a combined total funding a portion of the costs of the
Register Permanent Residence or Adjust increase of only 7,200 requests in the genealogy program, and DHS is
Status, at $1,130 for all applicants. last three years; correcting that in this rule.
The commenters correctly wrote that • Table 24 shows how costs will be In FY 2018, USCIS incorporated the
the Form I–485 fee established in this reduced to the agency by decreasing the genealogy program into the National
final rule includes the average cost of administrative burden through Records Center (NRC). This change
biometric services associated with electronic versions of records; enabled USCIS to revise its cost
processing those applications. The • The proposal provides no real basis estimation methodology to incorporate a
inclusion of biometric services reduces of comparison of real costs; proportional share of the NRC’s
the average cost of Form I–485 and the • DHS does not currently have operating costs based on the staffing
final fee established in this final rule. enough data to estimate the effects for devoted to the genealogy program. DHS
Processing a given application may be small entities; and estimated the costs of the genealogy
more or less costly than processing • The expected use in the next fiscal program using this methodology for the
another application of the same type year shows almost no impact to USCIS. first time in its FY 2019/2020 fee review
and subsequently proposed to base the cost of the genealogy program, including In this final fee rule, DHS emphasizes
fees for Forms G–1041 and G–1041A on managing and storing records, via the beneficiary-pays principle.
these revised cost estimates. DHS did USCIS’ fee schedule. Consistent with its approach to most
not apply cost reallocation to the fees When DHS receives a request for other fees addressed in this final rule,
for Forms G–1041 and G–1041A. DHS genealogical records, it must identify DHS establishes the fees for Forms G–
believes that these revised cost whether USCIS possesses relevant 1041 and G–1041A at a level that
estimates and fees reflect more records, retrieve, and review them for reflects the estimated full cost of
accurately the true costs to USCIS of release where appropriate. These providing those services. DHS does not
operating the genealogy program than activities incur costs beyond the general establish these fees to limit access to
the previous indirect estimation costs of record management and storage genealogical records, and they do not
methodology. that DHS incorporates into other augment government tax revenue. DHS
As requested by public comments immigration benefit request fees via the declines to require other individuals
received on the NPRM, USCIS examined Records Management activity. USCIS filing immigration benefit requests to
the proposed genealogy fees, and estimates the costs of the genealogy subsidize users of the genealogy
decided to further refine its cost program via the Research Genealogy program.
estimation for the genealogy program. activity, as shown in the Cost Objects Comment: Multiple commenters
For this final rule, USCIS reviewed the section of the supporting documentation stated that the proposed fee increases
costs attributable to the NRC to identify that accompanies this final rule. for record requests seems to be a
those that directly support the Therefore, DHS establishes fees for punishment for citizens who want
genealogy program. USCIS determined Forms G–1041 and G–1041A to recover access to ancestors’ records. Multiple
that some NRC costs do not directly these additional costs. DHS has explicit individuals stated that USCIS would be
support the genealogy program and are authority to recover the costs of ‘‘holding them hostage’’ by demanding
not attributable to Forms G–1041 and providing genealogical services via exorbitant and unjustified fees to access
G–1041A. USCIS removed the non- genealogy fees. See 8 U.S.C. 1356(t). documents on immigration ancestors.
attributable costs to the genealogy DHS declines to make changes in this The commenters wrote that these
program from its cost estimates for final rule in response to these records should already be publicly
Forms G–1041 and G–1041A. USCIS comments. accessible under the law.
maintained in its genealogy program Response: DHS rejects the
Comment: Some commenters
cost estimates a proportional share of characterization of the proposed fees as
opposing the fee increase focused on
NRC overhead costs based on the a way to punish or hold hostage
income and ability-to-pay, such as the
number of staff at the NRC supporting individuals who seek records related to
following:
the genealogy program. Thus, USCIS their ancestors via the USCIS genealogy
• The increased fees would be far program. In this final rule, DHS
reduced its estimate of the genealogy
beyond the financial means of most establishes the fees for Forms G–1041
program’s total cost by $0.9 million. In
average Americans and make it and G–1041A at a level sufficient to
this final rule, DHS establishes the fee
impossible for genealogists and families recover the estimated full cost of
for Form G–1041, Genealogy Index
to make and pay for requests. Only the providing access to genealogical
Search Request, when filed online as
$160, the fee for a paper filed G–1041 rich and wealthiest would be able to records, as provided for by law. See INA
as $170, the fee for Form G–1041A, access these records. section 286(t), 8 U.S.C. 1356(t). DHS is
Genealogy Records Request, when filed • Many individuals doing genealogy not motivated by any other
online as $255, and the fee for a paper research tend to be older and on limited consideration and declines to make
filed G–1041A as $265 to reflect its income. changes in this final rule in response to
revised, lower cost estimates directly • A few commenters said that 2018 these comments.
attributable to the USCIS genealogy data from the Federal Reserve Board Comment: One commenter stated that
program. To the extent that DHS will no indicated that the proposed increased USCIS most likely has indices of all files
longer recover a full proportionate share fees would place access to Federal in digital form, therefore the time
of the NRC’s costs via fees for Forms G– public records beyond the financial required to type a name into a
1041 and G–1041A, USCIS will recover capabilities of an estimated 40 percent computer, read the result, and email it
those costs through the fees assessed for of Americans. Many commenters stated to the requester is a matter of minutes
other immigration benefit requests. that records should be easily obtainable and the salary and benefits of the
DHS appreciates the public’s feedback to all and not used to generate revenue employees do not justify a fee of $240.
on the USCIS genealogy program and for the government. A few commenters stated that USCIS
has implemented changes in this final Response: DHS recognizes the should publish the figures for the
rule in response to these comments. concerns of commenters and ‘‘actual out-of-pocket costs’’ of searching
Comment: Some commenters claimed acknowledges the substantial increase indices and providing copies of records
that taxpayers have already paid to in the fees for Forms G–1041 and G– found and the estimate of the number of
acquire, manage, and store these 1041A. In response, USCIS refined its requests likely to be processed so that
records. Taxpayers already support the cost estimation methodology for the the public can judge whether the fees
government substantially and should genealogy program as described above. are appropriate to the cost of providing
not be charged for access to records. In this final rule, DHS establishes the the service.
Response: DHS understands the fee for Form G–1041, Genealogy Index Response: DHS acknowledges that
commenters’ concerns regarding the Search Request, when filed online as USCIS possesses indices of many
potential for duplicative payment. $160, the fee for a paper filed G–1041 different types and series of records.
However, USCIS does not receive as $170, the fee for Form G–1041A, These indices aid USCIS in efficiently
taxpayer funds for the genealogy Genealogy Records Request, when filed identifying records that may be related
program, nor do taxes pay for the online as $255, and the fee for a paper to a given genealogical request.
acquisition, management, or storage of filed Form G–1041A as $265 to reflect However, to fulfill genealogical records
records in USCIS’ custody. Therefore, its revised, lower cost estimates for requests, USCIS incurs costs beyond
DHS must recover the estimated full operating the USCIS genealogy program. identifying records that may be relevant
to a particular inquiry. In addition to efforts to complete the histories of Genealogy Program and instead would
identifying relevant records, USCIS minority citizens. A few commenters likely be the demise of the program.
must retrieve the relevant records and stated that USCIS genealogy records Some commenters wrote that the
manually review them before release to contain information no longer found in proposed increase in fees would price-
ensure compliance with federal privacy Europe, where the Nazis destroyed out and prevent researchers from
statutes. In addition to these direct records during World War II. accessing records, significantly reducing
costs, USCIS also incurs overhead costs Response: DHS recognizes the the number of requests for documents,
associated with storing and managing importance of genealogical records and and essentially closing down USCIS’
the records, including relevant facilities the connections they can provide to Genealogy Program. Many commenters
costs. In this final rule, DHS estimates immigrant ancestors. In this final rule, stated that the proposed increase in fees
the total cost, including applicable DHS establishes the fees for Forms G– appears intentionally designed to put an
indirect costs, of completing Form G– 1041 and G–1041A at a level sufficient end to people using the Genealogy
1041, Genealogy Index Search Request, to recover the estimated full cost of Program. Numerous commenters
to be $160 when filed online and the providing access to genealogical addressed how the hefty charges for the
total cost of completing a paper Form records, as provided for by law. See INA initial research, regardless of whether
G–1041, Genealogy Index Search section 286(t), 8 U.S.C. 1356(t). The fees USCIS identified any records, would be
Request, to be $170. Therefore, DHS established in this final rule are by itself a substantial deterrent to
establishes the fee for Form G–1041 as intended to recover the estimated full genealogical research.
$160 when filed online and a paper cost of providing genealogical record Response: DHS acknowledges the
filed Form G–1041 as $170. In this final services and are not motivated by any substantial increase in fees for Forms G–
rule, DHS estimates the total cost, other consideration. DHS declines to 1041 and G–1041A in this final rule. In
including applicable indirect costs, of make changes in in this final rule in this final rule, DHS established the fees
completing Form G–1041A, Genealogy response to these comments. for Forms G–1041 and G–1041A to
Records Request, to be $255 when filed Comment: Several commenters wrote recover the estimated full cost to USCIS
online and the total cost of completing that the information provided is of providing genealogical services. In
a paper Form G–1041A, Genealogy essential as part of an application setting these fees, DHS is not motivated
Records Request, to be $265. Therefore, process to those pursuing dual by any other consideration. DHS does
DHS establishes the fee for Form G– citizenship. not intend to discourage individuals
Response: DHS recognizes the value from requesting genealogical records, to
1041A as $255 when filed online and
of genealogical records to individuals deter genealogical research, or to
the fee for a paper filed Form G–1041A
who are pursuing dual citizenship. eliminate the USCIS genealogy program.
as $265.
However, as an agency funded primarily DHS declines to make changes in this
Comment: Many commenters stated through user fees, USCIS must recover final rule in response to these
that it was vital to be able to obtain the full cost of the services it provides. comments.
records and family artifacts held in files Consistent with the beneficiary-pays Comment: Many commenters wrote
about their ancestors’ immigration to the principle emphasized throughout this that the proposed change would be in
United States and path to becoming final rule, DHS declines to require other violation of the Freedom of Information
Americans. A commenter stated that the immigration benefit requestors to Act (FOIA). Some further commented
records provide information that subsidize individuals requesting that the proposed fees are inexplicable
genealogists often cannot find in any genealogical services from USCIS. DHS given that USCIS often directs a
other extant record. Some commenters declines to make changes in this final majority of requests to the FOIA
said public access and researching rule in response to these comments. program for processing. Several
genealogy helps educate themselves, Comment: A few individuals stated commenters questioned how there
their children, and other generations on that affordable access to genealogy is could be a charge, other than standard
important parts of immigration history, important to helping determine genetic FOIA fees, if the information is available
such as the Chinese Exclusion Act and medical problems and allowing family via FOIA. Some commenters wrote that
the Holocaust. Multiple commenters members to take proactive precautions a charge of $240 to simply search an
wrote ‘‘an informed and educated that foster improved public health as index is unacceptably high compared to
citizenry is essential for our democracy well as substantial cost-savings by standard DHS cost and timeframes for
to continue to prosper.’’ A few federal and state financial medical FOIA requests because this fee would
commenters said studies show that services. equal 6 hours of searching the Master
children perform better in school if they Response: DHS recognizes that Index, when index searches should
know about their ancestors. A few individuals may value and request usually be able to be completed in an
commenters wrote that genealogy genealogical records for many different hour or less, undercutting the intent of
research is an integral part of the reasons. However, DHS is not aware of the FOIA.
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day any data demonstrating the monetary Response: There is no conflict
Saints and the proposed increase in fees value of health information that may be between the Freedom of Information Act
would be a burden to those of that faith. derived from such records. Consistent and DHS’ operation of the USCIS
Some commenters said that Daughters with the beneficiary-pays principle genealogical program. Nor is USCIS
of the American Revolution and Native emphasized throughout this final rule, constrained in establishing fees for its
Americans search records to confirm DHS declines to require other genealogical services to the levels
applications for memberships. Ancestral immigration benefit requestors to established under FOIA. USCIS
history projects research American subsidize individuals requesting formerly processed requests for
slaves brought to South Carolina and genealogical services from USCIS. DHS historical records under USCIS’
Virginia. A fee increase would declines to make changes in this final Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)/
negatively affect legitimate rule in response to these comments. Privacy Act (PA) program but the
organizations that keep detailed, Comment: Several commenters stated demand for historical records grew
complete, and accurate records of that the proposed fees are far from dramatically. Because the records were
American history and would forestall advancing the goals of the USCIS not subject to FOIA exemptions, that
process was not the most suitable for genealogy program is distinct from the documents, as stated in the proposed
genealogy request. See Establishment of FOIA program and the fees DHS rule, and digitization of records is
a Genealogy Program; Proposed rule, 71 establishes for Forms G–1041 and G– worthy, as it should result in lower fees,
FR 20357–20368 (April 20, 2006). The 1041A reflects the estimated full cost of greater efficiency, and ease of use, not
genealogy program was established to only the USCIS genealogy program. DHS the reverse.
relieve the FOIA/PA program from declines to make changes in this final Response: DHS appreciates and agrees
burdensome requests that require no rule in response to these comments. with the commenters’ reasoning that
FOIA/PA expertise, place requesters and Comment: Numerous commenters filing index search requests and records
the Genealogy staff in direct stated that USCIS needs to comply with request online increases efficiency and,
communication, provide a dedicated its own retention schedules and send all else equal, reduces the cost to USCIS
queue and point of contact for appropriate records to NARA, as of providing the associated services. To
genealogists and other researchers required by law. Multiple commenters reflect these reduced costs, in this final
seeking access to historical records, and wrote that requests for documents, such rule, DHS implements a fee of $160 for
cover expenses through fees for the as A-files, visa and registry files, and Form G–1041, Genealogy Index Search,
program. and, reduce the time to alien registration forms, should already when filed online and a fee of $170 for
respond to requests. Id at 20364. In this be at NARA per law and for a minimal a paper filed Form G–1041. Similarly,
final rule, DHS establishes the fees for cost. Some commenters wrote that DHS implements a fee of $255 for Form
Forms G–1041 and G–1041A at levels NARA could manage records more G–1041A, Genealogy Records Request,
sufficient to recover the estimated full efficiently, accessed more freely, and when filed online and a fee of $265 for
cost of providing access to genealogical reproduced more economically, as a paper filed Form G–1041A. The
records, as provided for by law. See INA preserving and providing access to difference between the fee for a form
section 286(t), 8 U.S.C. 1356(t). In this historical records of the federal filed online and a form filed on paper
final rule, using the refined government is one of NARA’s core represents the estimated reduction in
methodology described above, DHS missions and areas of expertise. Many cost to USCIS of providing the relevant
estimates the total cost, including commenters requested information on service.
applicable indirect costs, of completing USCIS’ plan and timeline to move all DHS also appreciates commenters’
Form G–1041, Genealogy Index Search the records to NARA for release. suggestions to reduce the fees for record
Request, to be $160 when filed online Response: DHS acknowledges that requests. As described above, in
and the total cost of completing a paper many records in USCIS’ possession are response to public comments received
Form G–1041, Genealogy Index Search due to be transferred to NARA under its on its NPRM, USCIS further refined its
Request, to be $170. Therefore, DHS existing records retention schedules. cost estimation methodology for the
USCIS strives to adhere to its records genealogy program. These refinements
establishes the fee for Form G–1041 as
retention schedules and transfer files to reduced the estimated cost of the USCIS
$160 when filed online and a paper
NARA expeditiously when records are genealogy program by $0.9 million,
filed Form G–1041 as $170. In this final
eligible for transfer. Unfortunately, leading to a commensurate reduction in
rule, DHS estimates the total cost,
issues such as incomplete/non-existent the fees for Forms G–1041 and G–1041A
including applicable indirect costs, of
file indices or other operational from the levels proposed in the NPRM.
completing Form G–1041A, Genealogy DHS evaluated alternatives to
difficulties may inhibit and delay such
Records Request, to be $255 when filed increasing the genealogy fees.
transfers. USCIS works with NARA to
online and the total cost of completing Unfortunately, alternative approaches
address all such issues and expects to
a paper Form G–1041A, Genealogy such as increasing the fees for Forms G–
transfer more files to NARA in the near
Records Request, to be $265. Therefore, future. DHS agrees that NARA is the 1041 and G–1041A by the rate of
DHS establishes the fee for Form G– appropriate repository for permanently inflation would not enable USCIS to
1041A as $255 when filed online and retained records. DHS declines to make recover the estimated full cost of
the fee for a paper filed Form G–1041A any changes in this final rule in providing genealogical services. Such an
as $265. response to these comments. approach would require other
DHS appreciates the commenters’ Comment: Many commenters stated immigration benefit requestors to
concerns regarding differences between that implementation of increased fees subsidize the USCIS genealogy program.
the FOIA process and the genealogical should not occur without careful As stated elsewhere, consistent with the
index search and records request explanation and discussion of beneficiary-pays principle emphasized
processes. Before 2017, the USCIS staff alternatives. Several commenters throughout this final rule, DHS declines
who processed FOIA requests also suggested alternatives, including rolling to require other immigration benefit
processed some genealogical records back or reducing fees for record requestors to subsidize the USCIS
requests, particularly records from 1951 requests, aligning an increase with genealogy program.
or later. However, USCIS moved the inflation rates, charging less for family Comment: A couple of commenters
genealogical program to the NRC in genealogy, allowing NARA to provide suggested other changes to the proposed
2017. Since that time, dedicated USCIS free or much lower cost access to the fees, including basing the cost on the
genealogical staff process all files, digitizing all documents and number of pages and time for staff to
genealogical records requests. allowing access on-line, transferring prepare the records for transmission as
Commenters are mistaken in stating that records to an appropriate repository, well as using some of the new funds to
the genealogy program sends and/or limiting USCIS holdings to non- fix problems that exist with managing
appropriately filed genealogy requests historical records. A commenter records at USCIS (e.g., losing indexes or
through the FOIA process. DHS suggested that all pre-1948 indices and records, staffing issues). A few
acknowledges that both FOIA requests records be copied to NARA, following a commenters wrote that if a search
and genealogical records requests are federal government census rule that returns no information, then USCIS
subject to review under the Privacy Act information can be disclosed after 72 should not charge a fee or should issue
of 1974 to ensure that USCIS does not years. A few commenters wrote that a partial refund.
inappropriately release information to encouraging requests via electronic Response: DHS understands the
third parties. However, USCIS’ submissions for index searches and commenters’ suggestions. However,
USCIS must recover the cost of its real financial relief to LPRs who want to policy decision by USCIS to keep LPRs
operations through user fees. DHS is apply for naturalization when the from applying for U.S. citizenship.
setting the fees for Form G–1041 and G– citizenship fees will increase by 83 Response: DHS acknowledges that
1041A at levels that represent the percent. The commenter stated that, due this final rule establishes increased fees
estimated full cost to USCIS of to long processing times, many for Form N–400 ($1,160 if filed online
providing genealogical services. These citizenship applicants must, for all and $1,170 if filed on paper) while
fees represent the estimated average cost practical purposes, pay the fees for both reducing the fees for Form I–90 ($405 if
of completing an index search or a Forms I–90 and N–400, which total filed online and $415 if filed on paper)
records request. USCIS does not track or $1,585, in order to keep green cards up DHS does not intend to discourage
differentiate the costs incurred based on to date. The commenter said it failed to naturalization and is not motivated by
the number of pages of documents see how this ‘‘miniscule’’ reduction in any consideration other than achieving
involved in a request, nor does USCIS Form I–90 fees helps the agency full cost recovery while emphasizing the
track the time each individual genealogy accomplish its goals. beneficiary-pays principle in
request requires. Charging a la carte fees Response: In this final rule, DHS establishing these fees. DHS declines to
as suggested would be burdensome to adjusts the fee for Form I–90, make any changes in this final rule in
administer because we would need to Application to Replace Permanent response to these comments.
track the time spent on every request Resident Card, to $405 when filed Comment: A commenter said that the
and invoice for payment. That system online and the fee for a paper filed Form Form I–90 fee decrease is puzzling
would not function properly, or I–90 to $415. Most applicants for Form considering the current processing and
efficiently or provide for full cost I–90 must pay the current $455 fee plus adjudication of the corresponding
recovery. DHS declines to adopt the an $85 biometric services fee, thus benefits. The commenter said a simple
commenters’ suggestion to establish the making the total current fees $540. renewal of a permanent resident card
fees for Forms G–1041 and G–1041A These amounts represent USCIS’ currently takes up to 11 months,
using this method. estimated full cost adjudicating Form I– wondered why issuing a new card takes
Furthermore, DHS incurs costs 90, including the cost of providing that long, and it seems unlikely that
associated with index searches and similar services without charge to these processing times will improve
records requests regardless of whether asylum applicants and other with a decreased fee.
DHS ultimately identifies relevant immigrants. In setting these fees, DHS Response: DHS acknowledges that
records that can be provided to the intends to achieve full cost recovery for USCIS’ processing times for Form I–90
requestor. Refunding the fee for Form USCIS, as provided in law, while have exceeded it goals. However, USCIS
G–1041 and G–1041A that do not result emphasizing the beneficiary-pays has achieved efficiencies in adjudicating
in records or information provided to principle of user fees. DHS is not Form I–90 that have reduced the relative
the requestor would defy the principles motivated by any other consideration in cost per adjudication. Thus, in this final
of full cost recovery. DHS declines to establishing these fees, thus, we did not rule DHS implements a fee for Form I–
require other applicants and petitioners consider any interplay between the fees 90, Application to Replace Permanent
to subsidize the cost of processing for Forms I–90 and N–400 in the NPRM, Resident Card, of $405 when filed
Forms G–1041 and G–1041A when nor do we in the final rule. The new fee online and a $415 fee for a paper filed
those requests do not identify for Form I–90 of $405 when filed online Form I–90. DHS appreciates the
information for release to the requestor. represents a $50 decrease from the implication that it may charge more for
Comment: Several commenters previous fee of $455. The new fee for a Form I–90, but to maintain consistency
suggested repealing the tax cuts paper filed Form I–90 of $415 represents with full cost recovery. DHS declines to
implemented by President Trump that a $40 decrease from the previous fee of make any adjustments in this final rule
resulted in a substantial budget deficit $455. The new fees include the cost of in response to this comment.
instead of implementing the proposed biometric services, thus making the total
5. Form I–131, Application for Travel
increase in fees. decrease $135 when filed online or $125
Document, Refugee Travel Documents
Response: The USCIS genealogy when filed on paper. These adjustments
program is funded by user fees, reflect efficiencies USCIS has achieved Comment: A commenter stated that
consistent with statutory authority. See in adjudicating Form I–90, thereby comparing Form I–131, Application for
INA section 286(t), 8 U.S.C. 1356(t). reducing the estimated cost of Travel Document, to a passport to set
DHS is adjusting the fees for Forms G– adjudication. The lower fee for Form I– the fee for refugee travel documents is
1041 and G–1041A to reflect USCIS’ 90 when filed online reflects the inappropriate because passports are
estimated full cost of providing the estimated cost savings to USCIS of valid for 10 or 5 years versus the 1 year
relevant services. receiving the application online. These for the Refugee Travel Document. The
Comment: One commenter said that fee adjustments are intended to ensure commenter recommended that refugee
although immigration fees should not that the fees accurately reflect the travel documents be valid for longer
increase, non-immigration related estimated full cost of adjudication. DHS than a year for this reason and because
genealogical search fees should increase declines to make any adjustments in other countries often require that travel
to recover those costs. response to this comment. documents be valid for 6 months
Response: DHS thanks the commenter Comment: Another commenter said, beyond the expected period of stay.
for their input but declines to adopt the by not only increasing the N–400 fee but Furthermore, the commenter stated that
recommendation. DHS is adjusting the also reducing the Form I–90 fee, the adult U.S. passport renewals do not
proposed rule would further discourage include a $35 execution fee, implying
fees for Forms G–1041 and G–1041A to

reflect USCIS’ estimated full cost of Form N–400 applicants from that DHS should not consider the
providing the relevant services. naturalizing and obtaining the full execution fee in establishing the fee for
benefits of citizenship for both a refugee travel document.
4. Form I–90, Application To Replace themselves and our nation. Similarly, Response: DHS declines the
Permanent Resident Card another commenter said decreasing the commenter’s request to extend the
Comment: A commenter stated that Form I–90 fee while increasing the Form validity length of refugee travel
the $40 reduction would not lead to any N–400 fee appears to be a conscious documents (RTD). DHS did not propose
changes to the validity length of the Before Form I–131A was published, charging LPRs for the privilege of
RTD that is codified at 8 CFR 223.3(a)(2) USCIS had completion rate data specific returning to their homes, jobs, and
and, besides the commenter, we do not to providing carrier boarding families.
think the public would think that an documents. However, DHS did not use Response: DHS disagrees with the
increase to the validity length of an RTD that completion rate data to establish a commenter’s assertion that DHS failed
would be a subject open for public separate Form I–131A fee when it to explain or justify the fee increase for
comment in a rule dealing primarily published Form I–131A. Instead, DHS Form I–131A. In the NPRM, DHS
with fees. The fee for an RTD is linked set the Form I–131A fee to be the same explained that in the FY 2016/2017 fee
to the fee for a passport because Article as for other travel documents. review, USCIS calculated a single fee for
28 of the 1951 U.N. Convention Relating Establishing Form I–131A and requiring Forms I–131 and I–131A. See 84 FR
to the Status of Refugees (‘‘1951 Refugee fee payment using Pay.gov standardized 62306 (Nov. 14, 2019). DHS clarified
Convention’’), and the 1967 U.N. requirements that were somewhat that in the FY 2019/2020 fee review,
Protocol Relating to the Status of different or informal before the creation USCIS calculated a separate fee for
Refugees ’’the 1967 Refugee Protocol’’), of Form I–131A. While not discussed in Form I–131A to reflect differences
which, by reference, adopts articles 2 the FY 2016/2017 fee rule, DHS between Form I–131 and Form I–131A,
through 34 of the 1951 Refugee believed that the standardized Form I– including the fact that Form I–131A is
Convention, requires state parties to 131A might reduce the completion rate, adjudicated abroad, where costs are
issue documents for international travel and the cost, of the workload. When typically greater than the cost of
to refugees lawfully staying in their USCIS conducted its FY 2019/2020 fee adjudicating an equivalent form
territory and that fees charged for such review, it separated completion rate domestically. This differentiation
documents shall not exceed the lowest data for Forms I–131 and I–131A and between Form I–131 and Form I–131A
scale of charges for national passports. proposed separate fees. At this point, is consistent with the beneficiary-pays
See United Nations Protocol Relating to Form I–131A existed for several years, principle of user emphasized
the Status of Refugees, Jan. 13, 1967, 19 so the completion rate data reflect the throughout the NPRM and this final
U.S.T. 6223, 606 U.N.T.S. 267 1967 standardized process. Thus, we are rule, as it ensures that the fee an
Refugee Protocol. Consistent with past setting a more accurate fee to reflect the applicant pays better reflects the
practice, DHS is increasing the fee for full cost of adjudicating Form I–131A. estimated full cost to USCIS of
Form I–131, Application for Travel The final fee for Form I–131A reflects adjudicating the application. DHS
Document, when requesting a refugee the cost of USCIS processing, including declines to make changes in this final
travel document by $10, the amount of the costs of USCIS reimbursement to rule in response to the comment.
increase in the cost of a U.S. passport to DOS for action taken on behalf of Comment: One commenter claimed
$145 for adults and $115 for children. USCIS. At the time of its FY 2019/2020 these new fees are an attempt prevent
However, the term of an approved RTD fee review, USCIS did not yet have LPRs from becoming U.S. citizens.
sufficient information regarding office Response: DHS rejects the claim that
is not related to that of a passport, and
closures and the transfer of its decision to adjust the fee for Form I–
it will not be changed in this rule.
responsibilities between USCIS and the 131A to $1,010 is motivated by any
6. Form I–131A, Application for Travel DOS to accurately reflect anticipated consideration other than USCIS
Document (Carrier Documentation) changes in the average cost of achieving full cost recovery. The fee of
adjudicating Form I–131A. Thus, any $1,010 represents USCIS’ estimated full
Comment: A few commenters cost of adjudicating Form I–131A,
opposed the fee increase for Form I– potential cost savings related to the
reduction in the number of offices including the cost of providing similar
131A. One of these commenters services to asylum applicants and other
USCIS maintains abroad are not
questioned why the fee is being immigrants without charge, at the time
included in this final rule. USCIS will
increased by $435, or 76 percent, when of USCIS’ FY 2019/2020 fee review.
incorporate all newly available
USCIS would only have to reimburse DHS declines to make changes in this
information in its next fee review.
the Department of State (DOS) with Commenters who claimed that USCIS final rule in response to this comment.
$385 to replace lost documents. A would not need to reimburse the
commenter asked if DHS had 7. Form I–192, Application for Advance
Department of State had it maintained
considered the effect of this ‘‘massive’’ Permission To Enter as a Nonimmigrant
its previous international presence are
fee increase on a vulnerable population. mistaken. USCIS reimburses DOS for all Comments: A commenter said it did
Some commenters claimed DOS would work performed on its behalf. This not oppose a fee increase associated
not have to be reimbursed if USCIS includes work performed on behalf of with Form I–192 but wrote that the fee
international offices had not been USCIS in locations where USCIS is not increase is quite high for an application
closed. present and in locations where USCIS fee that, if approved, grants entry to the
Response: DHS acknowledges that the has an office. As USCIS has never had U.S. for a relatively short time. The
$1,010 fee established in this final rule a presence in all countries where an commenter said the proposal would cost
for Form I–131A, Application for Travel individual may need to file Form I– Canadian citizens $1,400 on average and
Document (Carrier Documentation), 131A, DOS has always adjudicated questioned whether USCIS was
represents a substantial increase of $435 some Forms I–131A on behalf of USCIS. considering increasing the duration of
relative to the previous fee. Consistent Altering USCIS’s international presence authorized presence in the U.S. to a
with full cost recovery and the did not change this operational minimum of 5 years and a maximum of
beneficiary-pays principle emphasized necessity. DHS declines to make any 10 years.
throughout this final rule, the new fee changes in this final rule in response to Many commenters suggested that the
of $1,010 represents USCIS’ estimated these comments. $485 or 52 percent increase for fees
full cost of adjudicating Form I–131A, Comment: A commenter wrote that related to visa applications for victims
including the cost of providing similar DHS failed to apprise stakeholders of its of crime and victims of trafficking in
services to asylum applicants and other reasoning for the substantial increase to persons is ‘‘outrageous.’’ A commenter
immigrants without charge, at the time the Form I–131A fee. The commenter wrote that the proposal to raise the
of USCIS’ FY 2019/2020 fee review. added that there is no justification for Form I–192 fee defeats the purpose of
the U-visa, which protects victims of T nonimmigrant status and petitioners the commenter may have confused
crime. The commenter wrote that for U nonimmigrant status, who use Form I–192 with Form I–601A,
raising fees to make this protection Form I–192. Consistent with its Application for Provisional Unlawful
inaccessible to victims of crime runs commitment to preserve access to Presence Waiver. DHS declines to make
counter to Congress’ intent to provide required fee waivers for populations changes in this final rule in response to
protection to such victims for identified in statute, the fee for Form I– the comment.
‘‘compelling humanitarian and public 192 will remain waivable for those
8. Form I–193, Application for Waiver
policy/safety reasons.’’ Another seeking T and U nonimmigrant status,
of Passport and/or Visa
commenter stated that the $485 increase provided that those applicants file Form
for Form I–192 was particularly steep I–912, Request for Fee Waiver and Comment: One commenter said that
for U nonimmigrant status petitioners demonstrate that they meet the requisite the proposed 377 percent fee increase
who often have medical bills related to criteria for approval. See 8 CFR 106.3. for Form I–193 is ‘‘startling.’’ Another
being victims of crimes and who may DHS believes that maintaining access to commenter stated that the 377 percent
not work before the submission of the fee waivers for these populations increase is ‘‘outrageous’’ given the time
application. mitigates any concerns that the fee and effort required to fill out and
A few commenters said that raising increase for Form I–192 would limit adjudicate the form with just one page
the fee for Form I–192 may make it access to protections. of content. The commenter also stated
harder, if not impossible, for survivors DHS declines to make changes in this that a small number of applicants use
of crime to petition for U nonimmigrant final rule in response to these the form to travel, usually in
status. One commenter suggested that comments. extenuating circumstances beyond the
because survivors of domestic violence Comment: Another commenter stated control of the applicant. As such, it is
often have suffered financial abuse and that most of its clients who are pursuing unlikely that there would be a high
survivors of human trafficking often T or U nonimmigrant status must file incidence of fraud or abuse to justify
have suffered financial exploitation, supplemental forms that often have very such a fee increase. The commenter also
they will likely be unable to pay the high fees, including Form I–192. The said that it is unreasonable to expect
fees. commenter indicated that most of the applicants to pay the $2,790 fee on the
A commenter indicated that the issues disclosed require very little, if spot.
increase in the filing fee for Form I–192, any, further adjudication from USCIS, Response: DHS acknowledges a
combined with the elimination of a fee and, therefore, the fee is unnecessary substantial increase in the fee for Form
waiver for this form, would effectively and unfair. I–193. In its NPRM, DHS explained that
eliminate a statutorily available waiver Response: USCIS data also indicates USCIS incorporated cost and workload
of inadmissibility for many applicants that most aliens pursuing T and U volume information from CBP into its
and prevent those inadmissible nonimmigrant status must file Form I– ABC model to determine a single fee for
immigrants from obtaining status. 192. Those aliens may request a fee Form I–193 that reflects the estimated
Multiple commenters stated that the waiver. DHS disagrees that Form I–192 full average cost of adjudicating Form I–
NPRM ignores the fact that many requires little effort by USCIS. USCIS 193 for CBP and USCIS. See 84 FR
applicants for survivor-based relief must evaluates the evidence regarding the 62321. CBP adjudicates most filings of
also file ancillary forms that do have inadmissibility charges present Form I–193 and incurs a majority of the
fees, including Form I–192. (immigration violations, criminal issues, costs associated with adjudication. As
Response: DHS acknowledges a potential fraud, etc.) and the alien’s documented in the NPRM, in FY 2017
considerable increase of the fee for Form responses and evidence provided to CBP incurred an estimated $18.0
I–192, Application for Advance address those charges. Depending on the million in costs to adjudicate filings of
Permission to Enter as a Nonimmigrant. number of inadmissibility grounds and Form I–193. This final rule establishes
The new fee established in this final complexity of the individual filing, the fee for Form I–193 at a level
rule represents the estimated full cost of those adjudications may require sufficient to recover the full average
adjudication. 85 See INA section 286(m), considerable time and resources. estimated cost of adjudication for both
8 U.S.C. 1356(m). As with other USCIS In many cases, aliens file Form I–192 USCIS and CBP.
fees, the fee amount is derived from the with U.S. Customs and Border DHS declines to make changes in this
cost to USCIS of providing the relevant Protection, which adjudicates those final rule in response to these
service; the fee is not related to the filings. In the NPRM, DHS explained comments.
duration of the benefit received. that USCIS had incorporated cost and
9. Form I–290B, Notice of Appeal or
Therefore, DHS did not evaluate workload volume information from CBP
Motion
potential changes in the duration of into its cost model to determine a single
authorized presence as part of this final fee for Form I–192 that reflects the Comment: A commenter stated that
rule. estimated full average cost of increasing the fee for Form I–290B
DHS recognizes the commenters’ adjudicating Form I–192 for CBP and places U-visa petitioners at risk of not
concerns regarding vulnerable USCIS. See 84 FR 62321. being able to exercise their due process
populations, particularly applicants for DHS declines to make changes in this rights and threatens their ability to
final rule in response to the comment. appeal or reopen their petition. Another
85 In accordance with INA section 286(m), 8 Comment: One commenter stated that commenter recommended that USCIS
U.S.C. 1356(m), USCIS total costs include the cost Form I–192 was created to encourage fully refund the filling fee for Form I–
of similar services provided without charge to eligible individuals to complete the 290B if the agency determines, after
asylum applicants and other immigrants, which

encompass fee exemptions, waivers, and setting immigrant visa process abroad, promote adjudicating, that the underlying
fees below the amount suggested by the model. family unity, and improve petition denial was the result of clear
Throughout the remainder of this rule, when USCIS administrative efficiency. USCIS error.
refers to the estimated full costs of adjudication, in Response: Form I–192, Application Response: DHS recognizes the
the interest of the economy of words and improving
readability, that term includes the cost of services
for Advance Permission to Enter as a importance of maintaining access to
provided without charge to asylum applicants and Nonimmigrant, is not part of the Form I–290B to ensure that individuals
other immigrants in accordance with the INA. immigrant visa process. It appears that have the ability to appeal or file a
motion to reopen or reconsider a Form I–360 from $435 to $450, an ‘‘This creates the perception that USCIS
decision. In recognition of this, DHS increase $15 or approximately 3.4 gains by processing cases slowly.’’).
deviated from the beneficiary-pays percent as discussed in the proposed USCIS has no data to indicate that it
principle to transfer some of the costs rule. DHS declines to make changes in takes less time to adjudicate interim
for adjudicating Form I–290B to all this final rule in response to these benefits bundled with an I–485 than it
other fee payers. The proposed fee for comments. does to adjudicate standalone I–131 and
Form I–290B was far below the I–765 filings. Therefore, DHS declines to
11. Form I–485, Application To Register adopt the commenters’ recommendation
estimated cost to USCIS of processing I–
Permanent Residence or Adjust Status to continue bundled adjustment of
290B filings, an increase of only 5
percent. See 84 FR 62293. In this final a. Debundling Interim Benefits status filings; this final rule eliminates
rule, DHS adjusts the fee for Form I– Comment: Multiple commenters bundling.
290B from $675 to $700, an increase of wrote that the proposed debundling of Individuals applying for adjustment
approximately 3.7 percent. Furthermore, interim benefits led to excessive fees. of status are not required to request a
in the NPRM, DHS clarified that Form travel document or employment
Many commenters stated that the steep
I–290B would remain fee-waivable for authorization. With bundled interim
increase in fees, along with the
VAWA self-petitioners, applicants for T benefits, individuals may have
elimination of waivers will make
nonimmigrant status and petitioners for requested interim benefits that they did
adjustment of status unattainable for
U nonimmigrant status, petitioners, and not intend to use because it was already
many low-income and working-class
T nonimmigrant status applicants. See included in the bundled price.
people. A few commenters said this
84 FR 62297. DHS believes that Debundling allows individuals to pay
change would create a catch-22 where
maintaining access to fee waivers for for only the services actually requested.
immigrants with low income can afford
vulnerable populations mitigates any Thus, many individuals may not pay the
to apply to adjust but cannot afford to
concerns that the fee increase for Form full combined price for Forms I–485, I–
seek employment authorization. A 131, and I–765.
I–290B would limit access for protected commenter stated that the proposed
categories of individuals. DHS and USCIS are not profit-seeking
change would force highly skilled entities. Neither benefit from delays in
In general, USCIS does not refund a workers to pay $1,075 more for dual-
fee or application regardless of the Form I–485 adjudications that may
intent visas than H–1B or L–1 dual-visa result in individuals filing for additional
decision on the application. There are applicants. Other comments wrote that
only a few exceptions, such as when interim benefits. USCIS would use any
charging fees for concurrently filed revenue received to fund immigration
USCIS made an error which resulted in ancillary Forms I–765 and I–131 with
the application being filed adjudication services and minimize
Adjustment of Status applications, along future fee increases.
inappropriately or when an incorrect fee with renewals, would create a perverse After adjusting the results of the FY
was collected. incentive for USCIS to delay interim
DHS declines to make changes in this 2019/2020 fee review to account for
benefit and Form I–485 adjudications in removal of the ICE transfer, exclusion of
final rule in response to these order to receive additional funds. A few
comments. the DACA renewal fee, and other
commenters wrote the proposed changes, DHS establishes the fee for
10. Form I–360, Petition for Amerasian, changes would force immigrants out of Form I–131, Application For Travel
Widow(er), or Special Immigrant the legal immigration system. Other Document, as $590 and the fee for Form
commenters added that this change I–765, Application for Employment
Comment: Multiple commenters
could contribute to family separation. A Authorization as $550.
opposed the proposed fee increase for
commenter claimed USCIS ignores the
Form I–360, stating that it would harm b. Form I–485 Child Fee
fact that children will need to have a
the ability of religious organizations to
travel authorization, and therefore will Comment: Some commenters opposed
petition for their workers. Commenters
still need to file Form I–131 for advance this provision because of its effect on
stated that this would impact the non-
parole. One commenter stated this families and children. A commenter
profit organizations associated with
change will deny immigrants the path to said this NPRM would burden families
these religious workers and the
citizenship. Another commenter said who would be required to pay an
communities that they support.
Response: DHS recognizes the USCIS’ purpose is an attempt to increased total cost for multiple
importance of maintaining access to discourage families from being able to concurrent adjustments and create
Form I–360 for individuals and afford to apply for legal permanent barriers for low-income and working-
organizations. In recognition of this, residence. class individuals. Another commenter
DHS proposed in the NPRM to deviate Response: DHS acknowledges the said this change would have a negative
from the beneficiary-pays principle, total cost increase for adjustment of effect of children and youth, either
transfer some of the costs for status applicants who request interim delaying their ability to unite with
adjudicating Form I–360 to all other fee benefits. The fees DHS establishes in family or deterring it completely.
this final rule accurately reflect the Response: DHS acknowledges a
payers, and hold the fee for Form I–360
estimated full cost of adjudicating those substantial increase in the fee for Form
far below the estimated full cost to
applications, including the cost of I–485 for child applicants who are
USCIS of processing I–360 petitions,
providing similar services to asylum under 14 years old and are filing with
proposing to increase the fee by only 5
applicants and other immigrants at least one parent. Consistent with the
percent. See 84 FR 62293. The fee to
without charge. USCIS did not realize beneficiary-pays principle of user fees
recover full cost would have exceeded

the operational efficiencies envisioned emphasized throughout this final rule,
$5,500.86 Such a high fee would place
when it introduced bundled filings for DHS adjusts the fee for all Forms I–485,
an unreasonable burden on petitioners.
interim benefits and adjustment of except those filed by refugees, to $1,130
In this final rule, DHS adjusts the fee for
status applications, which was to reflect the estimated full cost of
86 See the FY 2019/2020 Immigration implemented to address the same adjudication. This fee represents an
Examinations Fee Account Fee Review Supporting commenter accusation of a revenue increase of $380 relative to the previous
Documentation in the docket for more information. incentive. See 72 FR 4894 (stating, fee of $750. DHS declines to make
changes in this final rule in response to waivers will make adjustment of status as permitted but will not qualify for the
these comments. unattainable for many low-income and reduced fee on any subsequent filing.
Comment: A commenter cited USCIS’ working class people, particularly This ensures that the value of the fee
justification for removal of the reduced asylees. The commenter stated that reductions will not exceed the value of
fee for children because processing increasing the overall cost of adjustment the Form I–589 fees paid by the affected
them is not distinguished by age. The of status would undermine family unity applicants. If USCIS rejects a Form I–
commenter stated that, if the completion and prevent many low-income 485 filed by an asylee with a reduced
rate is influenced by time to adjudicate individuals from becoming permanent fee, the applicant will not have used
(e.g., conduct background checks), this residents. their single reduced fee filing, and the
would likely be shorter for children. Response: DHS recognizes the applicant may reapply and qualify for
The commenter said USCIS has not additional burden placed on asylum the reduced fee.
provided data or analysis to address this applicants with the introduction of a DHS did not change its cost
concern, and that this an extreme hike $50 fee for Form I–589 in this final rule. projections, volumes forecasts, or
for a small portion of applications. Therefore, DHS establishes in this final revenue anticipated from Form I–485 in
Response: USCIS used the data rule a reduced fee of $1,080 for Form I– this final rule in response to the
available at the time when it conducted 485 when filed by an individual who introduction of the reduced fee for Form
the FY 2019/2020 fee review to has been granted asylum after having I–485. DHS does not anticipate
determine the fee for Form I–485. USCIS paid the $50 fee for Form I–589 as a receiving any Form I–485 filings during
does not have data to support the principal applicant. See new 8 CFR the FY 2019/2020 biennial period for
commenter’s contention that that the 106.2(a)(16)(ii). The reduced fee will be this fee rule that are eligible for the
time required to adjudicate a Form I– available to otherwise qualifying reduced fee. This reflects the fact that
485 (i.e., the completion rate) is less for individuals regardless of whether USCIS asylum applicants will begin to pay the
a child’s application than for an adult’s or EOIR ultimately granted the asylum $50 fee for Form I–589, a pre-requisite
application, because USCIS data does claim. DHS reiterates, as it did in the to qualify for the reduced fee Form I–
not separate Form I–485 adjudications NPRM and this final rule, that DHS does 485, as of the effective date of this final
by the age of the applicant. See 84 FR not intend to deter asylum applications rule. Those asylum applicants must
62305 and 81 FR 73301. Therefore, with the introduction of the $50 fee for have their claims adjudicated and
USCIS calculated the estimated average Form I–589. DHS believes that approved before becoming eligible to
cost of adjudicating all Forms I–485. In effectively refunding the Form I–589 fee adjust status one year after their asylum
this final rule, DHS adjusts the fee for for approved asylees when they adjust claim was granted. Thus, DHS does not
all Forms I–485, except those filed by will ensure that individuals with anticipate any reduced fee Form I–485
refugees, to $1,130 to reflect the legitimate asylum claims do not filings until more than 1 year after the
estimated full cost of adjudication. experience a net increase in cost effective date of this final rule.
DHS declines to make changes in this through the time they adjust status to Furthermore, because DHS anticipates
final rule in response to the comment. that of lawful permanent resident as a no reduced fee filings during FY 2019/
c. Form I–485 Reduced Fee for Asylees result of the new fee for Form I–589. 2020, USCIS anticipates no costs during
DHS provides in this final rule that FY 2019/2020 associated with charging
Comment: Multiple commenters only one Form I–485 reduced fee filing less than the estimated full cost of
highlighted the cost to asylum will be available per Form I–589 fee adjudication of Form I–485 that must be
applicants and asylees of filing Form I– paid. This approach ensures that USCIS reallocated to other fee-paying
589, Form I–765, and if granted asylum, will only provide a single $50 discount applicants. Therefore, no fees increase
Form I–485 to adjust status. A for each Form I–589 filing that in this final rule as a result of the
commenter stated, ‘‘Regarding asylee ultimately results in a grant of asylum, introduction of the reduced fee Form I–
Form I–485 applications, this proposed meaning that the total value of fee 485, and the fee for Form I–485 would
rule would cause a significant harm to reductions available to Form I–485 remain $1,130 even in the absence of
be placed on those who have come to applicants will match the value of Form the reduced fee. USCIS will evaluate the
the United States after fleeing I–589 fees collected from those Form I–485 reduced fee in future fee
persecution in their country of origin. applicants. DHS makes the reduced fee reviews using all available data at that
After waiting years for an asylum available only to the principal applicant time, consistent with its evaluation of
interview and sometimes more than a on an approved Form I–589 for which all other fees.
year after that interview for a grant of the $50 fee was paid. The reduced fee
asylum, an asylee should not have any Form I–485 may not be transferred from d. Other Form I–485 Comments
additional obstacles placed on their the principal applicant to derivatives Comment: A commenter said USCIS’
path to obtaining a green card, which listed on the same Form I–589 or to proposed changes to Supplement A to
they will use to show their lawful other derivative beneficiaries. If DHS Form I–485 have no justification. The
presence and employment provided all individuals granted asylum commenter said USCIS proposes
authorization. This proposed change is the opportunity to file Form I–485 with removing from the Supplement A form
an unnecessary impediment to asylees’ a reduced fee, the ultimate value of the the instruction that there is no fee for
integration in our society and fee reductions could exceed the value of certain persons. The commenter stated
economy.’’ Another commenter wrote the revenue generated from the Form I– that USCIS is making it even more
that the elimination of fee waivers for 589 fee, resulting in a net cost to USCIS difficult for applicants to identify the
adjustments of status, including asylees, that must be passed on to other fee few instances where they are not
runs counter to the intent of Congress payers. Similarly, DHS provides that an obligated to pay large fees. The
and will create a significant barrier that individual qualifying for the Form I–485 commenter wrote that the change would
will prevent many asylees from reduced fee may file Form I–485 only obfuscate the fact that some individuals
regularizing their immigration status. once utilizing the reduced fee. If USCIS are exempted from paying the fee by
Another commenter reiterated that the accepts a Form I–485 filed with the statute, leading fewer people to apply
high fees for Form I–485 and ancillary reduced fee and subsequently denies the because they would erroneously believe
benefits and the elimination of fee application, that applicant may reapply they must pay the fee. The commenter
also wrote that the provision creates a assumes that the rate of pay for workers Modernization regulation that went into
way for USCIS to re-investigate granted in those industries is not as high as in effect on November 21, 2019. See 84 FR
adjustments under INA section 245(i), 8 other fields and the fees represent a 35750. The commenter wrote that the 9
U.S.C. 1255(i), going back more than 20 larger percentage of those worker’s percent increase in the fee for this form
years, resulting in potentially stripping wages. suggests that USCIS considers the 3–4-
lawful permanent residents of their Response: The NPRM emphasizes the year processing time for this form to be
status. beneficiary-pays principle. DHS acceptable. However, the commenter
Response: DHS erroneously stated in believes that a single fee for Form I–485 also wrote that USCIS’ projected
the NPRM that it proposed deleting text will reduce the burden of administering workload volume for Form I–526 was
from Form I–485, Supplement A, related separate fees and better reflect the ‘‘three times too high’’ considering data
to those categories of adjustment estimated full cost of adjudication. By from 2018–2019. The commenter said
applicants who are not required to pay making the filing fee equal for all the EB–5 Immigrant Investor Program
the $1,000 sum. No such text appears on applicants, whether they are family- Modernization regulation would
the form itself, but rather is found in the based or employment-based, the cost of dampen demand for use of this form
instructions. DHS will retain the adjudication for the benefit of each and suggested that the number of form
language concerning the exceptions individual applicant will be sustained receipts for 2020 would be less than the
from paying the INA section 245(i), 8 by that applicant, and other applicants 5,000 average annual receipts from
U.S.C. 1255(i) sum in the Instructions are not burdened with subsidizing the 2018–2019. The commenter wrote that
for Form I–485 Supplement A, and in cost of adjudication. In this final rule, due to this overestimation of the
the rule. DHS adjusts the fee for all Form I–485 number of Form I–526 receipts, the fee
Comment: A commenter applications, except those filed by analysis ‘‘overestimates revenue and
recommended phasing in the increased refugees and certain Special Immigrants, underestimates receipt fees needed to
Form I–485 fee over several years. A to $1,130 to reflect the estimated cover costs.’’ The commenter said that
commenter recommended that the average full cost of adjudication. See 8 if the number of Form I–526 receipts is
validity period of employment CFR 106.2(a)(17)(iii). closer to 4,000, the $16 million in
authorization and advance parole for Requiring fees paid for each renewal revenue would not provide enough
dependent children also be increased of interim benefits, such as employment financial resources to cover costs and
from 1 to 2 years. or travel authorization, also aligns with provide adequate service. The
Response: In this final rule, DHS the beneficiary-pays principal by commenter suggested that USCIS had
adjusts the fee for all Form I–485 preventing other applicants from being failed to consider the future workload
applications, except those filed by burdened with fees for benefits they do associated with ‘‘thousands’’ of Form I–
refugees, to $1,130 to reflect the not wish to receive or subsidizing fees 526 submissions that are still pending
estimated average full cost of for benefits for which they do not apply. from previous years in its fee analysis,
adjudication. DHS declines to adopt the The fee increases associated with Form and that the agency should account for
commenter’s suggestion of phasing in I–485 and interim benefits are not ‘‘an environment of long backlogs and
the increased fee over time, because exclusive to employment-based falling receipts’’ in revising the fee for
USCIS would not be able to achieve full applicants and therefore are not this form. The commenter reiterated that
cost recovery during the phase-in adjusted based on the filing category or the current processing time for this form
period. DHS also declines to adopt the rate of pay of workers. was far too long and stated that the
recommendation to extend the validity DHS declines to make changes in this agency should consider targeting more
period of employment authorization and final rule in response to the comment. reasonable processing times for this
advance parole for dependent children. form, such as the 240-day target recently
12. Form I–526, Immigrant Petition by suggested in the U.S. Senate. Another
Comment: A commenter opposed Alien Investor
deleting language regarding 245(i) commenter wrote that USCIS had
Comment: A commenter said the fee overestimated the workload volume
penalty fee exemptions from the
review for EB–5 forms, such as Form I– associated with Form I–526.
regulations.
526, failed to meet the objectives of Response: In its fee reviews, USCIS
Response: In this final rule, DHS
ensuring USCIS has adequate resources evaluates the estimated cost of
includes language in 8 CFR 106.2(a)(17)
and to recover the full operating costs of processing all incoming workloads to
detailing the categories of applicants for
administering the national immigration determine the fees necessary to recover
adjustment of status under INA section
benefits system. The commenter said full cost. USCIS does not consider the
245(i), 8 U.S.C. 1255(i) who are not
the fee increase for Form I–526 was too cost of processing existing pending
required to submit the $1,000 sum per
low to balance the workload increase workloads in setting fees, as setting fees
the statute.
reported by USCIS and would not on that basis would place the burden of
Comment: One commenter said that
reverse the current ‘‘critically funding the processing of previously
the increased fee for the Form I–485,
inadequate’’ service associated with this received applications and petitions on
when considered in combination with
form. The commenter also said the fee future applicants. Thus, DHS declines to
the separate fees for the Form I–765 and
increase was too low given that this fee include the cost of all pending Form I–
Form I–131, will have negative impacts 526 workload in this analysis and final
is paid by affluent immigrant investors
on industries that use the Employment- rule.
‘‘who value time.’’ The commenter cited
Based Third Preference Unskilled DHS acknowledges that USCIS’
USCIS data to demonstrate that the
Workers (Other Work) category, such as volume projections for Form I–526 in
processing time associated with Form I–

meat/poultry processers, home the FY 2019/2020 fee review
526 had increased since 2016 and wrote
healthcare providers, hospitality/ substantially exceed the receipts in FY
that time spent processing this
lodging employees.87 The commenter 2018 and FY 2019. As with other forms,
application was likely to increase due to
87 See USCIS, Employment-Based Immigration: the EB–5 Immigrant Investor Program USCIS created its volume projections for
Third Preference EB–3, available at https://
Form I–526 using the best information
www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/permanent- preference-eb-3 (last reviewed/updated March 27, available at the time it conducted the FY
workers/employment-based-immigration-third- 2020). 2019/2020 fee review. The commenter is
correct in stating that if USCIS has • DHS should not expect people In the NPRM, DHS provided
overestimated the receipt volume for fleeing harm and in need of protection substantial justifications for establishing
Form I–526, then it has also to pay a fee. an asylum application fee. DHS
overestimated the amount of revenue • These individuals often have few explained that USCIS has experienced a
that the revised Form I–526 fee will economic resources, the few resources continuous, sizeable increase in the
generate. Such a scenario would also that they do have are necessary for affirmative asylum backlog over the last
imply that USCIS had overestimated the survival. several years. DHS explored ways to
total amount of costs to be recovered, as • They should not endure the added alleviate the pressure that the asylum
fewer staff would be necessary to burden of a fee to gain asylum and other workload places on the administration
adjudicate the newly received Forms I– immigration services. of other immigration benefits and
526. However, it is possible that, as the • Asylum seekers joining family in determined that a minimal fee would
commenter contends, if USCIS the United States are often financially mitigate fee increases for other
overestimated the anticipated volume of dependent on their family members, immigration benefit requests. See 84 FR
Form I–526 filings, it underestimated and an asylum fee would create an 62318. DHS estimated the cost of
the Form I–526 fee that would be additional burden on their families. adjudicating Form I–589 and considered
necessary to recover the full cost of • Asylum should not be based on an asylum fees charged by other nations.
adjudication. USCIS will review and applicant’s socio-economic status. DHS also considered the authority
reevaluate all fees during its next • Fees would be detrimental to provided in INA section 208(d)(3),
biennial fee review. If USCIS determines survivors of torture, impacting their various fee amounts, whether the fee
that the fee is insufficient to recover full mental health and well-being by would be paid in installments over time
cost, DHS may adjust the fee through a obstructing access to live and work in or all at once, if the fee would be
future rulemaking. the United States. waivable, and decided to establish a
• A $50 fee would further endanger minimal $50 fee.
DHS acknowledges that current As stated in the NPRM, DHS believes
processing times for Form I–526 extend asylum seekers’ health and safety.
that the fee can be paid in one payment,
far beyond its processing time goals. • DHS should consider asylum
would generate revenue to offset costs,
DHS believes that adjusting USCIS fees seekers’ humanity and suggested that
and not be so high as to be unaffordable
to provide for full cost recovery the rule dehumanized the issue.
to an indigent applicant. See 84 FR
constitutes the best means of addressing • Commenters rejected the notion
62319. Further, DHS has provided the
resource constraints that have led to that those seeking asylum represent a
advance notice of and the reasons for
growth in pending caseloads. DHS cost that the nation must recoup.
the change in its longstanding policy as
declines to make changes in this final • If the revenue from these fees were required by the APA. This change will
rule in response to the comment. being used to assistance to those seeking only apply prospectively to asylum
asylum, they would be less opposed to applications filed after the effective date
Form I–539, Application To Extend/ the fee increases.
Change Nonimmigrant Status of this final rule.
• DHS did not provide adequate Nevertheless, as a result of the
Comment: A commenter opposed the justification for charging an asylum fee. concerns raised by commenters, DHS is
proposed fee increase for Form I–539 Response: DHS acknowledges the providing in this final rule that Form I–
because it would pose a financial humanitarian plight of legitimate 485 filed in the future for principal
burden to clients who are survivors of asylum seekers. In recognition of the asylum applicants who pay the Form I–
violence and U nonimmigrants. circumstances of many of these 589 fee of $50 and are granted asylum
applicants, DHS establishes a $50 fee for and apply for adjustment of status will
Response: DHS acknowledges that Form I–589 for most applicants pay a fee that is $50 less than other
this final rule increases the fee for Form (unaccompanied alien children in Form I–485 filers. See new 8 CFR
I–539 to $390 if filed online and $400 removal proceedings who file Form I– 106.2(a)(17)(ii). DHS will provide only
if filed on paper. However, DHS 589 with USCIS are not required to pay one reduced fee per Form I–589 filing
disagrees with the commenter’s the fee). DHS expects that charging this fee paid. If a Form I–485 filing with a
assertion that the fee increase for Form fee will generate some revenue to offset $50 reduced fee is denied, USCIS will
I–539 would unduly burden U adjudication costs, but DHS is not not accept future discounted I–485
nonimmigrants. In its NPRM, DHS aligning the fee with the beneficiary- filings from the same applicant. That is
clarified that those seeking or holding T pays principle, because the estimated because DHS anticipates a one-to-one
and U nonimmigrant status would cost of adjudicating Form I–589 exceeds relationship between the fees collected
remain eligible to apply for fee waivers $50. As DHS stated in its NPRM, it does and discounts provided. If an approved
for Form I–539 and other associated not intend to recover the full cost of principal asylee were to file multiple
forms. See 84 FR 62297. DHS believes adjudicating asylum applications via the Forms I–485 with the reduced fee, it
that maintaining access to fee waivers Form I–589 fee. See 84 FR 62318. could illogically result in the $50 fee for
for these vulnerable populations Instead, DHS establishes a $50 Form I–589 causing a net revenue loss
mitigates any concerns that the increase application fee to generate some to USCIS. DHS will not deviate from its
in the fee for Form I–539 would limit revenue to offset costs. DHS will recover primary objective of this final rule to set
access for protected categories of the additional costs of asylum fees at a level necessary to recover
individuals. DHS declines to make adjudications (via cost reallocation) by estimated full cost by allowing multiple
changes in this final rule in response to charging other fee-paying applicants I–485 reduced fee filings.
the comment. and petitioners more, consistent with Unaccompanied alien children in
13. Form I–589, Application for Asylum historical practice and statutory removal proceedings who filed Form I–
and Withholding of Removal Fee authority. See INA section 286(m), 8 589 with USCIS, and thus did not pay
U.S.C. 1356(m). DHS does not intend to the $50 Form I–589 fee, are not eligible
Comment: Multiple commenters discourage meritorious asylum claims or to file Form I–485 with the reduced fee.
generally opposed charging asylum unduly burden any applicant, group of Comment: Additional commenters on
applicants a fee. Commenters stated: applicants, or their families. the asylum fee generally opposed the
proposed fees for asylum indicating that instead intended that the cost services line with the fees charged by these other
the proposal runs counter to U.S. ideals, to asylum seekers should be paid by fees nations. DHS further believes that the
and stated: from the IEFA. $50 fee would not require an applicant
• The United States has no precedent Response: DHS disagrees with to spend an unreasonable amount of
in international law to charge for commenters’ assertions that an asylum time saving to pay the fee.
asylum, the fee does not support the fee violates the INA, that there is no DHS declines to make changes in this
humanitarian interests of the United precedent in international law for final rule in response to these
States, would be against the values of charging a fee for asylum applications, comments.
the United States and Congressional and that charging a fee is discriminatory Comment: With regard to the Form I–
intent, and our moral and constitutional and against the values, morals, and 589 fee and the fee for an initial Form
obligation to provide sanctuary to those Constitution of the United States. DHS I–765 filed by an asylum applicant,
who need it. also disagrees that the United States is commenters stated:
• The United States would become required to provide asylum to those • Asylum seekers should not have to
one of only four countries to charge fleeing violence and seeking protection, pay for an asylum application or an
such a fee if DHS implemented the as the United States’ non-refoulement associated work permit because they are
proposal. obligations are met by the statutory not authorized to work for months once
• Processing asylum requests is a withholding of removal provisions at in the United States and would have no
fundamental right guaranteed by INA section 241(b)(3). Asylum is a way of earning money to pay for the
international agreements to which the discretionary benefit available to those fees.
United States adheres. who meet the definition of a refugee and • Asylum seekers in detention, who
• The United States should endeavor who are not otherwise ineligible. earn at most $1 a day would have no
to resolve, rather than exacerbate, Although the United States is a party way to pay the $50 fee.
humanitarian crises and the U.S. is to the 1967 U.N. Protocol Relating to the • Asylum seekers are not allowed to
required under domestic and Status of Refugees (‘‘1967 Refugee work more than 4 hours a day and are
international law to provide refuge to Protocol’’), which incorporates Articles thus unable to pay increased fees.
people fleeing violence and seeking 2 through 34 of the 1951 U.N. • Asylum seekers who are poor or
protection in the United States. Convention Relating to the Status of need to ‘‘quickly flee situations of peril
• Significant changes to the Refugees (‘‘1951 Refugee Convention’’), or harm’’ would be harmed by the
conditions of asylum services should be the Protocol is not self-executing. See asylum fee proposal, and that such
carried out by Congress, and not INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 428 n.22 individuals would not be able to earn
through administrative processes. (1984). The asylum statute at INA enough money to pay asylum fees once
• Charging a fee for asylum requests section 208 and withholding of removal in detention.
is discrimination and an attempt to statute at INA section 241(b)(3) • Asylum seekers are often minors
block legal immigration of people of constitute the U.S. implementation of with no means to support themselves
color and/or non-wealthy backgrounds. international treaty obligations related and therefore cannot afford an asylum
• The right to seek and to enjoy to asylum seekers. The asylum fee.
asylum from persecution is enshrined in provisions of the INA do not preclude Response: DHS acknowledges the
the United Nations Universal the imposition of a filing fee for asylum commenters’ concerns about asylum
Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 applications. INA section 208(d)(3), 8 seekers’ ability to pay the fees for the
and supported by the 1951 Convention U.S.C. 1158(d)(3) specifically authorizes asylum application and associated EAD.
Relating to the Status of Refugees and the Attorney General to impose a fee for DHS considered the effect of the fees on
the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status the consideration of an asylum asylum seekers and believes the fees
of Refugees. application that is less than the would not impose an unreasonable
• The United States is obligated to estimated cost of adjudicating the burden on applicants or prevent asylum
accept asylum seekers under application. seekers from seeking protection or EAD.
international and domestic law, and Furthermore, DHS believes that the DHS also acknowledges that the
therefore should not refuse asylum asylum fee may arguably be constrained Trafficking Victims Protection
seekers because of an inability to pay in amount, but a fee is not prohibited by Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) of 2008,
the fee. Thus, the proposed asylum fees the 1951 Refugee Convention, 1967 provides a range of protections for
would be a dereliction of legal duty and Refugee Protocol, United States unaccompanied alien children. As such,
violate the 1951 Refugee Convention, constitution, or domestic implementing DHS excluded unaccompanied alien
which prevents signatory countries from law. Article 29(1) of the 1951 Refugee children in removal proceedings, a
taking any action that would ‘‘in any Convention and the 1967 Refugee particularly vulnerable population, from
matter whatsoever’’ expel or return a Protocol, as incorporated by reference, the imposition of the $50 asylum
refugee to a place where his or her life refers to the imposition of fees on those application fee.
or freedom would be threatened.’’ seeking protection, and limits ‘‘fiscal The services that USCIS provides at
• The creation of an asylum fee charges’’ to not higher than those no cost or below cost impacts the final
suggests that the United States will shy charged to nationals of a given country fees imposed on other fee-paying
away from international problems rather for similar services, but does not bar the applicants. However, DHS seeks to
than confront them. imposition of such fiscal charges. The make the USCIS fee schedule more
• One commenter said that under the $50 fee is reasonably aligned with the equitable for all applicants and
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, fees charged to United States nationals petitioners in this final rule. Therefore,
the United States is obligated by for other immigration benefit requests. DHS declines to make changes in this
international law to accept refugees and Thus, a $50 fee for asylum applications final rule in response to these
accord them certain rights and benefits, is in line with international and comments.
such as access to courts. domestic law. Comment: One commenter stated that
• A fee for asylum violates the INA DHS also considered the asylum fees asylum seekers provide services to the
and that Congress did not intend to charged by other nations, including United States, such as investments in
authorize fees for asylum applicants, but Australia, Fiji, and Iran. A $50 fee is in their education and pay taxes, that DHS
should consider before increasing Venezuela, and China and concluded including the full cost of providing
asylum fees. Several commenters stated that sexual violence survivors seeking benefits such as asylum and refugee
that DHS should not raise asylum fees asylum in the U.S. are often doing so as admission for which no fees are
because asylum seekers are important to a last resort because there is little hope assessed.’’
the U.S. economy and workforce. of finding protection and safety from Response: DHS acknowledges the
Response: DHS acknowledges that their abusers and assailants in their concerns of the commenter related to
asylum seekers invest in their home countries. Therefore, an asylum delays in the processing of applications.
educations and pay taxes like other fee would make it virtually impossible DHS has experienced a continuous,
immigrants do. When considering for the most vulnerable immigrant sizeable increase in the affirmative
whether to increase or establish new survivors of horrific domestic and asylum backlog over the last several
fees, including fees for asylum seekers, sexual abuse to live free from the years. One of the ways in which DHS
USCIS examined its recent budget violence of their abusers. A commenter seeks to alleviate the pressure of the
history, service levels, and immigration discussed the gender-based and gang increasing workload on the
trends, and also assessed anticipated violence that causes people to flee their administration of immigration benefits
costs, revenue, and operational countries and claimed that the $50 is to charge a $50 fee for asylum
demands. USCIS has experienced a asylum fee would serve to enable applications. The fee will generate some
continuous, sizeable increase in the smugglers and traffickers to pay the fees revenue to help offset costs. As far as
affirmative asylum backlog and for asylum seekers to extort their help the 2005 notice is concerned, it
explored ways to alleviate the pressure in smuggling enterprises. described the asylum fee requirements,
that the asylum workload places on Response: DHS recognizes the but does not preclude the establishment
USCIS. As stated in the NPRM, DHS challenges that gender-based violence of a fee.
does not intend to recover the estimated survivors face when fleeing from the DHS declines to make changes in this
full cost of adjudicating asylum violence of their abusers. This final rule final rule in response to the comment.
applications via the Form I–589 fee. 84 establishes the Form I–589 fee at only Comment: Some commenters wrote
FR 62318. DHS will recover the $50 because DHS believes it is not an
that they question the statutory
additional costs of asylum adjudications unreasonable amount. DHS disagrees
authority to charge a fee to asylum
(via cost reallocation) by charging other that the fee forces applicants to choose
applicants. Commenters stated that
fee-paying applicants and petitioners between applying for different forms of
United States is obligated to accept
more for other types of applications. relief or protection and enables
DHS declines to make changes in this asylum seekers under international and
smugglers and traffickers to extort
final rule in response to the comment. domestic law, and therefore should not
applicants. DHS does not believe that
Comment: Many commenters refuse asylum seekers because of an
establishing an asylum application fee
addressed gender-based violence as a inability to pay the fee. One commenter
of $50 unduly burdens or harms any
reason for women and girls fleeing their wrote that charging an asylum fee
applicants. DHS carefully assessed the
countries of origin to seek asylum in the costs associated with the adjudication of would have global consequences
United States. Another commenter asylum applications and other types of effecting the standard of care and rule
stated that an asylum fee will immigration benefit requests and of law in humanitarian protections.
disproportionately impact women and concluded that the $50 fee for asylum Comments stated that the United States
minorities. Several commenters applications is warranted. The has no precedent in international law to
discussed domestic violence survivors approximate cost of adjudicating an charge for asylum, a fee for asylum
who rely on asylum status and work asylum application is $366. A $50 fee is applications is discriminatory, and a fee
authorization for protection. Some well below the full cost of adjudicating for asylum is against the values of the
commenters said that young people flee the application. Moreover, the asylum United States.
sexual and physical violence, and even application fee is in line with Response: DHS recognizes the
torture. One commenter said survivors international treaty obligations under vulnerable situations of many
often have no support systems in the the 1951 Refugee Convention, as individuals who apply for asylum. DHS
U.S. and therefore face homelessness incorporated by reference in the 1967 considered all of the points the
and economic hardship, which are two Refugee Protocol, and domestic commenters raised when deciding to
of the three most urgent and prevalent implementing law. establish an asylum application fee. INA
systemic challenges, confronting DHS declines to make changes in this section 208(d)(3), 1158(d)(3) specifically
immigrant women in the U.S. A couple final rule in response to these authorizes the Attorney General to
of commenters said the asylum seekers comments. impose a fee for the consideration of an
who flee domestic violence are often Comment: One commenter stated that asylum application that is less than the
eligible for asylum as well as other types USCIS is promising the same inadequate estimated cost of adjudicating the
of humanitarian immigration benefits, service it has been providing in the past application. As stated in the NPRM,
such as U nonimmigrant status. In few years and is asking immigrant and DHS considered the authority provided
certain instances, it makes sense for refugee families to pay more to not get in INA section 208(d)(3), whether the
survivors to apply for different types of their applications processed. The fee would be paid in installments or
relief simultaneously as they may get commenter stated that the proposal to over time, and various fee amounts.
access to work authorization faster charge for asylum applications DHS decided to establish a $50 fee
under one type of relief, which, in turn, contradicts the 2005 Notice of because it could be paid in one
can help them avoid being financially Adjustment of the Immigration Benefit payment, would generate some revenue
dependent on their abuser. Therefore, Application Fee Schedule which states, to offset costs, and not be so high as to
the commenter said an asylum fee may ‘‘fees collected from persons filing be unaffordable to even an indigent
force survivors to choose between immigration benefit applications and alien. 84 FR 62320. Thus, the lack of
different types of immigration relief to petitions are deposited into the resources that asylum applicants
their detriment. A commenter discussed Immigration Examinations Fee Account possess and the burdens that they face
rates of gender-based violence in El and are used to fund the full cost of contributed to DHS’s decision to
Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, providing immigration benefits, establish a minimal $50 fee.
Furthermore, DHS disagrees that there of national origin, race, age, gender, or protections precedent for asylees: (1)
is no precedent in international law for financial status. A commenter said Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319
charging an asylum application fee. requiring asylum applicants to pay a fee (1976), (2) Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12,
DHS believes that the asylum violates the principle of non- 19 (1956), (3) Smith v. Bennett, 365 U.S.
application fee may arguably be refoulement because it would likely 708 (1961), and (4) Burns v. State of
constrained in amount, but a fee is not result in the expulsion of potential Ohio, 360 U.S. 252, 258 (1959).
prohibited by the 1951 U.N. Convention refugees merely on the basis of their Some commenters pointed to the 1994
Relating to the Status of Refugees (‘‘1951 financial status, and since the asylum reform initiative, which sought
Refugee Convention’’), 1967 U.N. imposition of the asylum application to impose a $130 fee on asylum
Protocol Relating to the Status of fees would also be a barrier to apply for applicants but was withdrawn following
Refugees (‘‘1967 Refugee Protocol’’), relief under the Convention Against extraordinary opposition from the
United States constitution, or domestic Torture, it also conflicts with U.S. treaty public. The argument that won then is
implementing law. Article 29(1) of the commitments. Multiple commenters applicable now, the commenter wrote,
1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 indicated an inability to pay the and that charging for an asylum
Refugee Protocol, as incorporated by proposed fee would hinder asylum application is contrary to United States
reference, refers to the imposition of seekers’ ability to apply for asylum and international obligations to permit
fees on those seeking protection, and gain needed protection, thereby forcing refugees to seek asylum in the United
limits ‘‘fiscal charges’’ to not higher asylum seekers to return to their country States and in violation of 8 U.S.C.
than those charged to nationals of a of origin to face further persecution and 1158(a)(1).
given country for similar services, but even death. A commenter wrote that the Several commenters noted that the
does not bar the imposition of such asylum fee proposal would increase the vast majority of signatories to the 1951
fiscal charges. The $50 fee is reasonably number of cases sent to immigration Refugee Convention or 1967 Refugee
aligned with the fees charged to United courts because individuals would not Protocol do not charge an asylum fee.
States nationals for other immigration have the funds to pay for asylum Multiple commenters wrote that the
benefit requests. applications. A few commenters stated U.S. would become just the fourth
Comment: One commenter stated that that the unprecedented fee would nation to charge fees for asylum.
if asylum seekers have to pay for their restrict life-saving access to the legal Similarly, a commenter said only three
own initial Employment Authorization system. countries currently charge a fee for
Document (EAD), it is likely that asylees asylum because such a policy is
will not apply for an EAD, which may A commenter provided a lengthy ‘‘universally considered’’ dangerous,
be used against them when USCIS comment on the 1951 Refugee discriminatory, and wrongheaded.
adjudicates their asylum application. Convention and the Refugee Act of Similarly, several comments stated that
Response: DHS infers that the 1980, stating that courts have the United States has been a world
commenter is suggesting that asylum interpreted the federal regulations leader in refugee protection for a long
applicants will pursue unauthorized establishing the asylum process and the time and wrote that if the U.S. begins
employment rather than pay the Form I– INA as creating a constitutionally charging fees for asylum, other nations
765 fee to lawfully obtain an EAD, and protected right to petition the United may choose to follow suit. The
that will result in USCIS denying their States for asylum. This in turn triggers commenters described this outcome as
application because they worked in the the safeguards of the Fifth Amendment’s ‘‘disastrous’’ given the increasing need
U.S. without authorization. DHS expects Due Process Clause. The commenter for refugee resettlement worldwide. A
that asylum applicants will not pursue said, because the proposed fee would commenter wrote that imposing a fee for
such an option and instead find a lawful operate as complete bar to some asylum asylum seekers is not feasible and
way to pay the fee. As DHS noted in the seekers’ ability to exercise their would break with international
NPRM, initial applicants with pending constitutionally protected right to precedent by denying such individuals
claims of asylum are a large workload petition for asylum, it violates the access to ‘‘a universal human right.’’ A
volume for USCIS. In this final rule, guarantee of due process that commenter suggested there was a global
DHS emphasizes that the person accompanies that right. The commenter consensus for rejecting fees for refugees
receiving the benefit should pay the fee. stated that the rule should therefore be and asylum seekers and wrote that any
While DHS appreciates the need for rejected. The commenter also said DHS additional barriers to asylum
asylum seekers to obtain lawful has also failed to consider Article 32 of adjudication could result in ‘‘even more
employment while their applications the 1951 Refugee Convention, which deaths.’’ Another commenter
are pending, Congress has made it clear provides that refugees shall be expelled expounded on this point and questioned
that fees primarily fund USCIS. After only pursuant to a decision reached in why USCIS neglected to discuss why
analyzing the costs of EADs for asylum accordance with due process of law. most nations do not charge fees for
applicants and considering the other The commenter said the United States asylum. The commenter also requested
factors raised by the commenters, DHS cannot recognize the right to apply for that USCIS ‘‘investigate the context of
maintains its position that asylum asylum as a component of due process migration’’ in the nations that do charge
applicants should pay the fee for the for the purposes of its own Constitution fees for asylum, and said that, of these,
initial and renewal EADs. while contending that Article 32 of the only Australia was another ‘‘Western’’
Comment: Some commenters wrote 1951 Refugee Convention can be nation. One commenter stated that
that the fee for asylum applications satisfied without such a guarantee. charging a fee for asylum would place
would cause the U.S. to break its treaty Similarly, the commenter said DHS the U.S. ‘‘in the same position as
obligations and contradicts the intent of neglects Article 3’s guarantee of equal countries that abuse human rights’’ and
the 1980 Refugee Act. Some protection by facially discriminating would contravene the work the U.S. has
commenters agreed and more among refugees based on wealth and done to become a leader in refugee
specifically stated that the proposal disparately affecting refugees based on protection. A few commenters said that
would conflict with Congressional national origin or race. Another a fee for Form I–589 would make the
intent to offer humanitarian assistance commenter spoke of several court cases United States the first, and only,
to those fleeing persecution regardless that set due process and equal country to charge asylum applicants to
access protection with no possibility of provides that ‘‘[t]he expulsion of such a of $50 for Form I–589 would help
fee waiver. refugee shall be only in pursuance of a USCIS generate revenue and offset costs,
One commenter wrote that Australia’s decision reached in accordance with as well as mitigate fee increases for
direct cash assistance to asylum seekers due process of law.’’ The commenter other immigration benefit requests.
has no equivalent in the United States. also refers to Article 3 of the 1951 Comment: Some commenters said the
Another commenter added that Refugee Convention, which states that asylum application fee, Migrant
Australia, whose policies towards the provisions of the Convention shall Protection Protocols (MPP), CBP
asylum seekers have garnered apply ‘‘to refugees without ‘‘metering,’’ and ‘‘safe third country
international criticism, charges half of discrimination as to race, religion, or agreements’’ are counter to the
what DHS proposes to charge for asylum country of origin.’’ DHS believes that international legal principle of non-
applications. A commenter noted that the establishment of a minimal fee of refoulement and indicate a clear effort
the United States will now have harsher $50 to apply for asylum is not cost- on the part of the administration to
asylum regulations than Iran, whose prohibitive or overly burdensome for dismantle asylum in the United States.
policies allow asylum seekers to obtain asylum seekers. This final rule does not Response: The commenter’s concerns
a fee waiver. bar asylum seekers from filing asylum regarding MPP, CBP ‘‘metering’’, and
Response: DHS disagrees that the applications. Also, charging a $50 fee safe third country agreements are
establishment of an asylum application for an asylum application does not outside of the scope of this rulemaking
fee is in violation of United States restrict an asylum seeker’s access to a and DHS provides no response to those
international treaty obligations, the decision reached in accordance with subjects in this final rule. DHS believes
principle of non-refoulement, and due process of law or discriminate that fees associated with access to
domestic implementing law. Although against refugees. asylum and work authorization in the
the United States is a party to the 1967 Moreover, DHS does not intend to United States are not prohibited by the
Refugee Protocol, which incorporates recover the estimated full cost of 1951 U.N. Convention Relating to the
Articles 2 through 34 of the 1951 adjudicating the asylum application, as Status of Refugees (‘‘1951 Refugee
Refugee Convention, the Protocol is not the fee amount is well below the Convention’’), 1967 U.N. Protocol
self-executing. See, e.g., Stevic, at 428 approximate full cost of $366 for Relating to the Status of Refugees (‘‘1967
n.22. The asylum statute at INA section adjudicating an asylum application. Refugee Protocol’’), United States
208 and withholding of removal statute DHS maintains that charging a fee for constitution, or domestic implementing
at INA section 241(b)(3) constitute the asylum applications will help alleviate law, and do not run counter to the
U.S. implementation of international the pressure that the growing asylum principle of non-refoulement. Article
treaty obligations related to asylum workload places on the administration 29(1) of the 1951 Refugee Convention,
seekers. DHS believes that the asylum of other immigration benefits and would and as incorporated by reference in the
application fee may arguably be generate some revenue to help offset 1967 Refugee Protocol, refers to the
constrained in amount but is not costs. imposition of fees on refugees seeking
prohibited by the 1951 U.N. Convention As discussed in the NPRM, DHS protection, and limits ‘‘fiscal charges’’ to
Relating to the Status of Refugees (‘‘1951 requested a report from the Law Library not higher than those charged to
Refugee Convention’’), 1967 U.N. of Congress on fees charged to asylum nationals of a given country for similar
Protocol Relating to the Status of applicants by countries that are a party services, but does not bar the imposition
Refugees (‘‘1967 Refugee Protocol’’), to the 1951 Refugee Convention and/or of such fiscal charges. The $50 fee is
United States constitution, or domestic its 1967 Refugee Protocol. The Law reasonably aligned with the fees charged
implementing law. Article 29(1) of the Library of Congress surveyed the 147 to United States nationals for other
1951 Refugee Convention, and as signatory countries to the 1951 Refugee immigration benefit requests. INA
incorporated by reference in the 1967 Convention and/or the 1967 Refugee Section 208(d)(3) authorizes the
Refugee Protocol, refers to the Protocol, and of 147 countries, imposition of fees for asylum
imposition of fees on refugees, and identified three countries that charge a applications. The asylum application
limits ‘‘fiscal charges’’ to not higher fee for initial applications for asylum or fee is in line with domestic
than those charged to nationals of a refugee protection. DHS considered the implementing law and does not
given country for similar services. A $50 asylum fees charged by other nations, contravene international treaty
fee is reasonably aligned with the fees including Australia, Fiji, and Iran, and obligations.
charged to U.S. nationals for other the $50 fee is in line with the fees Comment: Some commenters
immigration benefit requests. Moreover, charged by these other nations. See 84 suggested that migration patterns in the
INA section 208(d)(3), 8 U.S.C. FR 62319. U.S. are unique and questioned whether
1158(d)(3), specifically authorizes DHS DHS disagrees with commenters’ the proposed rule was a racist and
to impose a fee for the consideration of assertions that charging a fee for asylum xenophobic response to increasing
an asylum application that is less than would place the United States in the levels of immigration from Latin
the estimated cost of adjudicating the same position as countries that abuse America. Some commenters discussed
application. The approximate cost of an human rights and would contravene the the characteristics of common countries
asylum application is $366. Thus, a $50 work the United States has done to of origin for asylees. Two commenters
fee for asylum applications is in line become a leader in refugee protection. wrote that the asylum fee provision
with U.S. international treaty DHS acknowledges the comments would impact thousands of Asian
obligations and domestic implementing related to the policies of other nations, immigrants, and provided data from FY
law. such as Australia and Iran. Each nation 2017 that shows 27,759 Chinese
DHS disagrees with the commenters’ has its own unique needs and different immigrants and 4,057 Indian
assertions that a $50 fee would operate asylum workloads. Given the growing immigrants applied for asylum,
as a complete bar on asylum seekers’ scale of the affirmative asylum workload accounting for 12 percent and 2.9
ability to apply for asylum and access to in the United States, DHS explored percent of asylum seekers. Another
equal protection and due process of law. ways to alleviate the pressure of the commenter stated that approximately
The commenter refers to Article 32 of affirmative asylum workload. DHS 1.5 million Africans have left Africa for
the 1951 Refugee Convention, which believes that establishing a minimal fee the United States or Europe since 2010,
according to the United Nations, and in danger without the help of the U.S. with which asylum seekers come to the
that Nigeria was the seventh most Another commenter noted that U.S., and the resulting inaccessibility of
represented country of origin for derivative applicants who do not file transportation, housing, healthcare, and
affirmative asylum cases filed in the independent asylum applications other necessities. Several commenters
U.S. from 2016–2018 according to a cannot assert their own, independent noted that asylum seekers are ineligible
DHS report. Another commenter claims. Many asylum-seeking families for public assistance programs unless
claimed that the asylum fee is indicative submit individual applications for all and until they are granted asylum, and
of xenophobia and racial animus toward family members to pursue every they rely on nonprofit and community
those from Mexico and Central America, possible avenue of relief for all family resources for housing, basic toiletries,
as Mexico, Haiti, El Salvador, Honduras, members. The cost per application will school supplies, clothing, and public
and Guatemala, respectively, had the have a negative impact on these transportation. The commenters claim
highest denial rates of the 10 families. Multiple commenters wrote that the asylum fee unjustly burdens
nationalities with the most asylum that applying a fee to asylum those who need resources and support
decisions between 2012 and 2017 applications could result in the most. One commenter cited a
(according to a 2018 report by CNN). deportations or compel vulnerable Human Rights Watch publication to
The commenter claimed that high children and families to return to claim that asylum seekers’ financial
denial rates for people from these countries they fled, risking continued resources often fail to cover the bare
countries are partly due to the persecution or death. Several necessities of life, such as food,
inaccessibility of legal assistance, and commenters pointed out that asylum medicine, and shelter. Another
higher fees will exacerbate the disparity. seekers are in danger of human commenter said that many asylum
One commenter stated that if the United trafficking and other crimes, and that seekers do not have financial resources
States is not willing to address the root the asylum fee bars them from the because of ‘‘the nature of flight from
causes of migration, it cannot also place protections that legal status affords. A perilous situations,’’ and wrote that
a fee on asylum seekers fleeing the few commenters stated that asylum asylum seekers are considered ‘‘non-
violence and poverty of the countries should only be based on evidence of qualified’’ immigrants for the purposes
that the U.S. refuses to aid. perceived or actual persecution and not of qualification for federal public
Response: DHS disagrees that the whether asylum seekers have financial assistance.
asylum application fee is a racist and assets. A commenter suggested the One commenter said that USCIS
xenophobic response to increasing asylum fee proposal was ‘‘cruel and claims the $50 fee is large enough to
levels of migration and acknowledges inhumane’’ and that asylum seekers produce a revenue stream while small
the concerns of the commenters related should not have to prioritize asylum enough to remain affordable. The
to asylum seekers fleeing violence and fees over feeding their families. commenter cited a Washington Post
poverty. Asylum is a discretionary Response: DHS acknowledges the article that discusses the extreme
benefit available to those who meet the commenters’ concerns about the poverty of asylum seekers to emphasize
definition of a refugee and are otherwise potential effects of the asylum the inability of these people to pay any
eligible. DHS recognizes that many application fee on children and their fee, no matter how small. Another
legitimate asylum seekers face poverty families. DHS recognizes that the commenter added that USCIS should
and violence and considered the Trafficking Victims Protection take into account $50 as a percentage of
challenging circumstances that many Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) of 2008, Gross National Income (GNI) in asylees’
asylum seekers face when deciding to provides a range of protections for home countries, citing World Bank and
establish a minimal fee of $50. The fee unaccompanied alien children. DHS TRAC Immigration data. A commenter
is well below the cost of adjudicating excludes unaccompanied alien children wrote that the $50 fee for asylum would
the asylum application, which is in removal proceedings, a particularly not be a deterrent for some asylum
consistent with INA section 208(d)(3). vulnerable population, from the seekers, but that the ‘‘calculus is not so
The establishment of an asylum imposition of a $50 asylum application simple’’ for others who will not be able
application fee is not animated by fee. 8 CFR 106.2(a)(20). to afford the fee. The commenter
racism or xenophobia, but rather, it is DHS acknowledges the commenters’ provided anecdotes about the personal
animated by a need to respond to the concerns about asylum seekers’ ability backgrounds of asylum seekers to
increasing affirmative asylum workload to pay fees for multiple asylum provide context about the challenging
and generate some revenue to offset applications depending on the financial situations many asylum
costs. USCIS must address these issues circumstances of principal and seekers or refugees face.
regardless of the myriad factors that derivative applicants, including Response: DHS acknowledges the
contribute to individuals claiming children. DHS considered the effect of a challenges that asylum seekers face,
asylum in the United States. fee on asylum seekers and believes it including extreme poverty and limited
Comment: Some commenters would not impose an unreasonable access to resources. In recognition of
discussed the impact of an asylum fee burden on applicants or prevent asylum these circumstances, DHS establishes a
on children. One commenter said the seekers from seeking protection. The minimal $50 fee for Form I–589 for most
proposed rule disregards the best services that USCIS provides at no or applicants (unaccompanied alien
interests of children, as it would charge below cost impacts the fees imposed on children in removal proceedings who
unaccompanied children for applying other fee-paying applicants. DHS seeks file Form I–589 with USCIS are not
for asylum, writing that children should to make the USCIS fee schedule more required to pay the fee). DHS considered
not have to shoulder the burden of the equitable for all applicants and various fee amounts and whether the fee
large backlog of cases and slow petitioners. Nevertheless, DHS would be paid in installments over time.
processing of immigration applications. considered the challenges that asylum DHS has established a minimal $50 fee
One commenter said that 56 percent of seekers face and establishes an asylum that can be paid at one time, would not
the applications from Central America application fee that is well below the require an applicant to save for an
were filed by unaccompanied children, cost of adjudicating the application. unreasonable amount of time, would
many of whom are fleeing the most Comment: Multiple commenters generate revenue to offset costs, and
high-volume countries of origin and are discussed the very limited resources would not be so high as to be
unaffordable to an indigent applicant. which shows that many factors the asylum application process. This
See 84 FR 62319. DHS does not intend contributing to the backlog are the result final rule does not hinder or affect
to recover the full cost of adjudicating of U.S. policies. asylum seekers’ access to counsel. With
asylum applications via the Form I–589 Response: DHS carefully assessed the or without legal counsel, asylum
fee. DHS will recover the additional costs associated with the adjudication of applicants are given the opportunity to
costs of asylum adjudications by asylum applications and other types of provide the information needed for an
charging other fee-paying applicants immigration benefit requests and adjudicator to make a decision about
and petitioners more. DHS does not concluded that the $50 fee for asylum their eligibility for asylum. DHS
intend to discourage meritorious asylum applications is warranted. A minimal declines to make any changes in this
claims or unduly burden any applicant, fee would mitigate the fee increase of final rule in response to the comment.
group of applicants, or their families. other immigration benefit requests. DHS
Comment: A commenter stated that also relied on INA section 208(d)(3), 14. Form I–600A/I–600 Supplement 3,
this NPRM functions under the which provides that ‘‘fees shall not Request for Action on Approved Form
‘‘deterrence paradigm’’ to prevent exceed the Attorney General’s costs in I–600A/I–600
asylum seekers from coming to the adjudicating’’ the asylum application. Comment: A commenter supported
United States. They claimed that such The approximate cost of adjudicating an changes in the handling of Hague
deterrence policies do not work, citing asylum application is $366, and thus, Adoption Convention Transition Cases,
a report by the American Immigration the fee is below the full cost of commenting that their personal
Council which showed that adjudicating the application. The lower experience in the adoption process had
comprehensive knowledge of the fee amount represents DHS’s efforts to been very difficult. The commenter
dangers and possible futility of seeking balance the needs and interests of stated that having a prescribed system
asylum had little impact on the USCIS in generating some revenue to would be an improvement.
intentions of Hondurans to seek asylum offset costs against the socio-economic Response: DHS appreciates the
in 2014. challenges faced by some asylum support for the changes in handling
Response: DHS does not intend to seekers. intercounty adoption cases and agrees
deter legitimate asylum seekers from DHS acknowledges the comments that the prescribed system is an
filing asylum applications via the $50 related to the growing affirmative improvement upon previous practice.
asylum application fee. The goals asylum backlog, which played into
15. Form I–601A, Application for
behind establishing a $50 asylum DHS’s decision to establish an asylum
Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver
application fee include alleviating the application fee. USCIS has taken several
pressure of the growing affirmative actions to address the affirmative Comment: Multiple commenters
asylum workload on the administration asylum backlog, including: Identifying opposed increasing the fee for Form I–
of other immigration benefit requests and employing strategies to maximize 601A because it would harm family
and generating some revenue to offset efficiencies in case processing across unity, discourage the use of consular
costs. DHS believes the minimal fee of workloads; increasing adjudicative processing, and undermine the use of
$50 is not unreasonably burdensome capacity by expanding its field office Form I–601A to improve efficiency.
and does not prevent legitimate asylum workforce and continuing significant Response: DHS recognizes that Form
seekers from submitting asylum facilities expansion; and reverting to I–601A can aid family unity and
applications. reform scheduling, also known as Last improve administrative efficiency
Comment: A few commenters In, First Out (LIFO) scheduling, which through the use of consular processing.
indicated that the $50 fee does not involves scheduling the most recently However, DHS disagrees with the
mitigate the fee increase of other filed applications for interviews ahead commenters’ contention that the fee
immigration benefit requests. One of of older filings. See USCIS increases enacted in this final rule for
these commenters stated that since DHS announcement on Last in, First Out Form I–601A, from $630 to $960,
will still rely on other benefit requesters scheduling (January 2018), available at undermines those goals. DHS adjusts
to cover the costs of the asylum process, https://www.uscis.gov/news/news- the fee for Form I–601A to reflect the
as authorized by Congress, the decision releases/uscis-take-action-address- estimated full cost of adjudication. If
to charge an asylum fee is unacceptable. asylum-backlog. LIFO scheduling has DHS did not adjust fee to provide for
A few commenters reasoned that, contributed to a decrease in the growth USCIS to recover full cost, USCIS would
because the process costs around $300 of the asylum backlog. Even though be unable to devote sufficient resources
per applicant, a $50 fee would not USCIS has taken a range of measures to to adjudication to limit the growth of
meaningfully address the deficit address the backlog, the number of pending caseload, thereby undermining
associated with asylum adjudication but pending affirmative asylum cases the goals of family unity and efficient
would still be prohibitively expensive remains high. processing.
for vulnerable people. One commenter Comment: One commenter cited a DHS declines to make adjustments in
added that this is an arbitrary departure 2011 New York Immigrant this final rule in response to these
from the ‘‘full cost’’ standard required Representation Study to say that with comments.
for federal agencies, and that USCIS decreased ability to support themselves, Comment: A commenter opposed the
should charge applicants the full cost of asylum seekers would be far less likely fee increase for Form I–601A because
adjudicating the application. to afford legal counsel and therefore such waivers have allowed thousands of
One commenter cited the Asylum have less chance of prevailing on their immigrants to pursue lawful permanent
Division’s quarterly statistics, which asylum claims. residence through consular processing.
indicate that DHS experienced a 40 Response: DHS believes that a The commenter said the proposed
percent decrease in affirmative filings minimal fee of $50 will not prevent increase for this waiver application, in
between 2017 and 2018. The commenter asylum seekers from securing legal conjunction with the costs of consular
stated that USCIS is unable to alleviate counsel or affect their chance of processing, would discourage
a growing backlog despite a drop in prevailing on their asylum claims. immigrants from seeking lawful status
affirmative filings. Two commenters Asylum seekers may secure legal and place them at risk of removal and
cited a Migration Policy Institute study counsel as needed to assist them with long-term separation from their families.
Response: DHS recognizes that the from applying for immigration benefits. students who need employment-based
provisional waiver process has enabled The commenter asked that USCIS hold training. DHS believes that employment
family unity and the use of consular current fees in place or increase the fees in the United States will continue to
processing to gain lawful permanent by a modest amount. One commenter appeal to individuals despite an
residence. However, DHS disagrees with said the proposed change would affect increase of $140 in the cost of applying
the commenter’s assertion that the fee many older applicants who maybe be on for an EAD.
increase for Form I–601A will fixed incomes, as well as people in DHS declines to make changes in this
discourage immigrants from seeking single-income households. final rule in response to the comment.
lawful status or result in long-term Response: DHS acknowledges the Comment: Multiple commenters
separation for families. DHS believes changes in fee waiver eligibility and the opposed the change to charge asylum
that the fee increase of $330, from $630 increase in the fee for Form I–751 applicants for their first Form I–765,
to $960, likely represents a small implemented in this final rule will Application for Employment
portion of the overall cost of utilizing render the process of removing Authorization. The comments are
consular processing to pursue lawful conditions on lawful permanent summarized as follows:
permanent residence. DHS also notes resident status more expensive for • Charging asylum seekers for the
that noncitizens with an approved Form individuals. However, DHS disagrees first work permit creates a ‘‘catch 22’’
I–601A still trigger the unlawful with the commenters’ contention that situation where people cannot work so
presence ground of inadmissibility the fee increase for Form I–751, from cannot afford to pay their asylum fees
found in INA section 212(a)(9)(B), 8 $595 to $760, will render Form I–751 and may incentivize people to work
U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B) upon departure. unaffordable to these individuals. illegally.
DHS declines to make changes in this Conditional lawful permanent residents • USCIS should not charge $50 for
final rule in response to the comment. have nearly two years between gaining asylum applications and further charge
that status and the 90-day period in for an EAD while asylum cases are
16. Form I–751, Petition To Remove
which they are required to file Form I– pending.
Conditions on Residence
751, during which they are able to work • Requiring individuals who are not
Comment: Multiple commenters and save to afford the fee. authorized to work to pay such a
wrote regarding increases in the fee for DHS declines to adjust this final rule substantial fee to acquire work
Form I–751. Commenters wrote that the in response to these comments. authorization is cruel and
fee for Form I–751 would cause counterintuitive.
17. Form I–765, Application for
individuals who are unable to afford the
Employment Authorization • Asylum seekers have historically
new fee failing to petition to remove the not been charged for their initial EAD
conditions on their permanent Comment: A commenter wrote that because their flight from their country of
residence, thereby losing their Form I–765 fees are causing students to origin leaves them in dire financial
conditional lawful permanent resident consider leaving the United States situations, and they often lack family
status. following graduation, removing talented support in the United States to assist
Response: DHS recognizes the workers from the U.S. economy and tax them.
importance of Form I–751 to individuals base. The commenter stated that the • Requiring asylum applicants to pay
in conditional lawful permanent proposal would further disincentivize for an initial EAD before they have
resident status. However, DHS disagrees foreign students from studying in the authorization to work will worsen the
with the commenters’ contention that United States. A commenter also wrote already precarious situation of a
the fee increase for Form I–751, from that the proposed fee increases could vulnerable population.
$595 to $760, will render Form I–751 impede immigrant student’s career • People subject to the fee have
unaffordable to these individuals. advancement. already spent substantial time and
Conditional lawful permanent residents Response: DHS acknowledges the money to get to the United States, have
have nearly two years between gaining sizeable increase in the Form I–765 fee likely spent time in immigration
that status and the 90-day period in implemented in this final rule, adjusting detention, and have not been authorized
which they are required to file Form I– the fee from $410 to $550. DHS adjusts to work since leaving their home
751, during which they are able to work the fee for Form I–765 to reflect the country.
and save to afford the fee, or they may estimated full cost of adjudication. • USCIS should continue to exempt
pay with a credit card. DHS adjusts the Although DHS recognizes that this fee asylum seekers from fees associated
fee for Form I–751 to reflect the increase imposes an additional burden with EADs because these individuals
estimated full cost of adjudication and on nonimmigrant students seeking would not be able to afford fees before
declines to make adjustments in this employment authorization for Optional they can legally work. It did not make
final rule in response to these Practical Training, off-campus sense to charge asylum seekers for work
comments. employment under the sponsorship of a permits before being granted protection.
Comment: Many commenters qualifying international organization, or • The EAD fee for asylum seekers will
indicated the Form I–751 fee increase due to severe economic hardship, DHS act as an unjust deterrent for asylum
and elimination of the fee waiver would is unaware of data to support the seekers.
make it more difficult for low-income commenter’s contention that fee for • To levy an asylum fee in
families to file timely and could have Form I–765 serves to deter students conjunction with the EAD fee was
severe consequences, including the from coming to the United States. DHS beyond contemplation and abominable
conditional resident’s loss of lawful declines to exempt students from the and questioned how the government
status and the risk of being placed into increased filing fee because USCIS must could expect asylum-seekers to obtain
removal proceedings. A commenter determine the student’s eligibility under funds to cover these costs.
stated that the unbundling and resulting the applicable regulations at the time of • The proposal was far from benign
increase in the fee for adjustment of application and the fee is necessary to and employers could pay this work
status and ancillary applications, and recover the full costs of the permit fee.
the increased fee for provisional waivers adjudication. DHS does not believe the • This fee will force asylum
could prevent low-income individuals fee is an unreasonable burden for applicants into seeking unauthorized
work, putting them at a higher risk of 765 applicants with pending asylum compared with 13 percent of those
exploitation, placing an undue burden applications allows DHS to keep the fee unrepresented.
on investigative agencies, and for all fee-paying EAD applicants lower. Response: DHS recognizes the
ultimately putting those applicants in Asylum applicants will pay no more economic challenges faced by asylum
danger of facing further consequences and no less than any other EAD seekers. However, DHS does not believe
for attempting to work without applicant (except for those who are that charging asylum seekers for a work
authorization. eligible for a fee waiver) for the same authorization application will prevent
• A fee for an initial work permit is service. them from obtaining legal counsel. DHS
illogical, because the U.S. benefits from DHS is acting in compliance with does not believe that the EAD fee is
self-sufficiency of asylum seekers and Section 208(d)(3) of the INA, which unduly burdensome for asylum seekers.
should therefore want to expedite the provides that, ‘‘[n]othing in this Furthermore, DHS is acting within the
employment authorization process. paragraph shall be construed to require scope of its statutory authority to
• It will burden local communities the Attorney General to charge fees for establish fees for adjudication services,
and service providers that must provide adjudication services provided to in accordance with INA sections
social services to asylum applicants asylum applicants, or to limit the 208(d)(3) and 286(m). DHS declines to
unable to work. authority of the Attorney General to set make changes in response to these
• Local communities will suffer lost adjudication and naturalization fees in comments.
wages and tax revenue, as well as the accordance with section 286(m).’’ DHS Comment: A commenter stated that
labor that would otherwise be provided believes that charging asylum applicants fee exemptions for EAD applications by
by asylees. for EADs does not impose an asylees should apply not only to initial
• State, local, community, and unreasonable burden on asylum seekers. applications, but also renewals. The
religious organizations will attempt to This final rule does not impose or seek commenter said the original rationale
cover the EAD fee for asylum seekers, to impose any obligation on the part of was that the initial EAD lasts for 2 years,
straining their resources and preventing employers, states, or community or and it was expected that asylees would
them from serving more people. religious organizations to pay the Form be granted lawful permanent residence
• Preventing asylum seekers from I–765 fee. Also, this final rule does not within that two-year period. Currently,
authorized work restricts them from seek to burden local communities or however, the processing times for
lawfully paying a fee for asylum. service providers. DHS declines to make permanent residence by asylees range
• Allowing asylum seekers to have changes in this final rule in response to up to 26 months, so the commenter said
work authorization benefits local these comments. USCIS should eliminate the fee for
economies by asylum seekers paying USCIS disagrees that charging asylum applications for renewal of employment
taxes, filling skills gaps, and building seekers for the first work permit creates authorization filed by asylees.
the workforce. a conflict between contradictory Response: DHS acknowledges the
• Asylees often bring a wide range of conditions where aliens cannot work to concerns related to processing times for
skills and experience and are useful to pay their asylum fees and may EADs and adjustment of status
many businesses, and that the proposal incentivize people to work illegally. No applications. DHS does not believe that
would deny U.S. businesses of the asylum applicant may receive the fee for renewal EAD filings will
opportunity to hire these workers. employment authorization before 180 present an insurmountable burden for
• Nearly 65 percent of the asylum days have passed since the filing of his asylees. Asylees are employment
seekers in the commenter’s program or her asylum application. INA section authorized incident to their status. DHS
arrive in the U.S. with experience in 208(d)(2), 8 U.S. C. 1158(d)(2); 8 CFR will continue to exempt asylees from
STEM and healthcare fields. 208.7(a)(1). This requirement has been the initial Form I–765 fee. However,
• Employers would have difficulty in effect for over twenty years. See, considering that they are employment
finding labor substitutes if asylum Illegal Immigration Reform and authorized incident to their status as an
seekers were kept out of the workforce. Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, asylee and the EAD is matter of
USCIS should conduct additional Section 604, Public Law 104–208; see convenience and not necessary for
analysis on the impact of new fees for also 62 FR 10337. Thus, an asylum ongoing employment, asylees
employment authorization. seeker is unlikely to come to the United submitting I–765 renewal applications
• USCIS has not calculated the losses States expecting to be authorized to will be required to pay the relevant fee,
to tax revenue and the broader economy work immediately. Asylum seekers can, unless the asylee filed for adjustment of
associated with a reduced number of and do, rely on their own means, as well status on or after July 30, 2007 and
asylees in the U.S. as family or community support to before October 2, 2020 and paid the
• Asylees often come to the U.S. with economically sustain themselves in the Form I–485 filing fee. DHS declines to
in-demand skills, including skills that United States during the period of time adjust this final rule in response to these
would be useful in the healthcare and that they are not employment comments.
information technology sectors, and the authorized. Comment: One commenter suggested
USCIS should estimate the costs borne Comment: Several commenters wrote that initial asylum applicants seeking
to employers who would use asylees. that if asylum seekers are unable to employment authorization should be
Response: DHS acknowledges the obtain employment authorization, they exempt from fees. Instead, they propose
concerns of the commenters related to may be unable to pay for legal counsel, that the Form I–765 fee should increase
the requirement of a fee ($550) for initial which will make it more difficult for by $10 to offset the cost.
filings of Form I–765 for applicants with them to prevail on the asylum Response: DHS appreciates the
pending asylum applications. Initial applications. One commenter cited commenter’s suggestion. DHS
EAD applicants with pending asylum ‘‘Accessing Justice: The Availability & considered continuing to exempt
applications account for a large volume, Adequacy of Counsel in Immigration asylum applicants from paying for their
approximately 13 percent, of the Form Proceedings,’’ a study that showed that first Form I–765 filing. However, to
I–765 workload forecast and DHS has among non-detained individuals in more closely align with the beneficiary-
decided to no longer provide this immigration court, those with counsel pays principle, DHS declines to require
service for free. Charging initial Form I– saw success in 74 percent of cases other fee-paying applicants to subsidize
the cost of adjudicating the initial EAD disagrees that it is insurmountable or Some comments stated that the
applications of asylum applicants. DHS unduly burdensome. Many asylum Supreme Court might decide the future
declines to adopt the change suggested seekers spend thousands of dollars to of the DACA program in the next few
by this commenter. make the journey to the United States. months; therefore, DACA recipients
Comment: One commenter pointed It is not unduly burdensome to require should not pay more for an uncertain
out that work-eligible unaccompanied that asylum seekers plan and allocate benefit.
children need access to EADs in order their financial resources to pay a fee that Response: DHS will not impose the
to access housing, food, and clothing. all other noncitizens must also pay. proposed Form I–821D, Consideration
Many minors reach adulthood before USCIS must incur the costs of of Deferred Action for Childhood
their Form I–589 application is adjudicating Form I–765 submitted by Arrivals fee. It is not included in this
adjudicated, losing access to foster care an asylum seeker, and DHS does not final rule. USCIS will not receive any
and other financial support, leaving believe it should shift that cost to other revenue from Form I–821D. Therefore,
them as reliant on work as adult fee payers. Charging a fee for DHS removed the marginal costs
applicants. Another commenter said adjudication services is in line with INA directly attributable to the DACA policy
that women and children will be section 208(d)(3), which provides that from its cost baseline that informs the
particularly affected by the EAD ‘‘[n]othing in this paragraph shall be fee calculations for this final rule. The
application fee and stated that a fee construed to require the Attorney revenue DHS anticipated from the Form
waiver is necessary for these General to charge fees for adjudication I–821D DACA fee in its NPRM to
applications. Given that asylum seekers services provided to asylum applicants, recover costs associated with overheads
do not have access to social welfare or to limit the authority of the Attorney and cost reallocation will be collected
benefits, women are especially at risk of General to set adjudication and through adjustments to the other fees
hunger, abuse, homelessness, naturalization fees in accordance with addressed in this final rule.88 DACA
trafficking, and other coercive section 1356(m) of this title.’’ DHS requestors will continue to pay the fees
employment practices. This commenter declines to make changes in this final in place before September 5, 2017, $410
cited data from the Women’s Refugee rule in response to these comments. for Form I–765, Application for
Commission which emphasizes the Employment Authorization, as well as a
benefits of employment for women who 18. Form I–817, Application for Family separate biometric services fee of $85.
have experienced trauma, as many Unity Benefits Comment: Multiple commenters
asylees have. Comment: A commenter said the fee suggested that the ability to receive
Response: DHS acknowledges that decrease for Form I–817 is puzzling in immigration protection and work
asylum applicants need access to light of the current processing and authorization under DACA is crucial for
employment authorization. DHS does adjudication of the corresponding immigrant survivors of domestic and
not believe that this final rule hinders benefits because this form currently sexual violence. The commenters cited
or prevents asylum seekers from experiences inordinate delays for a DOJ special report from December
applying for employment authorization. processing. 2014 which indicates that women
DHS believes that the EAD fee is not Response: DHS acknowledges that between the ages of 18 and 24
unduly burdensome for asylum seekers processing times for many forms, experience the highest rate of rape and
and is acting within the scope of its including Form I–817, have exceeded sexual assault when compared to
statutory authority to establish fees for USCIS’ processing time goals. DHS is women of other age groups. The
adjudication services, in accordance setting the fee for Form I–817 at the commenters stated that because most
with INA sections 208(d)(3) and 286(m). level sufficient to recover the estimated DACA requestors are young immigrants,
Regarding unaccompanied alien full cost of adjudicating USCIS’s the DACA eligible population is
children (UAC), a UAC may be in the anticipated workload receipt volumes. particularly vulnerable to violence and
custody of the U.S. Department of DHS hopes to be able to devote abuse.
Health and Human Services, Office of sufficient resources to Form I–817 One commenter said that increasing
Refugee Resettlement (ORR) or residing adjudication to reduce pending the DACA renewal fee by 55 percent
with a sponsor. See 8 U.S.C. 1232(b) and caseload. DHS declines to make any will jeopardize the employment of
(c). A UAC should not need an EAD for adjustments in this final rule in domestic abuse survivors. The
an identity document, and to the extent response to the comment. commenter stated that when a DACA
that they do, the sponsor for the UAC holder is a victim of domestic violence
19. Form I–821D, DACA Renewal Fee and becomes eligible for U
is generally responsible for his or her
Form I–765 fee. After turning 18, the Comment: Many commenters wrote nonimmigrant status, it is important that
same policy considerations for charging that they opposed the Form I–821D they be able to renew their DACA and
them for the Form I–765 apply as for DACA renewal fees. Commenters stated related work permits while they wait for
charging all adults. that increasing DACA fees would make their U nonimmigrant status so that can
Comment: A few commenters claimed it difficult for individuals to renew their remain employed and not have to
that the processing time for EAD work permits and individuals could lose
applications is too long as is, and the the ability to work legally in the United 88 Although DHS requires DACA requestors to
new Form I–765 fee will present an States. Commenters highlighted that continue paying the fee for Form I–765, it has
removed all DACA workload and fee-paying
unsurmountable burden. Doubling the many DACA requestors are students and volume projections from USCIS’ ABC model due to
waiting period, along with the $490 fee, may have difficulty paying the proposed our decision to not impose a fee for Form I–821D
presents an unjust financial hurdle for fee in addition to the fee for filing Form in this final rule, consistent with Scenario D of the
I–765. Commenters wrote that the NPRM and the FY 2016/2017 fee rule. In its rules
many asylum seekers and will prevent to establish USCIS fees, DHS has generally not
them from attaining self-sufficiency proposed fee increase would cause relied on revenue from sources that are temporary
through work. emotional and financial hardships for in nature, including DACA. See 81 FR 73312.
Response: DHS acknowledges that the the families of DACA recipients. Including temporary programs in the model would
allocate fixed costs and overhead to these programs,
fee and waiting period for the initial Commenters stated that the imposition thereby introducing financial risk because USCIS
EAD may be an economic challenge to of a fee for DACA would constitute an would not be able to recover full cost if they are
some asylum applicants, but DHS attempt to terminate the DACA program. discontinued.
financially rely on their abusers. The 21. Form I–881, Application for Response: DHS acknowledges that
commenter stated that processing time Suspension of Deportation or Special there may be a difference between the
for petitions for U nonimmigrant status Rule Cancellation of Removal (Pursuant cost of adjudicating a Form I–924 filing
is between 52.3 and 53 months. to Section 203 of Public Law 105–100 that requests a new regional center
Response: DHS will not impose a fee (NACARA)) designation and a filing that amends an
for Form I–821D in this final rule. Comment: A commenter said that the existing regional center. However, DHS
However, DACA requestors will NPRM provided no explanation for the does not have data to document the
continue to be required to submit Form 532 percent fee increase for Form I–881. difference in effort and cost between
I–765 for an EAD. To request a DACA The commenter questioned if different types of Form I–924 filings.
renewal, DHS will continue to require adjudication had changed drastically to Thus, DHS estimated the full cost of
the $410 Form I–765 fee and the $85 justify the fee increase. Similarly, a adjudication for Form I–924 based on an
biometric services fee that were in effect couple commenters stated that USCIS’ estimate of the average level of effort
before September 5, 2017. Furthermore, justifications did not explain the fee required to adjudicate Form I–924. As
DHS reiterates that Form I–918 has no increase and the proposal was contrary noted in the rule initially establishing
fee and Form I–192 remains fee to the purpose of the Nicaraguan the $17,795 for this form, the proposed
waivable for U nonimmigrant status Adjustment and Central American fee ‘‘was determined using USCIS’s
petitioners. Relief Act (NACARA). standard fee-setting methodology, based
Response: DHS disagrees with the on the number of hours required to
DHS declines to make changes in this
commenters’ contention that DHS failed adjudicate Form I–924. These
final rule in response to these
to explain or justify the fee increase for adjudications require economists and
comments.
Form I–881. This final rule adjusts the adjudications officers to thoroughly
20. Form I–829, Petition by Investor To fee for Form I–881 from $285 for review extensive business documents,
Remove Conditions on Permanent individuals or $570 for families to a economic impact analyses, and other
Resident Status single fee of $1,810. As stated in the project-related documents.’’ 89
NPRM, DHS has not adjusted the fee for DHS disagrees with the commenter’s
Comment: A commenter said the fee contention that the fee for Form I–924
review for EB–5 forms, such as Form I– Form I–881 since 2005. Thus, the fee
has not reflected USCIS’ estimated full is too low to provide adequate service.
829, failed to meet the objectives of In its fee review, USCIS estimated that
ensuring USCIS has adequate resources cost of adjudication since that time. The
large increase results from a need for the the fee for Form I–924 necessary to
and to recover the full operating costs of reflect the full, estimated cost of
administering the national immigration fee to recover its proportionate share of
USCIS’ estimated full costs. In this final adjudication would be less than the
benefits system. The commenter said existing fee of $17,795. In recognition of
the modest 4 percent increase for Form rule, DHS adjusts the fee for Form I–881
to reflect the estimated full cost of the resources available to I–924 filers
I–829 fee is clearly too low for adequate and to limit the fee increases for other
service and noted that despite the form adjudication.
DHS declines to make change in this form types, DHS decided to maintain
having a statutory requirement to be the fee for Form I–924 at the current
adjudicated within 90 days of filing, the final rule in response to these
comments. level of $17,795 in this final rule.
processing time for this form is DHS declines to make changes in this
currently between 22 and 45 months. 22. Forms I–924, Application for final rule in response to these
Response: DHS acknowledges that Regional Center Designation Under the comments.
processing times for many forms, Immigrant Investor Program, and I–
23. Form I–929, Petition for Qualifying
including Form I–829, have exceeded 924A, Annual Certification of Regional
Family Member of a U–1 Nonimmigrant
the goals established by USCIS. Center
Furthermore, DHS acknowledges its Comment: Multiple commenters
Comment: A commenter said the suggested the proposed $1,285 or 559
obligation to adjudicate Form I–829 filing fee for Form I–924 is ‘‘already
filings within 90 days of the filing date percent increase in the Form I–929 fee
vastly out of proportion’’ with the work is excessive. The commenters stated that
or interview, whichever is later. See required to process the form. The
INA section 216(c)(3)(A)(ii), 8 U.S.C. the petition benefits crime victims’
commenter said the current fee of family members. A commenter said the
1186b(c)(3)(A)(ii). In this final rule, DHS $17,795 may be appropriate for entities
adjusts the fee for Form I–829 to $3,900 proposed fee would create a financial
seeking a new regional center hardship for immigrant families and the
to reflect the estimated full cost of designation or an approval of an
adjudication. In estimating the full cost proposed rule ignores the fact that
exemplar Form I–526 petition but is not survivors of domestic violence, sexual
of adjudication, USCIS considers the reasonable for smaller-scale changes like
costs to adjudicate incoming workloads assault, and human trafficking may
a change to a regional center’s name, desperately need timely processing of
and does not consider the resources ownership, or organizational structure.
necessary to adjudicate existing pending ancillary applications to escape and
The commenter suggested there should overcome abuse. Another commenter
caseloads. If USCIS considered the cost be a much lower fee to accompany such
to adjudicate existing, pending said the proposed increase would
minor changes (which are mandatory inhibit a vulnerable population from
caseloads in its fee reviews, this would notifications to USCIS).
require future immigration benefit reuniting with spouses, children, and in
Another commenter said the fee
requestors to subsidize the cost of the case of minors, parents—directly in
adjustment for Forms I–924 and I–924A
adjudicating previously received tension with congressional intent. A

fails to meet the agency’s stated
applications and petitions. DHS will not commenter indicated this increase
objectives of adjusting fees to ensure
require future applicants and petitioners would make applying extremely
USCIS has the necessary resources to
to subsidize the adjudication of existing, difficult for individuals who have
provide adequate service to applicants
pending caseloads. and can recover the full operating costs 89 USCIS, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
DHS declines to make changes in this associated with administering the Services Fee Schedule, 81 FR 73292, 73310 (Oct. 24,
final rule in response to the comment. immigration benefits system. 2016).
qualified family members. A commenter costs of providing all such services, commenter stated that USCIS
stated that it is important to incentivize including the costs of similar services acknowledged its departure from
individuals to come forward and report provided without charge to asylum Congressional intent, and that its stated
when they have been the victim of a applicants and other immigrants’’) 90 justification—a ‘‘hypothetical concern’’
crime and by keeping derivative and the CFO Act, 31 U.S.C. 901–03 that waivers could disrupt services—is
applications for U-visa applicants (requiring each agency’s Chief Financial insufficient. A commenter stated that,
affordable, USCIS would ensure that Officer (CFO) to review, on a biennial while reducing the subsidy provided by
agencies prioritize public safety and basis, the fees imposed by the agency for other immigration fees to naturalization
family unity. services it provides, and to recommend may be appropriate, it is cynical of
Response: DHS recognizes the changes to the agency’s fees). Currently, USCIS to use naturalization fees to fund
importance of Form I–929 for promoting there are no statutory provisions that ICE while making no commitment to
family unity for U nonimmigrants and require USCIS to limit the naturalization reducing the months-or-years-long wait
their family members. In recognition of application fee. DHS declines to make times for citizenship interviews. A
this importance, and consistent with its any changes in this final rule in commenter provided a citation to a
commitment to maintain fee waiver response to these comments. USCIS statement reaffirming the special
availability of statutorily protected Comment: Many commenters stated consideration given for naturalization in
classes of individuals, DHS proposed in that Congress has asked USCIS to keep making fee determinations.
the NPRM to continue to make the fee citizenship affordable, consistent with A commenter stated that increasing
for Form I–929 waivable for those who Congressional intent, USCIS has naturalization fees would impact
file Form I–912, Request for Fee Waiver, historically followed this directive by families and that DHS must therefore
and meet the fee waiver eligibility using other fees to subsidize perform a ‘‘family policymaking
criteria. See 84 FR 62297. In this final naturalization fees, and that the assessment,’’ citing a 1998 Omnibus
rule, DHS reaffirms that the fee for Form proposed increase in naturalization fees Appropriations Act. The commenter
I–929 will remain waivable for and removal of fee waivers violates wrote that N–400s are the forms most
petitioning U nonimmigrants or lawful Congressional intent. A commenter likely to impact immigrant families.
permanent residents who file Form I– provided quotations from 2010 and A commenter wrote that the Northern
912, Request for Fee Waiver, and meet 2016 rulemakings stating this policy District of California issued a
the fee waiver eligibility criteria. DHS objective and wrote that USCIS is nationwide preliminary injunction,
believes that maintaining access to fee arbitrarily departing from the policy of effective December 2, 2019, barring
waivers for this vulnerable population reducing economic barriers to USCIS from limiting access to
mitigates any concerns that the increase naturalization. Commenters also cited naturalization for LPRs.
the U.S. Code’s citizenship criteria and Two commenters cited the United
in the fee for Form I–929 would inhibit
Nations Declaration of Human Rights’
family unity. noted the absence of economic status.
statement that the right to a nationality
In this final rule, DHS establishes the Commenters cited the 2019 DHS
also includes the right to ‘‘change
fee for Form I–929 as $1,485 to reflect Appropriations Act and a recent
[one’s] nationality,’’ and therefore there
the estimated full cost of adjudication, Congressional Committee report in
should be no arbitrary barriers that
which includes the anticipated cost of making this argument and especially
prevent naturalization.
fee waivers for Form I–929. DHS opposing the removal of fee waivers for One commenter cited a 2012
recognizes that this represents a Form N–400. A commenter also cited Migration Policy Institute study which
significant increase of $1,255 in the fee. Consolidated Appropriations Acts from found that the United States lags behind
DHS notes that this increase is due, in 2012, 2017, and 2019 as evincing other English-speaking countries in
part, to its commitment to preserve Congressional intention to reduce naturalization rates, writing that these
access to fee waivers for certain financial barriers to naturalization. The countries have made active attempts to
vulnerable populations. Because DHS commenter also quoted a Senate encourage naturalization. A few
anticipates that many filers will meet Committee report from 2015 and House commenters emphasized the role of
the fee waiver criteria, USCIS must Committee report from 2020 to the same naturalization in providing personal
charge fee-paying applicants more to effect. Another commenter provided security for immigrants, particularly
recover the cost of processing fee- two House of Representatives reports those who are in danger of worker
waived forms. from 2018 and 2019, also writing that exploitation without the full legal rights
DHS declines to make changes in this the proposal contravenes Congressional of citizenship. A commenter requested
final rule in response to these intent. that DHS more thoroughly analyze the
comments. Multiple commenters stated that the
costs of impeding access to
proposal ‘‘undermin[es] the special
24. Form N–400, Application for naturalization, which include long-term
consideration that obtaining U.S.
Naturalization reduced economic and social mobility
citizenship deserves.’’ A commenter
for impacted populations.
a. N–400 Fee Increase wrote that USCIS irrationally dismissed Response: DHS recognizes the
Comment: Some commenters stated Congressional instructions to remove importance of naturalization to
that USCIS does not have statutory barriers to naturalization by relying on individual beneficiaries and American
authority for raising the naturalization a principle of ‘‘self-sufficiency’’ that society as a whole. However, there are
fees. USCIS asserts without support. Another no specific provisions in the law
Response: DHS disagrees that USCIS (including the INA or the United
90 The longstanding interpretation of DHS is that

does not have the statutory authority to the ‘‘including’’ clause in section 286(m) does not Nations Declaration of Human Rights)
raise naturalization fees. The Form N– constrain DHS’s fee authority under the statute. The that require USCIS to set fees to
400 fee adjustment is consistent with ‘‘including’’ clause offers only a non-exhaustive list encourage individuals to obtain U.S.
INA section 286(m), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m) of some of the costs that DHS may consider part of citizenship.
the full costs of providing adjudication and
(authorizing DHS to charge fees for naturalization services. See 8 U.S.C. 1356(m); 84 FR
In response to comments, DHS
adjudication and naturalization services 23930, 23932 n.1 (May 23, 2019); 81 FR 26903, provides that the fee for Form N–400
at a level to ‘‘ensure recovery of the full 26906 n.10 (May 4, 2016). will remain fee waivable for VAWA self-
petitioners T and U nonimmigrants, SIJ or 61.4 percent, above the previous over time would result in sufficient
petitioners and recipients who have combined cost of Form N–400 and the revenue to recover the cost of
been placed in out-of-home care under biometric services fee. adjudicating and processing Form N–
the supervision of a juvenile court or a The fee for this form is increasing 400. DHS is increasing the fee for Form
state child welfare agency, and Special more than for most other forms because N–400, Application for Naturalization,
Immigrant Afghan and Iraqi translators. DHS has historically held the fee for to recover the full cost of adjudication.
DHS is aware of the United Nations’ Form N–400 below the estimated cost to The revenue generated by the previous
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, USCIS of adjudicating the form in fee is insufficient to recover the full cost
and we agree with the declaration’s recognition of the social value of of adjudication. DHS held the current
article 15 which provides that everyone citizenship. However, in this final rule N–400 fee at less than the cost of
has the right to a nationality and no one DHS is emphasizing the beneficiary- adjudication when it last adjusted the
shall be arbitrarily deprived of his pays principle for establishing user fees. fee on December 23, 2016. See 81 FR
nationality nor denied the right to This means that the fee for Form N–400 73307. In this final rule, DHS
change his nationality.91 Congress has will now represent the estimated full emphasizes the beneficiary-pays
authorized DHS to fund USCIS cost to USCIS of adjudicating the form, principle of user fees so that applicants
naturalization services from fees, and plus a proportional share of overhead will be primarily responsible for
does not fund USCIS through costs and the costs of providing similar covering the cost of adjudicating their
appropriations. See INA section 286(m), services at a reduced or no charge to applications. This requires an increase
8 U.S.C. 1356(m). Our fees are set using asylum applicants and other in the fee for Form N–400 to $1,160 for
notice and comment rulemaking as immigrants. In other words, the fee for online filing or $1,170 for paper filing.
permitted by law and we provide a Form N–400 will now be determined in Phasing in the increase over multiple
robust explanation of the need for the the same manner as most other USCIS years would require increasing other
fees and respond to public comments. fees. Because DHS has held the fee for fees by greater amounts to generate the
Furthermore, the fee for an application Form N–400 below full cost in the past, revenue necessary to cover the costs not
for naturalization will be $1,170 and fee adjusting to full cost requires an recovered due to the lower Form N–400
waivers will be available to VAWA, T, increase in excess of the volume- fee. Therefore, DHS declines to adopt
U, SIJ and Afghan/Iraqi SIV applicants. weighted average increase of 20 percent. the commenters’ suggestions.
See new 8 CFR 106.2(b)(3) and If DHS did not increase the fee for Form
Comment: A commenter stated that
106.3(a)(3). DHS recognizes that some N–400 this amount, other fees would
need to increase further to generate the the fees for Forms N–400 and N–600
applicants would need to pay for the should not be more than $500, and
fees absent a fee waiver but does not revenue necessary to recover full cost,
including the costs of Form N–400 not indicated that DHS should decrease the
believe the increase will prevent people fees so that more immigrants can afford
from filing for naturalization. As covered by its fee. Thus, DHS believes
the increase in the fee for Form N–400 to apply without relying on a fee waiver.
previously indicated, USCIS monitors The commenter stated that the fee
the proportion of lawful permanent is fully justified.
Comment: Many commenters opposed increase is a hardship and referenced
residents who naturalize over time and refugees, Special Immigrant Visas, and
the proposed fee increase by comparing
this tracking has a high degree of Afghan/Iraqi interpreters should pay
its 60 percent increase against the 4
accuracy and the most recent published lower fees for humanitarian reasons.
percent inflation rate over the same
analysis shows that the proportion of Response: Charging a limited fee
period. A commenter recommended that
LPRs naturalizing increased over time shifts the cost of processing and
DHS raise the fee for Form N–400 to
from the 1970s to 2004, despite the $737.70, to account for inflation. A adjudicating those benefits to other
increase in the naturalization fee over commenter wrote that DHS should base applicants and petitioners, which is not
that time period. naturalization fee increases on inflation equitable given the significant increase
Comment: An individual commenter
only. Another commenter stated that, in Form N–400 filings in recent years.92
stated that the rule’s justification—that
adjusted for inflation since its original The new fees for Forms N–600 and N–
fee increases are needed to cover costs—
price in 1985, the citizenship 400 implement the beneficiary-pays
does not support the Form N–400,
application should cost $85, rather than principle, which ensures that those
Application for Naturalization, fee
the $725 it currently is or the proposed individuals who receive a benefit pay
increase. The commenter wrote that $1,170. Likewise, another commenter for the processing of the relevant
USCIS’ projected cost increases are only cited a Stanford News article in application, petition, or request. The N–
13 or 20 percent and the proposal would commenting that the inflated price of 400 fees of $1,160 if filed online and
raise fees by 60 percent. naturalization applications should only
Response: DHS acknowledges that the $1,170 if filed on paper are set to
be $80.25. Another commenter stated recover the full cost of adjudicating the
fee for Form N–400, Application for
that, if inflated since 1994, the current Form N–400.93 In addition, DHS has
Naturalization, is increasing by a greater
naturalization fee would be $95. provided in the final rule that certain
percentage than the total increase in Another commenter recommended that
USCIS costs and the average increase in Afghan/Iraqi interpreters are eligible for
naturalization fees be set at a percentage N–400 fee waivers, provided that they
fees generally. DHS is raising the fee for of the taxable income reported by
Form N–400 from $640, plus the $85 file Form I–912, Request for Fee Waiver,
applicants over the past 2 years. A and meet the fee waiver eligibility
biometric services fee, if applicable, to commenter stated that the proposed
a total fee including biometric services requirements. See 8 CFR 106.3.
naturalization fee increases should be
fee of $1,160 if filed online or $1,170 if phased in over a number of years in 92 Based on filing volume trends in recent years,
filed on a paper application. The order to reduce its burden on USCIS forecasts an increase of 82,827 Form N–400
estimated average fee of $1,165 is $445, applicants. applications, nearly a 10 percent increase from the
Response: DHS appreciates the FY 2016/2017 fee rule forecast. See NPRM Table 4:
91 See Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Workload Volume Comparison.
Available at https://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/
recommendations but neither adjusting 93 For more information, see Appendix VII: Final
Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf (last the fee for Form N–400 by inflation nor Fees by Immigration Benefit Request that
viewed March 16, 2020). phasing the fee increase in gradually accompanies this final rule.
Comment: An individual commenter immigrants identified financial and prior fee rules, DHS reasoned that
stated that the rule’s justification—that administrative barriers, mainly the cost setting the Form N–400 fee at an amount
fee increases are needed to cover costs— of naturalization. Two commenters said less than its estimated cost and shifting
does not support the naturalization fee that barriers to naturalization those costs to other fee payers was
increase. The commenter wrote that disproportionately endanger Mexican appropriate in order to promote
USCIS’ projected cost increases are only workers, who are more likely to naturalization and immigrant
20 percent and the proposal would raise experience worker exploitation and four integration.97 DHS now believes that
fees by 60 percent. times more likely to die in the shifting costs to other applicants in this
Response: As stated in the NPRM, in workplace than U.S.-born workers. manner is not equitable given the
crafting prior fee rules, DHS reasoned Another commenter indicated that the significant increase in Form N–400
that setting the Form N–400 fee at an naturalization fee amounted to a filings in recent years.98 Therefore, DHS
amount less than its estimated costs and month’s gross income for an immigrant will no longer limit the Form N–400 fee,
shifting those costs to other fee payers and therefore would make it too thereby mitigating the fee increase of
was appropriate in order to promote difficult to afford citizenship other immigration benefit requests and
naturalization and immigrant applications. Another commenter implementing the beneficiary-pays
integration.94 DHS now believes that indicated that the naturalization fee principle. In this final rule, DHS
shifting costs to other applicants in this represents 50 to 100 percent of a foreign institutes a fee of $1,160 for Form N–
manner is not equitable given the resident’s monthly income. A 400 if filed online and a fee of $1,170
significant increase in Form N–400 commenter questioned the if filed on a paper form to recover the
filings in recent years.95 Therefore, DHS naturalization application fee increased full cost of adjudicating the Form N–
proposes to no longer limit the Form N– based on 2 hours of work and asked 400.99
400 fee to a level below the cost of about the hourly wage or a week’s salary Comment: A commenter faulted
adjudication, thereby mitigating the fee for a typical American household. USCIS’ economic model for the Form
increase of other immigration benefit Another commenter opposed USCIS’ N–400 fee increases. The commenter
requests and implementing the rationale, writing that while it may wrote that USCIS increased the activity-
beneficiary-pays principle. In this final receive more naturalization based cost (ABC) model baseline with
rule, DHS institutes a $1,160 fee for applications, naturalization no explanation, failed to account for fee
Form N–400 if filed online and a fee of adjudication levels remain flat despite waivers, increased the model output for
$1,170 if filed on paper to recover the receipt increases. An individual Form N–400 by 18 percent, and failed
full cost of adjudicating the Form N– commented that the proposed to account for the cost-savings of online
400, as well as the cost of similar service naturalization fee increase would Form N–400 filings. A commenter stated
provided without charge to asylum prevent residents from seeking that the proposal belies its ‘‘beneficiary-
applicants and other immigrants.96 citizenship, citing data on financial and pays’’ principle by charging
DHS acknowledges that the fee for administrative barriers as bars to naturalization applicants a higher
Form N–400, Application for naturalization. Another individual amount than the cost of processing of
Naturalization, is increasing by a greater described the extent of the fee’s burden their own applications, subsidizing
percentage than the total increase in by comparing it against the average other immigration-related expenditures.
USCIS costs and the average increase in income of immigrants. Likewise, another commenter wrote that
fees generally. DHS is raising the fee for A commenter wrote that the proposal the proposal arbitrarily departs from
Form N–400, Application for would act as a barrier to immigrants past practice of capping the ‘‘model
Naturalization, from $640, plus the $85 with middle or lower class income and output’’ increase to 5 percent, setting
biometric services fee, if applicable, to cited an analysis from the Pew Research the new level at 18–19 percent. A
a fee of $1,160 if filed online or $1,170 Center that found immigrants age 16 commenter wrote that the proposed
if filed on a paper application. The and over who arrived in the U.S. in the naturalization fee increase could
estimated average fee of $1,165 is $445, past five years had median annual actually be detrimental to USCIS
or 61.4 percent, above the previous earnings of $24,000, and those who finances, as fewer immigrants would
combined cost of Form N–400 and the arrived in the U.S. in the last ten years apply. The commenter faulted USCIS’
biometric services fee. had median annual earnings of $32,000. rationale as failing to discuss
Comment: Multiple commenters The commenter cited another analysis operational effectiveness despite
requested that USCIS ensure that from the same organization showing the increasing fees beyond projected
naturalization remain affordable. A U.S. foreign-born population was 44.4 processing volume increases and failing
commenter stated that the cost and fees million in 2017, and that 800,000 to justify a $745-per-hour processing
are a significant amount and immigrants applied for naturalization in cost for naturalization applications—a
2018. One commenter provided cost exceeding that charged by private
discourages immigrants from applying
citations to various sources detailing the
to become US citizens. The commenter lawyers to corporate clients. The
widespread lack of adequate savings
cited to a 2015 Pew Research Center commenter also cited Government
among many Americans, particularly
asked Mexican green-card holders Finance Officers Association guidelines
black and Latino households, and that
additional 13 percent of Mexican and 19 in writing that high-demand benefits are
the proposal would deprive families of
percent of non-Mexican lawful made affordable by government entities.
the ability to work and pursue
94 See,
opportunities. The commenter said the
e.g., 75 FR 33461; 81 FR 26916. 97 See, e.g., 75 FR 33461; 81 FR 26916.
proposal would cause ‘‘irreparable
95 Based on filing volume trends in recent years, 98 Based on filing volume trends in recent years,
USCIS forecasts an increase of 82,827 Form N–400 harm’’ to families forced out of the legal USCIS forecasts an increase of 82,827 Form N–400
applications, nearly a 10 percent increase from the immigration system by unaffordable applications, nearly a 10 percent increase from the
FY 2016/2017 fee rule forecast. See Table 4: fees. FY 2016/2017 fee rule forecast. See NPRM Table 4:
Workload Volume Comparison. Response: DHS understands that the Workload Volume Comparison.
96 For more information, see Appendix VII: Final 99 For more information, see Appendix VII: Final
Fees by Immigration Benefit Request of the

increase for the naturalization Fees by Immigration Benefit Request of the
supporting documentation that accompanies this application may affect those applying. supporting documentation that accompanies this
final rule. As explained in the NPRM, in crafting final rule.
Response: DHS understands the no or reduced charge to asylum commenter also provided statistics of
commenter’s concerns regarding the applicants and other immigrants. the number of immigrants who
effect the fee increase on USCIS’ Furthermore, each fee incorporates costs naturalize in the United States against
financial well-being. DHS recognizes related to USCIS overheads and general higher figures from Australia, Canada,
that, if the increase in fee for Form N– administrative costs. In this final rule, and the United Kingdom.
400 discouraged significant numbers of DHS establishes a fee of $1,160 for Form Response: DHS does not agree that
individuals from naturalizing, USCIS N–400 if filed online and a fee of $1,170 this final rule is inconsistent with the
could realize less revenue than with a if filed on paper to reflect the full cost Vice-President’s statement.100 The
lower fee for Form N–400. However, to USCIS of processing these filings. statement did not include any
DHS believes that most individuals will DHS believes it has fully justified these references to fee or fee waivers or
continue to value American citizenship, fees. exemptions, instead the statement
even if it is more expensive to Comment: Another commenter references the ability of different people
naturalize. In the wake of past increases faulted DHS’ abandonment of the with different backgrounds to be able to
in the fee for Form N–400, USCIS has ‘‘ability-to-pay’’ principle, asking for naturalize. The rate of naturalization has
not experienced a decline in application more transparency as to the changes in increased over the years and DHS does
volumes. DHS does not anticipate that N–400 trends and how other applicants not believe that this final rule would
Form N–400 application volumes will subsidized naturalization. The have a significant effect on the number
decrease following the fee increase in commenter also stated that DHS’ of people filing Form N–400.
this final rule. assumption that applicants will Comment: A commenter claimed that
DHS notes that the critiques of its continue to submit applications USCIS has failed to provide the
ABC model misunderstand what model regardless of their eligibility for a fee evidence necessary for the agency to
outputs represent, how they incorporate waiver is unfounded. The commenter save money by no longer providing
fee waivers, and how they translate into provided another citation to the printed N–400 forms for people with
final fees. DHS never limits the model proposal where DHS appears to low technology literacy, requiring them
output for any form type. The model recognize that removing fee waivers to access the forms at public libraries
output represents the estimated fee- would impact application decisions, and community organizations. The
paying unit cost for a given form. and then states that it cannot predict the commenter wrote that USCIS has failed
Meaning, the model output would proposal’s impact on applications. A to account for the impact those savings
recover the full cost of adjudicating that different commenter stated that, in a had on the agency’s budget, as well as
form type, given the anticipated fee- footnote, USCIS indicates that the true on the ability of LPRs to submit their
paying rate for that form. However, intent of the proposal is to impose a naturalization applications.
given that DHS determined to limit the ‘‘self-sufficiency’’ principle and impose Response: As the commenter points
fee increase for certain form types, barriers to naturalization contrary to out, DHS is encouraging applicants to
USCIS must reallocate costs that will Congressional intent. A commenter also file online when they can, moving
not be recovered by the lower, limited stated that when President Johnson toward modernizing all of our services,
fees to other form types. Thus, the fees signed the Immigration and minimizing the use of paper, and
for most form types are greater than the Naturalization Act of 1965 into law, it increasing agency efficiency through
calculated model outputs in order to ushered in our modern era with a more technology. It requires 10 days to
generate revenue sufficient to cover the equitable system. receive forms after ordering them from
cost of adjudicating form types with fees Response: The quote of President the phone and mail service, as opposed
held below the model output and ensure Johnson cited by the commenter to immediate access via the website. All
that USCIS achieve full cost recovery referred to the elimination of the USCIS forms are easily accessible by
overall. DHS acknowledges that, in past previous quota system that had severely visiting the USCIS website, and
fee rules, DHS has limited the increase restricted the number of people from applicants may either file electronically
in the fee for Form N–400 below the outside Western Europe who were or download the form and submit it in
model output for that form. This choice allowed to immigrate to the United paper format according to the form
forced other fee-paying applicants to States. The 1965 Act did not discuss the instructions. If an individual visits a
pay higher fees and bear the cost of fees for naturalization. The 1965 Act did USCIS office, we will direct them to
generating the revenue that was not not provide for specific fee exemptions digital tools and USCIS Contact Center
recovered from the Form N–400 fees or waivers. DHS considered the self- phone number. Understanding some
because of the lower fee. In the NPRM, sufficiency principles as established by individuals may not have access to the
DHS noted that it no longer believes this Congress along with other provision of digital tools, our staff will make them
approach to setting the fee for Form N– the law and the added cost to other fee- aware of resources, such as libraries that
400 is equitable, given high volumes of paying applicants and petitioners. DHS offer free computer online services,
Form N–400 filings, the significant believes that it is neither equitable nor including many that offer a Citizenship
amount of costs other fee-paying in accordance with the principle of self- Corner. USCIS works closely with
applicants would have to bear if DHS sufficiency that Congress has frequently accredited community-based
limited the increase in fee for Form N– emphasized, to continue to force certain organizations and local libraries to
400, and its emphasis on the other applicants to subsidize fee-waived provide access to information and
beneficiary-pays principle of user fees. and reduced-fee applications for computers. Public libraries can be a
Therefore, DHS disagrees that this naturalization applicants who are resource for immigration information,
change in practice is arbitrary. unable to pay the full cost fee. and many have a Citizenship Corner
The commenter is mistaken in Comment: A commenter contrasted where the public can visit and learn
calculating the cost per hour to process the proposed rule against a speech from more about the citizenship process
Form N–400 as $745. As with all USCIS Vice President Pence where he stated,
fees, the fee for Form N–400 reflects not ‘‘America has the most generous system 100 Remarks by Vice President Pence at a
only the direct costs of processing an of legal immigration in the history of the Naturalization Ceremony, July 4, 2019, available at
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/
individual Form N–400 filing but also world,’’ writing that the proposal would remarks-vice-president-pence-naturalization-
the cost of providing similar services at be inconsistent with this statement. The ceremony (last visited March 9, 2020).
libraries may also have computers that other suggestions provided by higher fee or forgo naturalization,
the public may use to access forms, commenters. subjecting themselves and their children
complete, and print them. USCIS has Comment: One commenter took issue to the stresses of uncertain status.
enjoyed a costs savings from reducing with the use of terms like ‘‘moral • The mental health problems and
the storage and mailing of paper forms, turpitude’’ and ‘‘good moral character’’ traumas faced by children of
as well as destroying unused stocks of since these terms lack a legal definition. undocumented parents would be
paper forms when versions changed, but The commenter said the proposed fee exacerbated.
not enough of a savings to have an increases would prevent many LPRs • The increase is harmful—the
appreciable effect on the new fees in from pursuing citizenship, and that the United States Census Bureau reported
this final rule. lack of a legal definition for certain that between 1970 and 2010 the
Comment: A commenter terms would increase the amount of percentage of foreign-born populations
recommended several alternatives to the time individuals are at risk of losing who naturalized decreased from 64
proposed fee increases, including legal status. percent to 44 percent, A 20 percent
bundling fees for Forms I–90 and N– Response: DHS did not propose a decrease in 40 years is a drastic drop
400, offering premium processing at a change to the eligibility provisions for and one reason for this is due to the
fee, offering tiered pricing for Form N– benefit requests such as adjustment of increased in prices for naturalization
400, and offering fee reductions based status to lawful permanent resident or applications.
on applicant’s income taxes. A naturalization, for which a ‘‘crime • Naturalization provides personal
commenter suggested that USCIS adopt involving moral turpitude’’ and ‘‘good security for immigrants, particularly
a sliding scale application fee for moral character’’ may be relevant those who are in danger of worker
naturalization based on income. statutory terms. Therefore, we are not exploitation without the full legal rights
Another commenter suggested a including changes to those terms in the of citizenship.
payment installment plan for final rule. • Citizenship helps members of
immigrants who cannot pay the full immigrant communities to feel secure
b. Effect on Naturalization Applicants enough to report crime, which improves
amount at once, as well as micro-loans.
The commenter also suggested the Comment: Many comments offered neighborhood safety.
creation of a citizenship foundation various comments on the effects of the • Limiting working class immigration
similar to that which funds the National proposed naturalization fee increase on would be contrary to the interests of the
Park Service. naturalization applicants. Commenters U.S. society and economy.
wrote that the new fees: • Naturalization boosts American
Response: As previously indicated, • Would prevent residents from democracy, economy, and diversity.
DHS recognizes that filing fees are a seeking citizenship, citing data on • Everyone benefits from residents
burden for some people of limited financial and administrative barriers as naturalizing, citing a study showing that
financial means. Creating and bars to naturalization. naturalization increases net taxable
maintaining a new system of tiered • Will not just delay, but ultimately income and GDP.
pricing, family caps, installments plans, prevent low income and poor • Naturalization increases individual
or micro-loans would be immigrants from naturalizing, and the earnings. A San Francisco Pathways to
administratively complex and would U.S. is engaging in implicit racism, Citizenship Initiative study program’s
require even higher costs than in the citing the U.S.’s history of denying participants used financial assistance to
NPRM. Such payment systems would citizenship based on race. afford the naturalization application fee.
require staff dedicated to payment • The proposal would punish The funds provided by the city to
verification and necessitate significant immigrants who did their utmost to support such fees ‘‘would be depleted
information system changes to obey immigration laws. almost immediately’’ if the proposed
accommodate multiple fee scenarios for • The proposal would harm the rule goes into effect.
every form. The costs and Latino community—more than half of • Citizenship promotes social
administrative burden associated with the immigrants currently eligible to benefits, such as English proficiency,
implementing such a system would naturalize are Latino while 71 percent of quality of employment, and buy-in to
require additional overall fee revenue. the population that face the greatest U.S. democratic principles.
However, as previously stated, the cost barriers to naturalization are Latino. • Naturalization improves immigrant
of fee waivers and reduced fees are • Naturalization fees are a significant language skills.
borne by all other fee payers because bar to Mexican immigrants becoming • If half of LPRs naturalized, GDP
they must be transferred to those who U.S. citizens with 13 percent of Mexican would increase between $37 and $52
pay a full fee to ensure full cost and 19 percent of non-Mexican lawful billion annually.
recovery. DHS believes that it is more immigrants identifying financial and • LPRs must navigate many hurdles
equitable to align with the beneficiary- administrative barriers, mainly the cost to naturalize, and that at a certain point,
pays principle. Thus, USCIS takes a of naturalization, as a reason preventing the United States misses out on the
relatively careful position with respect their naturalization. benefits of high naturalization rates
to transferring costs from one applicant • 2.1 million immigrants are eligible because of these hurdles. Naturalization
to another through the expansion of fee for naturalization in the state of boosts American democracy, economy,
waiver eligibility and discounting fees. California, and the new fee would and diversity, citing a Catholic
To set fees at various levels based on severely affect 1 million Californians Immigration Network study.
income, as suggested by the commenter, including 768,024 that live in Los • Naturalization increases civic
would require deviation from the Angeles County. engagement, naming many naturalized
underlying fee-setting methodology and • The proposal would increase citizens who have gone on to hold
require some of the costs for those immigrants’ dependence on predatory elected office.
applications to be reassigned to other financing in order to support their • A 2015 Urban Institute study shows
benefit requests. Therefore, DHS did not naturalization applications. that naturalization increased individual
incorporate a reduced fee, sliding scale, • Would harm eligible parents of U.S. earnings by 8.9 percent, employment
or family cap in this final rule or the children who will either have to pay a rates by 2.2 percent, and
homeownership by 6.3 percent, with the a high degree of accuracy because it condition, but DHS does not know that
earnings and employment uses administrative data rather than to generally be the case, and DHS is not
improvements resulting in $5.7 billion survey data (as the Census does) to basing fee policies on that assumption
of additional income in the 21 cities assess changes in naturalization but rather emphasizing the beneficiary-
studied and increases home ownership patterns. The most recent published pays principle. Further, USCIS monitors
and incomes. analysis shows that the proportion of the proportion of lawful permanent
• If eligible immigrants naturalized, LPRs naturalizing increased over time residents who naturalize over time. This
federal, state, and city revenues would from the 1970s to 2004, despite the analysis has a high degree of accuracy
increase by $20 billion while New York increase in the naturalization fee over because it uses administrative data
City government benefit expenditures that time period.101 DHS does not have rather than survey data (as Census does)
would decrease by $34 million. any data that indicates that this trend to assess changes in naturalization
• A 2015 Urban Institute study would change. patterns. The most recent published
demonstrates that if just half of eligible Comment: A commenter stated that analysis shows that the proportion of
immigrants in the United States all asylees rely on naturalization for the LPRs naturalizing increased over time
naturalize, it would increase GDP by right to petition for certain family from the 1970s to 2004, despite the
$37–52 billion, annually, and if all members. The commenter stated that increase in the naturalization fee over
eligible immigrants in 21 U.S. cities with the additional financial burden of that time period.102 DHS declines to
naturalized, home ownership would naturalization fees, family reunification make changes in this final rule in
increase by more than 45,000 people for asylees will be delayed or prevented. response to the comment.
and an additional $2 billion in tax Response: DHS recognizes that
asylees may petition for family members c. N–400 Reduced Fee
revenue would be recognized.
• A 2002 Bratsberg et al. study after completing the naturalization Comment: Commenters stated that the
showed that naturalization led to wage process. DHS wants every person fee waiver and partial fee waiver would
increases as observed in the same eligible to apply for naturalization to be eliminated for families with income
individuals over time. submit an application. Likewise, we between 150 percent and 200 percent of
• A 2012 Migration Policy Institute encourage anyone eligible to petition for the poverty level and almost eliminated
study shows naturalization contributes the immigration of qualifying family for everyone else. A commenter
to increased economic growth through members. DHS does not believe that indicating the eliminating the reduced
consumer spending. asylees would be unduly burdened by fee for people with incomes from 150 to
• Several show the current naturalization fees and does not agree 200 percent of the FPG would make it
application fee discourages that naturalization fees would prevent too difficult for immigrants to afford
naturalization, and that naturalization or delay family reunification for asylees. citizenship. An individual commenter
positively impacts wages, the economy, DHS is also unaware of any specific mentioned the fee waiver and partial fee
and immigrants’ integration into society. statutory provision requiring DHS to waiver system strengthened by the
• A 2019 Migration Policy Institute provide naturalization applications to Obama administration, and stated that
study shows that naturalized citizens asylees with limited fees. DHS declines this rule would eliminate these options
over the age of 25 have similar levels of to make any changes in this final rule for families with income between 150
post-secondary education to U.S.-born in response to this comment. percent and 200 percent of the poverty
citizens and that, through Comment: Another commenter stated level and almost eliminate waivers for
naturalization, these immigrants can that the NPRM would further everyone else.
better integrate into and contribute to disadvantage people with disabilities Response: DHS acknowledges that
their local communities. The and chronic mental health conditions, eliminating the reduced fee for the
naturalization fee increases have caused contrary to Congressional intent to make naturalization application will limit the
the number of immigrants eligible to immigration benefits available to number of people who receive a
naturalize but not doing so to 9 million, eligible noncitizens regardless of reduced fee and slightly increase the
and the proposal would diminish U.S.- disability. The commenter wrote that, in number of people who are required to
specific human capital. addition to the increased naturalization pay the full fee. However, few
• A 2019 Center for Migration Studies fees, people with disabilities and applicants have requested the reduced
paper shows the impact of chronic mental health conditions often fee since its creation and significantly
naturalization on college degree must pay to appeal erroneous findings fewer applicants than predicted took
attainment, English-language skills, by USCIS officers who conduct advantage of the reduced fee option. In
employment in skilled occupations, naturalization interviews with no other words, the reduced fee option was
healthcare, poverty level, and home medical training and make assumptions not widely received, and DHS does not
ownership. regarding their clients’ disabilities. believe its elimination will significantly
Response: DHS appreciates and Response: DHS is adjusting its fees in hinder the number of people who
acknowledges all of the positive aspects this final rule to recover the estimated cannot pay the full fee established in
of naturalization. DHS does not intend full cost of providing adjudication and this final rule.
for the new fees to prevent individuals naturalization services. As the The estimated total number of
from applying for naturalization, that commenter suggests, DHS is applying approved reduced fee requests in fiscal
they require applicants to depend on the fees in this final rule to all year 2017 was 3,624 (0.83 percent). The
predatory financing to pay applicants regardless of their having a total number of denied reduced fee
naturalization application fees, and we disability or not. The comment seems to requests was 733. In total, DHS
do not believe the rule will have those equate physical disability and mental estimates the annual number of requests
effects. Therefore, DHS declines to make health conditions with poor financial for a reduced Form N–400 fee that
any changes in this final rule on these
101 See USCIS, Trends in Naturalization Rates: FY 102 See USCIS Trends in Naturalization Rates: FY
bases.
2014 Update (November 2016), available at https:// 2014 (November 2016) Update, available at https://
USCIS monitors the proportion of www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Resources/ www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Resources/
lawful permanent residents who Reports/Trends-in-Naturalization-Rates-FY14- Reports/Trends-in-Naturalization-Rates-FY14-
naturalize over time. This analysis has Update.pdf. Update.pdf.
would be filed absent the proposed 25. Other Naturalization and Comment: Commenters opposed the
change is 4,357 (0.6 percent). For Citizenship Forms proposed fees for the following
comparison, the total number of Form naturalization and related forms:
Comment: A commenter opposed the • N–300, Application to File
N–400 filed in fiscal year 2017 was
Form N–600 fee increase, writing that Declaration of Intention;
581,998. See Table 38 in the RIA.
USCIS would receive more revenue and • N–336, Request for a Hearing on a
DHS proposes to eliminate the avoid administrative difficulties if the
reduced fee in order to recover the Decision in Naturalization Proceedings
fee were reasonable. A commenter (Under Section 336 of the INA); and
estimated full cost for naturalization opposed the fee increase for Forms N–
services. In addition, eliminating the • N–470, Application to Preserve
600 and N–535 [sic], stating that no Residence for Naturalization Purposes.
Form I–942 will reduce the explanation has been provided to These commenters stated that
administrative burden on the agency to explain why those increases are immigrants who need to file these
process the Form I–942. USCIS would necessary. special forms would face additional
recover the cost of adjudicating Form
Response: DHS disagrees with this barriers to naturalization.
N–400 and not transfer Form N–400 Commenters indicated that some
comment. DHS calculated the estimated
costs to other form fees. immigrants use Form N–300 in order to
cost to USCIS of adjudicating Form N–
d. Case Processing 600. This change aligns more closely work in certain states. The proposed
with the beneficiary-pays principle to rule would increase this fee by 389
Comment: A commenter wrote that ensure that individuals who receive an percent, to $1,320 or five weeks of
the proposed naturalization fee increase immigration benefit or service from minimum wage take-home pay.
is not supported by any improvement in USCIS bear the cost of providing that Some immigrants use Form N–336 to
quality of services. It added that, in benefit or service. Therefore, DHS file an appeal if their naturalization
1998, INS announced a fee increase but believes the fee as established is application is denied by USCIS. The
claimed that it would only follow a reasonable based on USCIS costs. proposed rule would increase this fee by
reduction in the backlog and 151 percent, to $1,755 or seven weeks
Comment: A commenter stated that
acceleration of processing speeds. The of minimum wage take-home pay. The
the Form N–600 fee is especially cruel
commenter contrasted this statement commenter stated that USCIS provided
as it has been inflated for years, ‘‘not
against the current backlog of 700,000, no justification for its Form N–336 fee
getting their certificate of citizenship
cited from a 2019 Colorado State increase and that the increase would
limits their college options, and most
Advisory Committee paper. The especially affect the most vulnerable
families have more than one child.’’
commenter also provided a lengthy populations by charging a total of
quotation from a 2017 OIG report stating Response: DHS disagrees that the fees
for Forms N–600 and N–600K were $2,925 to navigate a faulty system.
that USCIS has introduced operational Some immigrants use Form N–470 if
inefficiencies as processing times inflated for years. As noted in the FY
2016/2017 fee rule, the current fees for they plan to work abroad for a U.S.
doubled and naturalization interviews company, university, or government
were cancelled. The commenter Forms N–600 and N–600K assumed that
approximately one third of applicants agency before applying for U.S.
mentioned the suspension of InfoPass citizenship. The proposed rule would
services specifically as an example of would receive a fee waiver. See 81 FR
73928. To recover full cost, DHS set the increase this fee by 351 percent, to
diminished customer service. $1,600 or six weeks of minimum wage
fees for Forms N–600 and N–600K at a
A commenter wrote that the proposal level for fee-paying applicants to cover take-home pay.
would compound policies made at the The comment stated that in all of
the cost of fee-waived work. Id.
local level which are already increasing these cases, immigrants living in the
In this fee rule, the fees for Forms N– United States could be prevented from
barriers to naturalization, such as the
600 and N–600K are decreasing mainly increasing their income, obtaining the
USCIS field office in Seattle’s 2019
because of the proposed limitation of fee right to vote, and reuniting with family
decision to shift caseloads to offices
waivers, which will enable greater cost members abroad because they are
more than 142 or 174 miles away.
recovery for several form types and limit unable to afford the proposed
A commenter provided figures of the the need for cost reallocation to fee-
LPRs eligible to naturalize and the naturalization fees.
paying applicants. The proposed fees Response: Consistent with full cost
backlogs in Denver and that the fee provide for the full recovery of costs
increase will further deter eligible recovery and the beneficiary-pays
associated with adjudicating the forms. principle emphasized throughout this
adults from naturalizing. In addition, DHS is providing fee final rule, the new fees represents
A commenter claimed that without waivers for the humanitarian categories USCIS’ estimated full cost of
increasing fees, with automation and for Forms N–400, N–600, and N–600K. adjudicating the forms at the time of
management reforms, the Form N–400 In addition, not obtaining a certificate USCIS’ FY 2019/2020 fee review. USCIS
processing period in their region has of citizenship does not limit a person’s used all available data at the time it
decreased to an average of less than 12 college options because there are other conducted its fee review to estimate the
months, undermining the necessity of a means to establish citizenship. Upon full cost of adjudication for benefit
fee increase. meeting the requirements of INA 320, requests. DHS does not believe that the
Response: DHS does not believe the children of U.S. citizens automatically changes in the fees will limit the ability
rule changes will delay processing or acquire U.S. citizenship. Applying for a of noncitizens to obtain the required
deny access. USCIS will adapt and certificate of citizenship is only one
documentation to be eligible to work if

change its process as necessary to avoid means to acquire proof of such qualified.
or minimize any delays in case citizenship. Applicants who acquired
processing. Nevertheless, by enabling U.S. citizenship may also obtain a H. Comments on Changes to Form I–
USCIS to hire more employees to passport to establish proof of 129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant
process requests, including requests on citizenship. Further, some colleges Worker
hand, USCIS also believes the new fees permit nonimmigrants and lawful Comment: Multiple commenters
will help reduce backlogs. permanent residents to attend college. objected to the increase in fees for
petitions requesting O and P Comment: Commenters on the effect ‘‘arbitrary.’’ A few commenters stated
nonimmigrant status. Commenters of the religious worker program stated: that USCIS fails to provide any
highlighted the increased costs and • That the proposed changes to Form information or data supporting the 25-
burdens to U.S.-based petitioners, I–129 unduly burden religious person limit or increased fees. One
including non-profit organizations, organizations because religious workers commenter questioned how USCIS
small entities, and cultural institutions. have limited means to petition for R determined their per worker/petition
Some commenters objected to treating nonimmigrants, hindering their ability cost because it would cost the same to
petitions for O and P visa classifications to provide pastoral care while have a petitioner with one beneficiary as
differently, as DHS proposed to create respecting vows of poverty. it would to have a petitioner with 25
Form I–129O for entities to petition for • Petitioners requesting R beneficiaries. A few commenters
O visa classification and Form I– nonimmigrant workers currently pay a suggested that the proposed 25-
129MISC to petition for P visa $460 fee for Form I–129. Under the beneficiary cap as applied to arts
classification and other categories of proposal, the fee would be $705, a $245 ensembles would multiply costs for arts
nonimmigrant visas. A commenter or 53 percent increase. organizations and would preclude them
wrote that the proposed Form I– • The steep fee increases would have from considering larger performing
129MISC would only further delay P- a chilling effect on U.S. religious groups. The commenters also said the
visa classification processing, especially workers and would burden religious 25-beneficiary cap would create ‘‘new
as P, Q, R, and H–3 visa classifications orders and their vital work in American risks for USCIS confusion’’ and
are vastly different. Another commenter communities. unnecessary processing delays. A
said the I–129MISC classifications are • International religious workers commenter suggested that O- and P-
so vastly different that there is a higher provide critical pastoral care and social nonimmigrant classifications also limit
risk that an officer will apply certain services for American parishioners and the numbers of beneficiaries on a single
criteria to the P visa classification that communities. petition, reasoning that USCIS should
• These fees would
is only applicable to another not apply the same fee for cases with
disproportionately affect small religious
classification. A few commenters stated fewer beneficiaries. Some commenter’s
organizations that serve a charitable
Form I–129MISC is an inappropriate stated that the separating of I–129 will
function in our society.
option for P visa classification and Response: In this final rule, DHS create confusion and delays.
instead suggest combining P visa Response: DHS disagrees with
adjusts the fees for all types of Form I–
classification form with Form I–129O or commenters that the separating of Form
129 to reflect the estimated full cost of
creating a separate P visa classification I–129 will create confusion and delays.
adjudication. DHS does not believe that
form to replicate I–129O with minor USCIS is limiting the number of named
the fee increases implemented in this
modifications. beneficiaries to 25 that may be included
final rule will impose unreasonable
Response: DHS acknowledges on a single petition for H–2A, H–2B, H–
burdens on petitioners, churches,
similarities between the uses of O and 3, O,103 P, Q, E, and TN workers. As
religious organizations, or small entities
P nonimmigrant visa classifications. previously discussed in section I of the
who wish to petition for a
However, USCIS currently records time preamble of the NPRM, limiting the
nonimmigrant religious worker. DHS
per adjudication (i.e., completion rates) number of named beneficiaries
realizes that many religious workers
for Form I–129 petitions requesting O simplifies and optimizes the
have limited means and some take a
visa classification discretely so we are adjudication of these petitions, which
vow of poverty, but the R–1 religious
able to calculate a separate fee for the can lead to reduced average processing
worker does not petition for his or her
O nonimmigrant classification. Time times for a petition. Because USCIS
own employment and is not responsible
spent adjudicating petitions requesting completes a background check for each
for paying the Form I–129 fee, because
P visa classification are aggregated with named beneficiary, petitions with more
the organization is required to submit
the time spent adjudicating all of the named beneficiaries require more time
Form I–129 and pay the fee. DHS
nonimmigrant classifications requested and resources to adjudicate than
declines to make changes in this final
using the new Form I–129MISC. Thus, petitions with fewer named
rule in response to these comments.
USCIS is unable to distinguish the time Comment: One commenter noted that beneficiaries. This means the cost to
spent adjudicating petitions requesting the changes to the way USCIS reviews adjudicate a petition increases with
P nonimmigrant workers from the time and adjudicates H–1B petitions have each additional named beneficiary.
spent on adjudicating requests for the resulted in slower processing times, Thus, limiting the number of named
other types of workers included in Form shifting standards for approval of beneficiaries may ameliorate the
I–129MISC, and therefore we have not petitions, and an increase in Requests inequity of petitioners filing petitions
calculated a separate fee for the P for Evidence (RFEs). with low beneficiary counts who
classification. Therefore, DHS declines Response: DHS is unsure how the effectively subsidize the cost of
commenters’ suggestions to charge the commenter thinks changes in H–1B petitioners filing petitions with high
same amount for petitions requesting O nonimmigrant adjudications impact this beneficiary counts.
nonimmigrant classification and P rulemaking. DHS is breaking the Form DHS acknowledges similarities
nonimmigrant classification and I–129 into several forms that will focus between the uses of O and P
implements fees based on data that the information collected and nonimmigrant classifications. Annual
show adjudications of O nonimmigrant instructions on the nonimmigrant receipt data for each nonimmigrant
petitions require more staff, and are category. DHS anticipates that this will classification petitioned for on Form I–
therefore more costly, than result in more efficient completion and 129 can be found in the Regulatory
adjudications of petitions for adjudication of the forms and declines Impact Analysis throughout Section (K)
nonimmigrant classifications that may to make changes in this final rule in and more specifically Table 7. However,
be requested using Form I–129MISC. response to the comment. 103 While O–1 petitions are limited to a single
DHS will revisit the fees for all of the Comment: Many commenters called named beneficiary, a petition for O–2 nonimmigrant
new Forms I–129 that are created in this the 25-person limit for Form I–129 workers may include multiple named beneficiaries
rule in the next biennial fee review. petition for H–2A, O, or P performers in certain instances. See 8 CFR 214.2(o)(2)(iii)(F).
USCIS currently records time per hundreds of named workers, implying a A commenter stated that the department
adjudication (i.e. completion rates) for high level of cross-subsidization, given failed to explain why it does not discuss
Form I–129 petitions requesting O the disparity between the cost of an option of using improved technology
nonimmigrants discretely, but records adjudicating a petition with a single to reduce processing time for named
time spent adjudicating petitions named worker and the cost of beneficiary petitions.
requesting P nonimmigrants aggregated adjudicating a petition with hundreds of Response: In this final rule, DHS
form such that it is combined with the named workers. Limiting the number of establishes the fee for each Form I–129
time spent adjudicating all classes of named beneficiaries per petition to 25 subtype at the estimated average cost of
nonimmigrant classifications that may effectively limits the amount of cross- adjudication. DHS used all available
be requested using the new Form I– subsidization per petition, because it data at the time it conducted its fee
129MISC. Thus, USCIS is unable to limits the maximum disparity in the review to estimate the cost of
distinguish the time spent adjudicating number of background checks to 24 adjudication for Form I–129 subtype.
petitions requesting P nonimmigrants (25¥1) and overall cost of adjudications DHS disagrees with the commenter who
from the time spent on adjudicating between petitions. wrote that USCIS did not have sufficient
requests for the other types of visas DHS declines to make changes in this data.
included in Form I–129MISC. final rule in response to these DHS acknowledges that some
Therefore, DHS cannot charge a separate comments. petitioners may choose to file petitions
fee for P nonimmigrants or charge the Comment: A few commenters for unnamed workers with a lower fee
same amount for petitions requesting O suggested a flat application fee with an than petitions for named workers with
and P nonimmigrants. DHS implements add-on fee per beneficiary. a higher fee. However, choosing to
fees based on data that show Response: DHS considered and petition for unnamed workers also
adjudications of O nonimmigrant rejected the approach suggested by the incurs additional costs associated with
petitions require more staff, and are commenter. Past experience has consular processing. Furthermore, in
therefore more costly, than demonstrated to DHS the complexity of some instances, petitioners may need to
adjudications of petitions for administering sliding scale fees. DHS submit petitions for named workers.
nonimmigrant workers that may be believes that the system implemented in Thus, DHS does not believe its changes
requested using Form I–129MISC. The this final rule of limiting an individual to the fee structure for petitions with
evidence suggests that the additional fee petition to a maximum of 25 named named and unnamed beneficiaries will
in this final rule does not represent a beneficiaries minimizes the substantially change petitioner
significant economic impact on these administrative complexity, while also behavior.
entities. clearly delineating the cost for DHS declines to make changes in this
Comment: A few commenters wrote individual petitioners. DHS final rule in response to these
that applicants with one or two acknowledges that this system comments.
beneficiaries are subsidizing continues cross-subsidization between Comment: A commenter stated that
applications with multiple beneficiaries, petitions that include few named members of its trade association would
which could further diminish, if not beneficiaries and those that include 25 face a 529 percent increase in filing
eliminate, farmers’ margins. A few named beneficiaries, but DHS costs because of the proposed Form I–
commenters indicated that limiting determined that 25 was a logical 129H2A changes. The commenter stated
petitions to 25 named beneficiaries and number because USCIS immigration that this change is contrary to
requiring farmers to file separate services officers could generally Congressional intent and that USCIS’
petitions would create an immense adjudicate a petition with 1–25 named justification relies on it performing
paperwork burden; multiplying the workers in 2 hours. 84 FR 62309. DHS duplicative background checks on
costs to access the H–2A program; and believes that the administrative workers who have already been vetted
increasing the workload for USCIS as simplicity of this system outweighs by the Department of State. A few
well as for farmers who produce labor concerns about cross-subsidization. commenters doubted that USCIS could
intensive agricultural commodities. Comment: Some commenters use background checks to determine
Response: DHS agrees that petitions generally opposed limiting the number whether workers have left the country
with one or two named beneficiaries of H–2A beneficiaries and increasing for 3 months after 3 years, reasoning
subsidize petitions with greater fees. One commenter opposed the fee that CBP officials do not record land-
numbers of named beneficiaries, changes for named and unnamed based departures from the country. One
because petitions with fewer named beneficiaries. The commenter stated commenter suggested USCIS develop an
workers require less time to process but DHS lacks a large amount of data, entry and exit system to help track the
pay the same fee. In this final rule, DHS including the amount of time and effort amount of time a worker has spent in
adjusts the fees for all types of Form I– required to process these petitions. and out of the country and having an
129 to reflect the estimated average cost Several commenters expressed support online system should expedite the
of adjudication for the relevant form. for USCIS lowering the fees for process and allow USCIS and the
Setting the fee at the level of the average unnamed I–129 petitions, but opposed petitioner to get an approval at a more
cost necessarily entails some cross- increasing the fees for a Form I–129 efficient speed. Another commenter said
subsidization between petitions that are with named beneficiaries. One that forgoing the full background check
less costly to adjudicate and those that commenter stated that USCIS’ and instead just doing a shorter update
are more costly to adjudicate. justification for separating fees for background check on petitions for
DHS data indicates that the limit of 25 named and unnamed petitions are valid, workers who already possess a visa and
named beneficiaries per petition but due to the significantly higher filing who are already in the United States
established in this final rule will fee for petitions filled with a named could save extraordinary amounts of
significantly limit the amount of cross- worker, petitioners will be incentivized time, money, and effort.
subsidization between petitions with to file unnamed worker petitions and Response: USCIS must conduct full
few named workers and many named require significantly more resources to background checks on named workers
workers. Previously a single petition be expended by the State Department in and does not merely check to determine
might contain a single named worker or order for workers to obtain their visas. how much time the worker has spent
outside of the United States. In this final naturalization services. DHS does not kinds of petitions. DHS believes that the
rule, DHS establishes the fee for Form intend to deter or unduly burden changes implemented in this final rule,
I–129H2A at the level estimated to petitioners requesting workers in the including establishing a maximum limit
represent the full cost of adjudication. arts, but any preferential treatment of 25 named beneficiaries per petition,
DHS declines to make changes in this provided to petitioners for performers and differentiated fees based on whether
final rule in response to these and musicians is borne by other a petition requests named or unnamed
comments. petitioners, applicants, and requestors. workers, are consistent with and
Comment: Many commenters DHS declines to require other applicants responsive to the recommendation of
generally opposed the changes to the and petitioners subsidize the cost of the DHS OIG report.
Form I–129 and its fees as it applies to petitioning for workers in the arts. Consistent with the recommendations
the arts, writing that artists should be Comment: Some commenters highlighted by commenters, DHS used
treated better and the arts should be discussed the rule’s impact on farmers detailed cost data to distinguish
promoted. A commenter stated that the and the H–2A program. Several between the average cost of adjudicating
proposal would diminish the quality of commenters said their use of H–2A petitions with named and unnamed
arts in the United States, as artists workers allows them to have trained beneficiaries where applicable. In
would be unable to afford to tour and and trusted labor that has been properly establishing different fees that
make a living from their craft. vetted through the USCIS system. distinguish the differences in the
Commenters indicated that the proposal Likewise, several commenters said the average cost of adjudication, DHS
would harm local communities, small proposed increase of H–2A filing fees addresses concerns that the previous flat
businesses, and non-profits, as artists would be especially harmful fees were not consistent with the
would be unable to afford to perform considering the difficulty farmers have beneficiary-pays principle of user fees.
here. A commenter wrote that artists’ obtaining enough and dependable DHS declines to make changes in this
contribution to the U.S. market is domestic workers. A commenter stated final rule in response to these
greater than what they actually ‘‘earn,’’ that the proposed increase of H–2A comments.
mentioning that artists help draw in filing fees would contravene the Comment: A few commenters stated
international demand. Commenters also Executive Order on Buy American and that USCIS does not provide any data,
stated that international artists provide Hire American. In contrast, one evidence, or information in its proposed
a vital service in promoting cultural commenter expressed support for rule regarding the costs associated with
exchange and U.S. soft diplomacy. A increased fees and rationalized that fees conducting site visits through the
commenter wrote that its art school would improve their ability to compete Administrative Site Visit and
teaches Scottish music, and hindering with farms that spend less on labor and Verification Program (ASVVP). The
the school’s ability to procure Scottish make it more appealing for farms to commenters added that USCIS has
talent would operate to the detriment of consider hiring citizens. failed to articulate how these site visit
the school, its students, and the Response: In this final rule DHS costs are not already covered by the
community it serves. One commenter adjusts the fees for all types of Form I– $500 Fraud Prevention and Detection
stated their organization already 129 to reflect the estimated full cost of Fee and other related fees submitted by
navigates significant uncertainty in adjudication. DHS declines to make petitioners for certain categories of
gaining approval for petitions, due to changes in this final rule in response to nonimmigrant workers, such as for
lengthy processing times, uneven these comments. certain H–1B and L workers. One
application of statutes and policies, and Comment: Multiple commenters commenter concluded that USCIS must
extensive and even unwarranted referenced an OIG report titled ‘‘H–2 disclose this data so that the public can
requests for further evidence to support Petition Fee Structure Is Inequitable and fully evaluate whether the increased
petitions. The commenter stated that the Contributes to Processing Errors.’’ A few fees that USCIS is proposing accurately
proposed fees would only exacerbate commenters said USCIS uses this report encompass the ASVVP costs associated
these issues for performers. A few as justification for their proposed with adjudicating certain categories of
commenters said this NPRM would changes, but they claimed the audit nonimmigrant workers.
make it harder for their businesses to separates filings into small (1–10), Response: DHS disagrees with the
hire foreign musicians. Some medium (11–40) and large (more than commenter’s assertion that DHS failed
commenters said the proposal would 40) and does not suggest limiting the to provide any data related to the costs
create financial barriers that will harm number of beneficiaries to specifically of the ASVVP program. In the
U.S. arts organizations and the local 25. One commenter said the report supporting documentation published on
economies these organizations support. explicitly refrains from recommending a November 14, 2019 to accompany the
The commenters stated that if artists are change in fees, noting that collecting NPRM, DHS identified $5.4 million in
unable to come to the U.S., the public more detailed cost data will be critical payroll and travel costs of the ASVVP
will be denied the opportunity to for USCIS to ‘‘inform its H–2 petition program. As DHS described in the
‘‘experience international artistry.’’ One fee setting activities.’’ Another NPRM, USCIS attributed these costs to
commenter that provides legal services commenter quoted the report saying that the relevant form types in proportion to
to overseas artists and performance a ‘‘flat fee is not consistent with Federal their share of the total ASVVP costs of
groups wrote that the proposal would guidelines that beneficiaries pay for the $5.4 million. Form I–129H1 received
negatively impact their business and its full (or actual) cost of services provided $3.6 million of these costs while Form
clients, many of whom are small or that established user fees be based on I–129L received $0.6 million, Form I–
businesses. costs and benefits.’’ 129MISC received $1.0 million, and
Response: DHS agrees with the Response: DHS appreciates Form I–360 received $0.1 million. These
commenters’ views of the arts a vitally commenters’ references to the report by figures do not sum to $5.4 million due
important and beneficial. Nevertheless, the DHS Office of the Inspector General. to rounding.
the fees DHS establishes in this final As stated in the NPRM, DHS establishes USCIS cannot use revenue from the
rule are intended to recover the separate fees of forms for different types statutory Fraud Prevention and
estimated full cost to USCIS of of Form I–129 filings to distinguish the Detection Fee to cover the costs of the
providing immigration adjudication and different cost of adjudicating different ASVVP program. USCIS scopes all
activities funded by the Fraud Detection the Commonwealth as much flexibility and to temporarily suspend premium
and Prevention Fee outside of its fee as possible in maintaining existing processing service. DHS believes that
reviews, because DHS is unable to businesses and other revenue sources. extending the premium processing
adjust the fee by rulemaking. Response: In this final rule, DHS timeframe from 15 calendar days to 15
Furthermore, USCIS, by statute, does establishes fees that reflect the average business days will allow USCIS
not retain the entirety of the Fraud cost of adjudication. DHS declines to adequate time to take adjudicative
Detection and Prevention Fee. As make other applicants and petitioners action on petitions and will provide
explained in the NPRM, the USCIS FY subsidize petitions for transitional petitioners with a consistent and
2019/2020 fee review, like previous fee workers in the CNMI and does not make predictable experience. Therefore, DHS
reviews, estimates the costs to be changes in response to these comments. declines to adopt the commenters’
recovered by fees deposited into the I. Premium Processing suggestions.
Immigration Examinations Fee Account. Comment: Multiple commenters said
Unlike the fees addressed in this Comment: Multiple commenters that the premium processing delay
rulemaking, the Fraud Detection and opposed the proposal to lengthen the would harm American businesses that
Prevention Fee is not deposited into the timeframe for USCIS to take an face workforce gaps and that the cost of
IEFA. Instead, that revenue is deposited adjudicative action on petitions filed premium processing service reduces arts
into the Fraud Detection and Prevention with a request for premium processing organizations’ budgets for other
Account and is used for different from 15 calendar days to 15 business activities. The commenters wrote that
purposes beyond the scope of this final days. Commenters stated that the the change to the premium processing
rule. DHS declines to make changes in proposed change would reduce the level timeline would exacerbate these
this final rule in response to the of service that USCIS provides to inefficiencies and increase uncertainty.
comment. petitioning entities and delay the arrival Additionally, it would only further
Comment: A commenter opposed the of greatly needed workers, thereby lower USCIS’ accountability standards.
increased L–1 application fees and took imposing an economic cost on A commenter similarly stated that
issue with USCIS’ rationale that the fee petitioners. Multiple commenters said increasing the premium processing
is based on ‘‘the completion rate for the the relaxation of the premium timeframe would adversely impact
average of L–1 petitions.’’ The processing deadline would result in businesses that pay premium processing
commenter stated that if USCIS diverted slower adjudications, higher prices, and fees because of their urgent workforce
resources away from adjudicating L–1 slowed hiring. needs, and they suggested that further
petitions, imposing adjudicatory criteria Response: DHS acknowledges that delays to the processing timeline would
unauthorized by INA or USCIS some petitioners may wait up to four or have a ‘‘chilling effect’’ on the overall
regulations, and issuing unnecessary, more days longer for USCIS to take an process. One comment stated that
duplicative RFEs, the completion rate adjudicative action on a petition for changing the premium processing time
for L–1 nonimmigrants would return to which a petitioner has requested will deter businesses from doing
its historical norm. premium processing service. DHS business in the United States. Another
Response: USCIS used the most recent further acknowledges that this may commenter added that in many cases,
data available at the time it conducted result in slightly longer waits for the issuance of an RFE is a stalling
the FY 2019/2020 fee review. workers for petitioning entities. technique and that if DHS premium
Contemplating alternatives suggested by However, DHS disagrees that adjusting processing regulations to be 15 business
the commenter are beyond the scope of the timeframe for adjudicative action on days instead to calendar days that
this rulemaking. DHS declines to make a petition for which premium senseless and unnecessary RFEs will not
changes in this final rule in response to processing service has been requested continue.
the comment. from 15 calendar days to 15 business Response: DHS understands that
Comment: A few commenters wrote to days would meaningfully harm sometimes a petitioning employer needs
oppose the fee increases for transitional petitioning entities. DHS was not able to USCIS to take quick adjudicative action.
workers in the Commonwealth of the quantify the estimated cost to However, as stated in the NPRM, DHS
Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). petitioning entities of these additional believes that changing from calendar
These commenters stated the proposed delays. days to business days may reduce the
fees would put a financial burden on DHS is adjusting the timeframe for need for USCIS to suspend premium
businesses and the economic premium processing for multiple processing for petitions during peak
development of CNMI. A commenter reasons. The current timeframe does not seasons. This may permit USCIS to offer
wrote that the CNMI was still recovering consider the days on which USCIS staff premium processing to more petitioning
from recent disasters and noted that the are unavailable to adjudicate cases, such businesses each year. DHS believes the
economy had barely stabilized after as when there is a federal holiday or possibility that a petitioner requesting
Super Typhoon Yutu hit in October of inclement weather preventing premium processing service may need
2018. The commenter referred to a U.S. employees from coming to work. to wait a few additional days for
Department of the Interior report that Therefore, a surge in applications may adjudicative action is a small cost to
documented the shortage of U.S.-eligible coincide with a period when USCIS impose for being able to expand
workers affecting businesses in the staff have substantially less than 15 premium processing to more requests
Commonwealth and said the proposed working days to receipt and adjudicate and reduce the likelihood for future
fee increase of 53 percent for Petitions a petition with premium processing. In suspensions of premium processing
for a CNMI-only Nonimmigrant the past, there have been instances service. DHS does not think additional
Transitional Worker would place a when USCIS was unable to adjudicate days will reduce the desire of
financial burden on businesses still all of the petitions for which petitioners businesses to request premium
recovering from disasters. The requested premium processing within processing. DHS also disagrees with the
commenter requested that the increase the 15-calendar day timeframe. This led assertion that USCIS issues RFEs as a
for this petition be tabled, citing the USCIS to refund the premium stalling tactic. USCIS officers issue
provisions of U.S. Public Law 110–229 processing fee for petitions that were RFEs, in their discretion, to provide the
that detailed Congress’ intent to grant not adjudicated within 15 calendar days petitioner an opportunity to supplement
the record when eligibility has not been 2018 and 2019. See 83 FR 44449 (Aug extension of the $4,000 or $4,500 fee to
established. USCIS officers do not send 31, 2018) (increasing the fee to reflect extension petitions.
RFEs just because they are near the 15- inflation from $1,225 to $1,410); 84 FR • Extending the Public Law 114–113
day maximum time for action. 58303 (Oct. 31, 2019) (increasing the feefee for qualifying H–1B and L–1
Comment: Commenters requested that from $1,410 to $1,440). petitions is contrary to Congressional
USCIS reinstate the ‘‘traditional DHS regularly considers if USCIS’ intent and represents an effort to deter
expedite’’ option for non-profits that premium processing fee should be legal immigration from certain
seek to enhance the cultural and social adjusted considering the rate of countries. DHS’s interpretation of Public
interest in the United States. inflation, cost, and revenue needs. DHS Law 114–113 is inconsistent with the
Response: USCIS has implemented an prefers to adjust the premium agency’s historical regulatory
expedite policy for certain petitions in processing fee outside of rules, like this
interpretation.
the past. Whether a petitioner seeks to one, that adjust fees comprehensively • Congress set the amounts and
enhance the cultural and social interest based on USCIS’ full costs recovery parameters for the fees and Public Law
in the United States may have been model. The primary reason is because 111–230 (2010) and Public Law 114–113
considered when USCIS decided to the premium processing fee may be (2015) do not support the revisions.
favorably exercise its discretion when adjusted by inflation; notice and • Congress’ consistent reenactment of
considering expedite requests. However, comment rulemaking is not required. the statute without changing the
expedited processing is a policy that is See 84 FR 58304. In addition, USCIS statute’s meaning with respect to when
implemented using guidance and not regularly analyzes whether to remove the fee is required suggests
governed by regulations. DHS is eligible categories based on its ability to
Congressional intent that the scope of
amending USCIS’ fees and fee-related meet demand or designate new benefit the 9–11 Response fee continue.
regulations in this final rule that require requests as eligible for premium • Examples of Congress’ use of the
notice and comment rulemaking to processing in accordance with previous language in Public Law 114–113
effectuate. Petitioners do not pay a fee 8 CFR 103.7(e); new 8 CFR 106.4. For demonstrate that the DHS interpretation
when submitting an expedite request, example, DHS recently determined that is not consistent with the intent of
and the decision to grant or deny an a few categories of employment Congress.
expedite request does not affect the fees authorization documents qualify as • Congress provided clear and
required for the underlying petition. employment-based petitions and unambiguous language instructing DHS
Thus, expedite policy is outside the applications for business customers that the additional fee be combined with
scope of this rulemaking. DHS may under INA section 286(u), 8 U.S.C. the fraud prevention and detection fee
consider whether to provide expedited 1356(u). Thus, USCIS is considering and the proposed change is an effort to
processing for certain petitions based on permitting premium processing requests thwart the plain instruction of Public
its workload in other areas and ability for qualifying categories of employment Law 114–113.
to meet promised deadlines. Also, authorization that may be requested on • Language from Public Laws 111–
depending on the immigrant or USCIS Form I–765. When and if USCIS 230 and 114–113 support that the
nonimmigrant classification sought, the decides to provide premium processing current statutory language was not
petitioner may request premium for additional requests, USCIS will ambiguous and the addition of the word
processing service by filing Form I–907 announce on its website, those requests combined in 2015 in Public Law 114–
and paying the associated fee. This final for which premium processing may be 113 was not merely a clarifying edit as
rule, though, makes no changes in requested, the dates upon which such stated in the NPRM and Congress’
response to this comment. availability commences and ends, and actions over the past decade make it
Comment: A commenter asked if DHS any conditions that may apply. New 8 clear that the filing fee does not apply
would consider the additional revenue CFR 106.4(e). This final rule, though, to extension petitions.
received by USCIS from higher makes no changes in response to this • Federal courts would not grant
premium processing fees as another comment and adjusts only USCIS’ non- Chevron deference to the agency’s effort
revenue stream. statutory, non-premium processing fees to reinterpret the word combined
Response: DHS understands that the that DHS has the authority to adjust for because it is a non-complex,
commenter is suggesting that USCIS full cost recovery via public notice and nontechnical word in common public
consider additional revenue from higher comment rulemaking. usage and the agency does not have
premium processing fees. The INA special expertise in determining the
permits DHS to charge and collect a J. 9–11 Response and Biometric Entry- definition of combined.
premium processing fee for Exit Fee for H–1B and L–1 • This interpretation is not only
employment-based petitions and Nonimmigrant Workers (Pub. L. 114–113 correct, it is mandated by the statutory
applications. The fee revenue must be Fees) language.
used to provide certain premium- Comment: DHS received many • Congress limited the circumstances
processing services to business comments on the change in how DHS requiring the 9–11 Response fee to only
petitioners and to make infrastructure interprets the statutory language in those for an application for admission
improvements in the adjudications and Public Law 114–113 to change the and this language does not naturally
customer service processes. By statute, benefit requests to which the fee would apply to applicants for extension of
the premium processing fee must be apply. The comments are summarized time, for an amendment to terms, or for
paid in addition to any applicable as follows: a change in status.
petition/application fee. The statute • USCIS lacks the authority to create • The fees would negatively affect
provides that DHS may adjust this fee such a fee increase and that only employers because it would require
according to the Consumer Price Index. Congress has this authority. them to pay the fee multiple times for
See INA section 286(u), 8 U.S.C. • USCIS lacks the authority to the same employee because the duration
1356(u); Public Law 106–553, App. B, reinterpret language from Public Laws of an approval may be less than one
tit. I, sec. 112, 114 Stat. 2762, 2762A– 111–230 (2010) and 114–113 (2015) and year.
68 (Dec. 21, 2000). DHS increased the that the proposal invents ambiguity that • Companies that hire from countries
USCIS premium processing fee in both does not exist with respect to the like India, where beneficiaries may wait
for an immigrant visa number for Resources Defense Council, Inc. 467 cost of providing adjudication and
decades, would have to file extensions U.S. 837, 863 (1984). As we stated in the naturalization services. As a result, DHS
until the worker becomes a permanent NPRM, DHS believes that the Public rejects the notion that fees should be
resident. Law 114–113 fee should apply to all raised based on inflation or social
• Because USCIS routinely limits the extension of stay petitions because that security cost of living increases and will
expiration date of Form I–797 approval interpretation gives meaning to all of the continue to comply with the CFO Act by
notices to the end date of the specific statutory text. That interpretation is also evaluating fees on a biennial basis and
contract, resulting in short approval the most consistent with the goal of the recommending adjustments to USCIS’
periods, employers will be forced to file statute to ensure employers that overly fee schedule, as necessary.
extension petitions once the Statement rely on H–1B or L nonimmigrant Comment: A commenter opposed
of Work is renewed, incurring new workers’ pay an additional fee by scenario A and stated that it would be
filing and legal fees. The fee would making the fee applicable to petitions, unreasonable for the agency to compel
result in employers opting not to hire or including extensions of H–1B or L the public to evaluate six different
extend nonimmigrant employees which status, filed by employers that meet the scenarios. The commenter added that,
would have negative impacts on statute’s 50 employee/50 percent test, in order for the final rule to be valid, it
workers, companies, and the overall regardless of whether or not the fraud must include only the fee schedule that
economy. H–1B and L–1 workers benefit fee also applies. 84 FR 62322. In other the public was given adequate time to
the economy by increasing business words, the fee should apply to all H–1B evaluate, and the agency may not use
efficiency, reducing costs for specialized or L–1 petitions, whether for new the final rule to codify a ‘‘suite of
work, and filling workforce gaps. employment or an extension of stay. alternative fee schedules’’ that it can
Response: DHS disagrees with the Consequently, DHS makes no changes switch between at will without public
commenters’ assertions that the in response to these comments. comment.
statutory language is unambiguous or Comment: A commenter requested Response: DHS stated in the NPRM
that DHS does not have the authority to that USCIS reinstate policy memoranda that subject to certain limitations, the
interpret the statutory language. The related to deference, such as the 2004 proposed fees may change in the final
statutory text refers to, among other USCIS Memorandum, The Significance rule based on policy decisions, in
things, an increase to H–1B and L–1 of a Prior CIS Approval of a response to public comments,
filing and fraud prevention and Nonimmigrant Petition in the Context of intervening legislation, and other
detection fees. Such fees are typically a Subsequent Determination Regarding changes. 84 FR 62327. To reduce the
collected by DHS, either by USCIS upon Eligibility for Extension of Petition uncertainty that such conditions present
the filing of an H–1B or L–1 petition or Validity. The commenter also requested to the affected public, USCIS proposed
by CBP for certain visa-exempt L–1 that USCIS enforce 8 CFR 214.2(1)(14)(i) six fee scenarios that lay out what the
nonimmigrants. The statutory text to provide appropriate deference to fees would be if certain conditions
clearly shows that Congress intended officers’ prior decisions regarding L–1. materialize and present a range of fees.
DHS, in addition to the U.S. Department The commenter wrote that this would Id. DHS disagrees that the public is
of State, to administer Public Law 114– mitigate the need for fee increases for incapable of reviewing and commenting
113 and collect the associated fees. Such L1-nonimmigrant petition filings. on multiple proposed fee scenarios. The
authority is also consistent with the Response: DHS has no intent to fee schedule adopted in this final rule
general authority provided to DHS reinstate the 2004 memo in this fee rule. falls within the range of the six
under INA section 214(a) and (c)(1), 8 This final rule is focused on establishing scenarios. The policies implemented in
U.S.C. 1184(a) and (c)(1), as well as, by appropriate fees for different this final rule are the same, or are
incorporation, the specific authority nonimmigrant worker classifications logical outgrowths of, those contained
provided in INA section 214(c)(12), 8 and not altering existing evidentiary in the NPRM.
U.S.C. 1184(c)(12). DHS also explained requirements, such as those found at 8 The intent of the comment period
in the NPRM how the statutory text is CFR 214.2(l)(14)(i). Consequently, the provided under the APA is to allow
ambiguous, and that explanation changes suggested by this commenter agencies to consider public feedback on
remains unchanged. were not mentioned or proposed in the proposed rules and make changes as
DHS understands that it must provide NPRM and are outside the scope of this appropriate. Because a single change
a valid explanation of its changed final rule. made in response to public comments
position and provide a reasoned may affect multiple fees, it is impossible
explanation for disregarding facts that K. Comments on Other General to provide a final set of fees in a NPRM
underlay the prior policy. See Encino Feedback unless it were to be adopted without
Motorcars, LLC, v. Navarro, 136 S.Ct. Comment: Commenters wrote that any modification, thereby negating the
2117, 2125 (2016). DHS acknowledges fees should be raised based on inflation value of public feedback. DHS declines
the commenters’ concerns about the or social security cost of living to make any adjustments in the final
effect of our change in interpretation on increases, and that fee increases would rule in response to these comments.
petitioning employers, and that the be unnecessary if USCIS trained its Comment: A commenter said the
statute is open to different officers. severability provision suffers from
interpretations. However, DHS is Response: As explained in the NPRM ‘‘logical outgrowth’’ concerns, stating
providing considerable advance notice and this final rule, DHS adjusts USCIS’ that it would do nothing to protect a
of this change to those affected by it, fee schedule to ensure full cost final rule if key provisions of the
and the fee will only apply to future recovery. DHS cannot guarantee that proposed rule changed so much in the
petitioners after the effective date of this future inflation rates or social security final rule that the public was not given
final rule. DHS may change its initial cost of living adjustments applied to fair notice. In contrast, a commenter
interpretation when engaging in fees will yield sufficient revenue to stated they ‘‘wholly’’ agreed with the
rulemaking and consider different ensure full cost recovery. In other severability provision because the
interpretations when deciding to words, adjusting fees by inflation or provisions each part function
continue with a current policy. See, social security cost of living adjustments independent of other provisions. The
Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural may be insufficient to recover the full commenter supported codifying the
intent that provisions be severable to also designate an agent to sign on their the FY 2019/2020 fee review. It does not
protect the goals of the proposed rule. behalf, by notifying USPS and account for recent policy initiatives that
Response: DHS is unsure of the completing PS Form 3801, Standing may increase costs for which data were
relationship between a logical Delivery Order, or PS Form 3801–A, not available at the time of the FY 2019/
outgrowth and severability to which the Agreement by a Hotel, Apartment 2020 fee review. In its next biennial fee
commenter refers. DHS is making no House, or similar. SCRD permits USCIS review, USCIS will continue the
changes in this final rule that the public and applicants to track their document practice of using all available data to
would not view as a possibility based on utilizing the USPS website up to when determine total costs and appropriate
the contents of the proposed rule. DHS the document is delivered. The fees to recover those costs.
realizes that many parts of this final rule authority for USCIS to use the SCRD DHS believes that USCIS policies are
are interrelated, but most are severable process will improve tracking and necessary for the agency to effectively
and can be implemented independently accuracy of delivery and will improve achieve its mission and fulfil statutory
from the remainder of this final rule’s resolution of questions from applicants. mandates. USCIS faithfully adheres to
provisions. Recipients will also have the ability to immigration law and carefully considers
DHS declines to make any change their delivery location by going the pros, cons, costs, and ramifications
adjustments in the final rule in response to the USPS website and selecting ‘‘hold of all policy initiatives it undertakes. In
to these comments. for pickup’’ to arrange for pickup at a its FY 2019/2020 fee review, USCIS
Comment: A commenter wrote that post office at a date and time that suits estimated total costs to the agency of
DHS should allow applicants to elect them. It is not unnecessarily providing immigration adjudication and
their delivery method for their secure cumbersome or unreasonable to expect naturalization services. In the NPRM
document, DHS failed to justify why the document recipients to undertake the and this final rule, DHS has fully
agency is adopting Signature time and expense to ensure that explained and justified the cost
Confirmation Restricted Delivery documents as important as those issued increases that necessitate USCIS fee
(SCRD) to deliver secure documents, by USCIS get into the right people’s adjustments.
and DHS should publish a notice in the hands. Comment: Another commenter
Federal Register each time USCIS criticized USCIS’ use of the ABC model
proposes to add SCRD to any additional L. Cost Analysis and DHS Rationale for to predict the cost of adjudicating forms.
document beyond Permanent Resident Fee Adjustments The commenter wrote that the model
Cards, Employment Authorization Comment: Many commenters stated predicts different costs in 2019
Cards, and Travel Booklets. One that USCIS proposed a 21 percent fee compared to 2016 with no explanation,
commenter supported SCRD as the sole increase without evidence that it will USCIS increased the ABC model
method of delivery for secure improve immigration benefit services. baseline with no explanation and
documents. Another commenter wrote Some commenters suggested that USCIS USCIS’ explanation for ‘‘low volume
that it is an unnecessary burden to place should find ways to revise the NPRM reallocation’’ is used as a pretext for the
on low-income or rural residents to and include data that would make the Department’s policy priorities.
travel to the post office or arrange to connection between fee and efficiency Response: USCIS’ cost projections for
hold a secure document for pick-up. increases in the adjudication process, as the FY 2019/2020 biennial period have
Response: USCIS may use the United currently there is no evidence linking increased relative to the FY 2016/2017
States Postal Service (USPS) Secure the two. Other commenters wrote that biennial period. However, DHS
Confirmation Restricted Delivery USCIS should rescind inefficient disagrees with the commenter’s
(SCRD) service for delivery of all USCIS policies rather than increase fees to assertion that it provided no
secure identification documents: subsidize them, higher fees pass the explanation of the change in USCIS’
Permanent Resident Card, Employment costs of USCIS inefficiency to the costs between 2016 and 2019. The
Authorization Document, and Travel public, fee hikes are not justified NPRM provides USCIS’ FY 2018 AOP
Document Booklets once this final rule because USCIS has record long amount used as a baseline to inform FY
is effective. New 8 CFR processing times, and needs to revert to 2019/2020 cost projections. It also
103.2(b)(19)(iii)(A). USCIS already uses its prior procedures for processing cases explains projected cost increases over
SCRD when documents are returned by before increasing fees. the FY 2019/2020 biennial period from
USPS as undeliverable after being sent Response: As explained in the NPRM, that FY 2018 baseline, including the
by Priority Mail with Delivery USCIS considered all cost and need for additional staff, pay
Confirmation. USCIS plans to use only operational data that was available at adjustments for existing staff, and other
USPS initially for SCRD when the time it conducted the FY 2019/2020 net additional costs. See 84 FR 62286
appropriate because only the USPS can fee review, including data related to (Nov. 14, 2019). Additionally, DHS
deliver to post office boxes and military potential cost-saving measures. It does clarifies that USCIS’ ABC model does
addresses (i.e., APO addresses). Other not account for recent cost-saving not predict costs. Instead, it assigns cost
delivery services like FedEx or UPS initiatives for which data was not yet projections to operational activities and
would just leave the package on the available at that time. However, USCIS then to immigration benefit requests as
doorstep, require a signature, or require will evaluate and incorporate any explained in the supporting
it to be picked up. In addition, the relevant cost-savings data into its next documentation that accompanies this
current application process does not biennial fee review. To the extent that final rule.
support choosing a different delivery potential process efficiencies are DHS categorically denies that ‘‘low
method, although DHS is exploring recognized in the next biennial fee volume reallocation’’ or ‘‘cost
more delivery methods as a future review, cost-savings may lessen the reallocation’’ is a pretext with any intent
capability. impact of future fee adjustments. other than to exercise its discretion to
USPS’s Signature Confirmation Similarly, DHS recognizes that certain limit the fee for certain applications and
Restricted Delivery (SCRD) product USCIS policies may increase the cost of petitions in recognition that fees set at
requires the addressee to provide proof completing its work. USCIS accounted the ABC model output for these forms
of identification and sign for delivery of for those cost increases where it had would be overly burdensome and
their secure document. Applicants may data available at the time it conducted possibly unaffordable for the affected
applicants, petitioners, and additional revenue anticipated from the process USCIS uses to reassign costs to
requestors.104 In its discretion, DHS fee increases for these forms. The each form fee to ensure full cost
determined that it would be appropriate primary objective of not limiting the fee recovery. Total reassigned costs are the
to limit the fee increase for the increase for these forms is to reduce the sum of the products of the fee-paying
following forms, while also rounding to cost burden placed upon other fee- volume and model output for those
the nearest $5 increment: paying applicants, petitioners, and forms with fees held below the model
• Form I–290B, Notice of Appeal or requestors. output, less the sum of the products of
Motion, DHS declines to make changes in this the fee-paying volume and the final fees
• Form I–360, Petition for Amerasian, final rule in response to the comment. for those same forms. Explained another
Widow(er) or Special Immigrant, Comment: Commenters attended a way, a spreadsheet assigns the cost of
• Form I–600, Petition to Classify February 3, 2020 meeting with USCIS to limited fee increases or workload
Orphan as an Immediate Relative, observe the ABC cost modeling without fees to the fees that DHS does
• Form I–600A, Application for software. In follow-up comments, the not limit for various policy reasons. We
Advance Processing of an Orphan attendees said that many questions call this process cost reallocation.
Petition, remain outstanding about how USCIS USCIS multiplies the fee-paying receipt
• Form I–600A/I–600, Supplement 3, developed its proposal. Many of their forecast by the model output for each
Request for Action on Approved Form follow-up comments were the same as form. This calculates a total cost for that
I–600A/I–600, those made by other commenters, which form. For the fees that DHS does not
• Form I–800, Petition to Classify are responded to in other sections of limit, we use the total cost for each form
Convention Adoptee as an Immediate this preamble. Some of their comments to reallocate the cost of limited fee
Relative, were unique due to observations of the increases or workload without fees. As
• Form I–800A, Application for software, including: a result, forms with the highest cost
Determination of Suitability To Adopt a • Why have the costs for Form N– receive a larger share of cost
Child From a Convention Country, and 400s risen so dramatically, reallocation. While terminology may
• Form I–800A, Supplement 3, • Can USCIS explain the 900 line have been different,105 this is the same
Request for Action on Approved Form items in the budget, process that DHS used in the previous
I–800A. • Scenario modeling other than
three fee rules. See 84 FR 62294. DHS
In the NPRM, DHS explained that references to the six Scenarios A–F as
believes that assigning more costs to
limiting the fee increase for these forms described in the proposed rule, and
• USCIS explained that cost forms with the highest cost is in line
requires DHS to shift the costs to other with the beneficiary pays principal
fee-paying applicants, petitioners, and reallocation takes place outside of the
ABC model but did not show the emphasized throughout this rule.
requestors via increased fees for other DHS declines to make changes in this
forms. If USCIS did not perform cost spreadsheet.
Response: In its NPRM, DHS provided final rule in response to these
reallocation, then fees for other comments.
the public with an opportunity to
applications and petitions would be Comment: Another commenter
request an appointment to view the ABC
lower than those implemented in this discussed information needed, but not
software that USCIS uses to help
final rule, and USCIS would not recover provided at the meeting (even upon
calculate immigration benefit fees. See
its estimated full cost of providing request in some cases) in order to
84 FR 62281. The purpose of the
immigration adjudication and understand how the software works.
February 3, 2020 meeting was to
naturalization services. As explained in Because USCIS has failed to provide
provide an overview of the software and
the NPRM, DHS determined that it stakeholders with the opportunity to
demonstrate how it works. In other
would deviate from previous fee rules analyze the entire set of relevant
words, USCIS allowed these public
by not limiting the fee increase for the information that USCIS has used to
commenters (who requested an
following forms: calculate the proposed new fees, the
appointment) to view the software and
• Form I–601A, Provisional Unlawful commenter opposed the entire new rule
showed them how it leverages
Presence Waiver, and requested that USCIS continue
• Form I–765, Application for operational data inputs (i.e., FY 2019/
using the current fee schedule until
Employment Authorization, 2020 cost baseline, receipt volume
USCIS provides access to the ‘‘FULL
• Form I–929, Petition for Qualifying projections, and completion rates) to
SET’’ of information it used and enough
Family Member of a U–1 Nonimmigrant, determine the activity costs and fee-
organized time to submit comments.
• Form N–300, Application to File paying unit costs that inform proposed
Response: The purpose of the
Declaration of Intention, fees. A discussion regarding cost
February 3, 2020 meeting was to
• Form N–336, Request for a Hearing increases associated with Form N–400
provide an overview and demonstration
on a Decision in Naturalization and a detailed explanation of each
of the ABC software that USCIS uses to
Proceedings, USCIS budget line item was outside the
calculate immigration benefit fees. As
• Form N–400, Application for scope of this meeting, which was
was offered in the NPRM, USCIS
Naturalization, and focused on the ABC software. USCIS
officials provided the attendees with
• Form N–470, Application to officials did not provide deliberative
complete information on the inputs for
Preserve Residence for Naturalization materials or supplemental information
the fee calculations and explained how
Purposes. to these public commenters that is not
the software works. An attendee posed
DHS outlined in its NPRM that other in the record for the NPRM and in the
several questions that would have
docket. Although briefly discussed, the
fees would be lower in recognition of

public commenters did not specifically 105 Previous proposed IEFA fee schedules referred
104 DHS may reasonably adjust fees based on ask USCIS officials during the meeting to limited fee increases as ‘‘low volume
value judgments and public policy reasons where to view the separate spreadsheet used to reallocation’’ or ‘‘cost reallocation.’’ The FY 2016/
a rational basis for the methodology is propounded calculate cost reallocation. However, as 2017 proposed fee schedule used both phrases. See
in the rulemaking. See FCC v. Fox Television 81 FR 26915. The FY 2010/2011 and FY 2008/2009
Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009); Motor
explained in the supporting proposed fee schedules used the phrase ‘‘low
Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. documentation that accompanies this volume reallocation.’’ See 75 FR 33461 and 72 FR
Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983). final rule, cost reallocation is simply the 4910, respectively.
required USCIS to provide deliberative DHS declines to make changes in this existing pending caseload. 84 FR 62288
information, granular assumptions final rule in response to these (stating that revenue estimates were
underlying all aspects of the USCIS comments. based on projected volumes).
budget, an in-depth explanation of Comment: Some commenters stated Comment: A commenter who
particular fee adjustments, and policy that USCIS based its workload receipt attended the February 3, 2020 software
rationale associated with the Form N– forecasts on limited and review meeting at USCIS stated that
400 fee (in excess of what is in the unrepresentative data, using data only evidence does not support the projected
NPRM and supporting documentation). from June 2016 to May 2017. figure for future Form N–400 filings.
The questions asked went beyond the Commenters stated that USCIS did not The commenter stated that receipts may
software demonstration, would have explain why it chose this period. A decrease because of the fee increase and
expanded the meeting considerably, and commenter also said that USCIS’ fee- elimination of fee waivers. The NPRM
would have provided the attendee paying volume assumptions reflect says USCIS adjudicated 830,673 Forms
additional information that was not ‘‘filing trends and anticipated policy N–400 in FY 2016/2017 and expects to
relevant. DHS believes that all relevant changes,’’ but it is not clear how USCIS adjudicate 913,500 in the FY 2020–21
information is readily available in the accounted for these factors. Another biennium. The commenter understood
NPRM and supporting documentation. commenter said that projected volumes from the meeting that USCIS ‘‘surveyed
do not account for current processing its staff,’’ but said it does not know how
DHS declines to make changes in this times. Estimates used FY 2016–2017 staff came up with the application
final rule as a result of the comment. data, but processing times have volume data to arrive at their volume
1. Workload Projections increased since then. projections. The commenter questioned
Response: The commenters are USCIS’ assertion that they will receive
Comment: Multiple commenters generally mistaken. DHS did not use a more N–400s than in the previous year
stated that USCIS used unreasonable single 12-month period of data to given the drastic fee increases the
workload receipt projections in its cost project anticipated workloads for the FY agency seeks.
model. One commenter cited figures in 2019/2020 biennial period. To establish Response: DHS used the best
Table 5 of the NPRM detailing the workload projections, USCIS’ VPC information available at the time USCIS
average annual fee-paying receipts always evaluates the best available conducted the FY 2019/2020 fee review
projection and said that they do not information, including historical to develop receipt volume projections.
reflect the stated subtotals and grand application volumes and trends, The VPC considered all relevant
totals. Similarly, another commenter including data that extend far beyond a statistical forecasts, recent trend
said USCIS has not explained the source single 12-month period. For example, analysis, and subject matter expertise. It
for its data on volume projections USCIS used 10 years of data to estimate also considered the potential effects of
entered into the ABC model. Form I–90 renewals. In accordance with future policy changes. The VPC does not
Commenters also highlighted concerns this procedure, USCIS evaluated all survey staff generally. Instead, the VPC
with projected workload and fee-paying available information at the time it considers input of subject matter experts
receipts for certain individual form conducted the FY 2019/2020 fee review in conjunction with statistical forecasts
types such as Form I–526. to establish its workload projections for to determine a final volume forecast.
Response: DHS acknowledges that the biennial period. See 84 FR 62289.
2. Completion Rates
workload receipt volume projections Therefore, DHS rejects the claims that
its volume forecasts are unsubstantiated. Comment: A commenter wrote that
used in the FY 2019/2020 fee review did USCIS should use completion rates to
USCIS did use data from the June
not materialize in FY 2019 exactly as estimate all activity costs as was done
2016 to May 2017 period to estimate a
forecasted. USCIS’ Volume Projection in the previous USCIS fee rulemaking.
proportion of individuals who pay the
Committee (VPC) developed workload A commenter wrote that the NPRM
filing fee by form type. In its NPRM,
volume projections for the FY 2019/ provides only some completion rates,
DHS referred to this proportion as ‘‘fee-
2020 fee review in FY 2017. The VPC but the information by itself is not
paying percentage.’’ See 84 FR 62290.
considers all available data at the time useful in assessing justifications for
DHS used this data to calculate fee-
it finalizes projections, including proposed fee increases. A commenter
paying volumes for each form type
statistical forecasts for each form, wrote that Table 6 in the NPRM
under current policy and to estimate the
analysis of recent trends, and demonstrates that completion rates for
effects of policy changes in the NPRM.
consideration of future policy initiatives most forms are as low as 1–2 hours,
DHS used data from the June 2016 to
that are known at that time. The VPC indicating that most forms include fees
May 2017 period because it was the
integrates this information with subject at a cost of hundreds of dollars an hour.
most current data available at the time
matter expertise and judgement to A commenter wrote that the completion
USCIS conducted the FY 2019/2020 fee
provide unified receipt volume rates for Form N–400 with a filing fee
review and using a full year of data can
projections by form type for use in the of $1,170 come out to a cost of $745.22
smooth out fluctuations that may occur
biennial fee review and other an hour, whereas an EB–5 form for a
from month to month. DHS believes that
operational planning purposes. wealthy investor includes a filing fee of
use of this data is correct and
Certain filing trends have changed appropriate and declines to make $4,015 at a rate of $464 an hour. The
since USCIS forecasted the FY 2019/ changes in this final rule in response to commenter asked why it costs USCIS so
2020 fee review workload and fee- these comments. much less to work on Form I–526,
paying receipt volumes. USCIS simply Comment: A commenter wrote that which is a much more complicated and
cannot predict all filing changes that the NPRM does not make clear whether time consuming petition requiring very
will affect actual receipt volumes. projected receipts only include new specialized and more experienced
USCIS used the best information applications anticipated in 2020, or also officers, than that required to adjudicate
available at the time it conducted the FY includes applications in the backlog. Form N–400. Other commenters also
2019/2020 fee review to develop Response: DHS reiterates that all mentioned the disparate hourly rates
workload and fee-paying receipt volume workload figures in this final rule are between Form N–400 and EB–5
forecasts. projected volumes and do not include workload, stating that the proposed fees
are not supported by the costs of commenter asked that USCIS recalculate represents an increase of 6,277 or 43
completion and that the cost per expense and completion rates. percent from the FY 2016/2017 fee rule
completion rate for these forms shows Response: As explained in the NPRM, (14,543). DHS believes that this estimate
the fees are a wealth test. proposed fees are informed by cost is lawful and fully justified based on the
Response: It is not accurate to say that projections for the FY 2019/2020 best information available to USCIS at
USCIS used completion rates to estimate biennial period. See 84 FR 62888. DHS the time it conducted the FY 2019/2020
all activity costs in the previous does not use prior year expenses to fee review.
rulemaking. In the last three fee rules, calculate immigration benefit request Comment: Another commenter said
USCIS used completion rates to assign fees. Additionally, as stated in the USCIS indicates that it uses a staffing
costs from the Make Determination supporting documentation that model to predict needs based on
activity to individual cost objects (i.e., accompanies this final rule, USCIS does workload receipts and target processing
forms). USCIS continued this approach not track actual costs by immigration times, but USCIS has not identified
in the FY 2019/2020 fee review. The benefit request. Therefore, DHS does not target processing times or described its
fees DHS enacts in this final rule are believe that an additional explanation is method for calculating workload
based on the same methodology that necessary and declines to make changes receipts, other than to explain that a
was used in previous fee rules. in this final rule in response to the committee looked at trends and models.
DHS understands the skepticism comment. Further, the commenter said it is not
induced by simply dividing a form’s clear what outputs that staffing model
3. USCIS Staffing
proposed fee by the completion rate in generated.
an attempt to estimate the hourly Comment: Multiple commenters Response: DHS uses multiple,
processing cost. However, the wrote that the NPRM seeks to justify fee different techniques to forecast USCIS’
calculation performed by the increases by a need for more staffing, yet workloads. Ultimately, the VPC reviews,
commenter does not accurately USCIS has employees performing deliberates, and reaches a final
represent the per hour cost of enforcement work for ICE and CBP. consensus on every forecast, as
adjudicating a particular form. Such a Other commenters supported the described in the NPRM and elsewhere
calculation presumes that all costs are addition of employees to improve in this final rule. DHS uses these
associated with the Make Determination USCIS case processing times. workload forecasts as inputs to Staffing
Response: In response to the Allocation Models, which determine the
activity and ignores the costs associated
migration crisis at the United States estimated staffing requirements for
with other activities, such as the Issue
southern border, USCIS did provide USCIS. DHS outlines USCIS’ total
Document activity, that are not based on
staff on detail to ICE for clerical estimated IEFA authorized staffing
completion rates. In addition, all fees
assistance in the creation and requirement by directorate in Appendix
greater than the model output (i.e.,
management of immigration case files. Table 7 of the supporting
receive cost reallocation) represent the
USCIS detailed the staff to ICE without documentation that is in the docket for
full amount of both the estimated cost
reimbursement as provided in law. See this final rule. See 84 FR 62281. DHS
of adjudicating the form and other costs
Emergency Supplemental declines to make changes in this final
associated with providing similar
Appropriations for Humanitarian rule as a result of the comment.
services at no or reduced charge to Comment: A commenter said USCIS
Assistance and Security at the Southern
asylum applicants and other needs to fill important open positions in
Border Act, 2019, Public Law 116–26,
immigrants. USCIS’ fees must recover order to address significant backlogs,
tit. III (Jul. 1, 2019). This temporary
estimated full costs, not just the direct citing a 2019 USCIS report to Congress.
support to ICE represented a miniscule
costs to adjudicate forms.106 Response: DHS concurs with this
proportion of total USCIS staff. Marginal
DHS declines to make changes in this commenter’s statement. This is one
costs associated with this effort are not
final rule in response to these reason why DHS is adjusting USCIS’
in this final rule, as USCIS did not
comments. fees in this final rule. DHS believes that
assume an additional staffing
Comment: A commenter criticized requirement for this workload in the FY the final fees will yield additional
USCIS for not disclosing actual case 2019/2020 fee review. Additionally, revenue that USCIS can use to hire and
completion per hour statistics in the DHS does not assign USCIS employees fill additional positions necessary for
NPRM or supporting documentation. to perform enforcement work for ICE adjudicating incoming workload. The
Response: DHS provided completion and CBP. ability to adjudicate incoming workload
rates (hours per completion) in Table 6 DHS proposed to hire additional may help USCIS mitigate future backlog
of the NPRM. See 84 FR 62292. USCIS employees for the reasons stated growth.
Appendix Table 10 of the supporting in the NPRM. USCIS estimates that it Comment: A commenter wrote that
documentation that accompanies this must add an additional 1,960 positions USCIS does not explain why the NPRM
final rule also includes them. in FY 2019/2020 (relative to FY 2018 includes funding for a 44 percent
Comment: A commenter wrote that authorized staffing levels) to address increase in staffing levels from FY 2016/
USCIS does not explain whether prior incoming workload.107 However, the fee 2017, or why this increase was not
year expenses used in calculations for schedule that has been in place since anticipated in the 2016 fee rule just 3
immigration application fees under December 23, 2016 is insufficient to years earlier. The same commenter
Section IV(B) include activities that fund this additional staffing stated that USCIS should at the very
courts later enjoined, or whether the requirement. The total estimated staffing least provide the public with a version
calculation included legal costs related of fee review supporting documentation
requirement of 20,820 in this final rule

to litigating the issues in court. If so, the Appendix Table 6 that goes back 10
107 This represents 138 fewer positions than years, broken down by directorate, and
106 SeeFY 2019/2020 Immigration Examinations reflected in the NPRM due to the removal of actual staffing numbers for each fiscal
Fee Account Fee Review Supporting estimated additional staff associated with DACA. year. Similarly, another commenter said
Documentation with Addendum, which is part of See the Form I–821D, DACA Renewal Fee section
the docket for this final rule. It provides more for additional information regarding why DHS is
USCIS fails to explain why the increase
information on how USCIS conducted the fee not implementing a fee for Form I–821D in this of 5,000 in staff from 2018 to 2019 is
review and defines the activities in it. final rule. merited.
Response: DHS articulated in the 4. Cost Baseline cannot sustain recurring annual
NPRM that, ‘‘This additional staffing operating deficits of this magnitude and
Comment: Multiple commenters
requirement reflects the fact that it takes continue to fund itself in this manner,
USCIS longer to adjudicate many claimed that DHS did not adequately
necessitating an adjustment to the fee
workloads than was planned for in the explain the growth in USCIS costs from
schedule based on the results of the FY
FY 2016/2017 fee rule and that the FY 2016/2017 fee rule and that DHS
2019/2020 fee review.
workload volumes, particularly for work failed to provide justifications for 57
percent of the increase in costs from the As detailed in the NPRM, a primary
types that do not currently generate fee driver of cost growth from the FY 2018
revenue, have grown.’’ See 84 FR 62286. previous fee rule. A commenter stated
that USCIS dismisses the option of AOP to the FY 2019/2020 cost baseline
Although USCIS used all available data
reducing projected costs with a single is payroll for on-board and new staff.
at the time it conducted the FY 2016/
sentence and is a ‘‘fatal defect’’ in the See 84 FR 62286. This staff is necessary
2017 fee review, it necessarily used
NPRM. Other commenters said that in to process the projected workload
historical data and trends to inform its
projections. USCIS was unable to overstating workload volumes, DHS receipt volume, which exceeds USCIS’
foresee these additional staffing needs at overestimated the costs to be recovered current workload capacity. Strategic
the time it implemented the FY 2016/ by USCIS’ fee schedule. investments in staffing may help USCIS
2017 fee rule because of nearly Response: In its NPRM, DHS mitigate or stabilize future backlog
unprecedented growth in workloads highlighted changes from USCIS’ FY growth. Furthermore, net additional
such as credible fear and affirmative 2018 Annual Operating Plan (AOP) to costs include non-pay general expense
asylum. Furthermore, USCIS could not the FY 2019/2020 cost baseline. See 84 enhancements for requirements such as
perfectly anticipate all policy and FR 62286. The authorized staffing levels secure mail shipping for permanent
operational changes that influence and FY 2018 AOP costs are higher than resident cards and other secure
adjudication times. FY 2016/2017 fee rule projections. After documents ($27 million), USCIS
USCIS cannot afford the estimated the FY 2016/2017 fee rule became headquarters consolidation ($32
staffing requirement necessary to effective on December 23, 2016, USCIS million), increased background checks
address its incoming workload under funded additional staff and other agency ($18 million), IT modernization efforts
the previous fee structure. If USCIS initiatives through a combination of ($32 million), customer engagement
maintains current staffing levels, DHS additional revenue resulting from higher center ($23 million), and inflationary
believes that backlogs would grow. fees and available carryover funds. Per increases for contracts. This final rule
Therefore, DHS adjusts USCIS’ fees in Figure 4 of the supporting does not transfer funds to ICE or
this final rule to generate additional documentation that accompanies this implement new DACA fees. Therefore,
revenue that may be used to fund staff final rule, USCIS expected to draw DHS removed $207.6 million for ICE
that will adjudicate incoming workload down its carryover funds in FY 2019 and $18.7 million of DACA costs in this
and potentially mitigate or stabilize and FY 2020 because base operating final rule. Table 6 is a revised crosswalk
future backlog growth. costs were projected to exceed incoming summary from the FY 2018 AOP to the
DHS declines to make changes in this revenue. In other words, USCIS FY 2019/2020 cost baseline used to
final rule in response to these forecasted an annual operating deficit in inform the fee schedule in this final
comments. both years. DHS determined that USCIS rule.
TABLE 6—REVISED COST BASELINE PROJECTIONS

[FY 2019/2020 fee review IEFA non-premium budget (in millions)]
Total Base FY 2018 IEFA Non-Premium Budget ............................................................................................................................... $3,585.6

Plus: Net Spending Adjustments ......................................................................................................................................................... 217.2
Total Adjusted FY 2018 IEFA Non-Premium Budget .................................................................................................................. 3,802.8

Plus: Transfer to ICE ........................................................................................................................................................................... ........................
Plus: Pay Inflation and Promotions/Within Grade Increases .............................................................................................................. 280.2
Plus: Net Additional Costs ................................................................................................................................................................... 249.0

Plus: Pay Inflation and Promotions/Within Grade Increases .............................................................................................................. 218.6
Plus: Net Additional Costs ................................................................................................................................................................... 5.8
DHS did not overstate its projected if the actual fee-paying receipt volume or $2.00 when rounded to the nearest
costs for recovery via USCIS’ fee materialized at half or 50, then the whole dollar).108 As previously
schedule. Generally, whenever an proposed fee should have been double explained, USCIS uses the best
overestimate of workload and/or fee- or $2.00 to recover full cost because information available at the time it
paying receipts materialize, proposed there were fewer fee-paying applicants conducts biennial fee reviews.109
fees are often understated. For example, to absorb the $100.00. Using this same
assume there is a total cost estimate of example, even if the $100.00 was high 108 In reality, a lower receipt volume often does
$100.00 for an agency to recover via one due to an overestimate of volume not produce a cost reduction within the span of a
user fee. If there were 100 projected fee- projections and it should have been two-year period due to fixed costs associated with
paying applicants to assign a total cost only $80.00 (to account for a notional facilities, staff, and other overhead.
109 OMB Circular A–25 clarifies that ‘‘full cost
estimate of $100.00 to, then the marginal cost change), the proposed fee shall be determined or estimated from the best
proposed fee would be $1.00. However, would remain $2.00 ($80.00/50 = $1.60 available records of the agency, and new cost
Forecasts may not materialize exactly as rule, may only be used for limited Allocation Models. The underfunding of
initially projected due to many factors. purposes as provided by law. USCIS’ requirements increased
Consequently, USCIS reevaluates its DHS declines to make changes in this processing times and backlogs. USCIS’
fees on a biennial basis and makes final rule in response to the comment. fee schedule must recover the estimated
adjustments, if necessary. Comment: Commenters identified costs of addressing incoming workloads
DHS declines to make changes in this differences between their estimate of to ensure that it has sufficient resources
final rule in response to these USCIS’ expenditures in FY 2018–2019 to operate and limit the future growth of
comments. and DHS’ cost estimates for those years processing times and backlogs.
Comment: A commenter stated that in the NPRM. The commenters DHS declines to make adjustments in
USCIS rests the proposed new fees on contended that DHS appears to have this final rule in response to these
the outcome of a budget model but gives substantially overstated USCIS’ FY comments.
little indication of how it derived the 2018–2020 costs. Additionally, Comment: Similarly, a commenter
budget in the first place. For example, commenters noted that USCIS’ FY stated that the NPRM uses opaque and
USCIS states that the budget is derived 2019–2021 congressional justifications invalid budget assumptions and neither
from the FY 2018 AOP, but it is not convey lower amounts than DHS’ cost the proposed rule nor the commenter’s
clear from the proposal and estimates in the NPRM. meeting with USCIS have provided any
supplemental material what estimates, Response: The commenters’ way for the public to adequately
assumptions, or operating practices this conclusion that USCIS’ FY 2018–2019 understand, much less analyze, future
plan embodies or why this plan is actual expenditures are less than its cost costs and revenue estimates. The
relevant (instead of a more recent plan estimates for those years in the NPRM commenter said cost and revenue
or actual operating figures). In addition, is correct. Furthermore, the baselines are not aligned, as USCIS is
the commenter said USCIS states that its commenters’ observation that USCIS’ using two completely different time
budget reflects an ‘‘adequate level of FY 2019–2021 congressional periods to inform its proposed fee rule:
operations,’’ plus ‘‘funding for [certain] justifications requested less budgetary A relatively antiquated time period
enhancements,’’ but does not explain authority than the cost estimates for (June 2016 to May 2017) as the baseline
either concept. The commenter also said those years in the NPRM is also correct. for revenues, and a relatively recent
the proposal does not give commenters However, contrary to the commenters’ time period (FY 2018) as the baseline for
a full understanding of other aspects of assertions, this does not mean that DHS costs. The commenter characterized this
the budget, including the ICE funds overstated USCIS’ costs or that USCIS as ‘‘perplexing’’ given that USCIS surely
transfer, staff salaries and benefits, what does not need to collect the amount of knows its actual costs and revenues for
assumptions are driving the estimates of revenue it identified in the NPRM. any prior fiscal year. The commenter
budget growth, how much carryover DHS developed cost estimates for also detailed their analysis that
USCIS is budgeting for or how that addressing projected incoming concluded that projected costs and
affects the proposed fees, and how workloads during the FY 2019/2020 revenues do not match actual costs and
USCIS plans to use premium processing period. As identified in the NPRM, revenues, which the commenter said
revenue or why such revenue does not USCIS is unable to fully fund its raises several issues that USCIS must
offset any of the fees that USCIS estimated budgetary requirements (i.e., explain to the public.
proposes based on its non-premium FY 2019/2020 cost baseline or cost Response: DHS disagrees with the
budget. projections) via the existing fee commenter’s contention that USCIS’
Response: As explained in the schedule, thereby necessitating fee budget assumptions are opaque and
supporting documentation that adjustments in this final rule. Thus, invalid. The commenter is incorrect in
accompanies this final rule, USCIS USCIS expended less in FY 2018–2019 stating that USCIS used two different
establishes an AOP (detailed budget than its cost projections for addressing time periods to determine revenue and
execution plan) at the beginning of each incoming workloads precisely because it cost projections for the FY 2019/2020
fiscal year that is consistent with the did not have sufficient available fee review and that the revenue and cost
annual spending authority enacted by resources to meet its estimated baseline are not aligned. USCIS used
Congress. The FY 2018 AOP is USCIS’ budgetary requirements. Similarly, the data from June 2016 to May 2017 to
basis for the FY 2019/2020 cost congressional justifications cited by the determine one data element, fee-paying
baseline, which informs proposed fees commenters reflect USCIS’ estimates, at percentages, that informed its FY 2019
in the NPRM and final fees in this final different points in time, of the funds it and FY 2020 revenue forecasts. This is
rule. DHS clarifies that USCIS considers would be able to execute based on only one data input among several that
an ‘‘enhancement’’ to be additional anticipated resources available to the USCIS considers in forecasting revenue.
funding in excess of the base annual agency under current policy and fees, DHS maintains that its use is
operating plan. This estimated rather than the cost projections of appropriate. Furthermore, USCIS used
additional funding (i.e., cost addressing incoming workloads the same data to inform the FY 2018
projections) are outlined in both the forecasted during the FY 2019/2020 fee AOP, insofar as it was also an input into
NPRM and Cost Baseline section of this review. Therefore, DHS’s NPRM cost the FY 2018 USCIS revenue forecast.
final rule. projections differ from actual DHS declines to make changes in this
Information and assumptions about expenditures and congressional final rule in response to the comment.
USCIS’ carryover are located in the justifications because they reflect Comment: A commenter wrote that
IEFA Non-Premium Carryover USCIS’ estimated budgetary there is an especially great burden on
requirements to fully address projected USCIS to disclose a full and transparent
Projections section of the supporting

documentation that accompanies this incoming workloads as of a particular accounting for why it requires an
final rule. Additionally, premium point in time. average annual budget of $4.67 billion,
processing revenue, as explained in the Given that USCIS did not have as the role of the agency’s cost-modeling
Premium Processing section of this final available resources equivalent to its software is simply to accept this number
estimated budgetary needs in FY 2018 ‘‘as a received truth’’ and allocate it
accounting systems need not be established solely and 2019, it was not able to hire the among all of the various form types.
for this purpose.’’ number of staff estimated by its Staffing This commenter said USCIS provides
almost no explanation for why it is initiatives that could affect the number Citizenship and Integration Grant
projecting such high costs, especially of people seeking immigration benefits Program discussed elsewhere. The
when the agency’s actual costs in FY has continued even since April 2019 immigration policy environment
2018, 2019, and 2020 were so much when USCIS completed its fee review changes so frequently that if USCIS
lower than its own projections. and November 2019 when DHS were to delay finalizing a fee review
Response: DHS acknowledges that published the NPRM. The commenter until cost data was available for all
USCIS’ actual expenditures in FY 2019 said this also raises serious questions future policy initiatives, DHS would be
were less than the projected costs in this about whether the fee review complies unable to adjust fees timely, thereby
final fee rule. Furthermore, the with the statutory requirement for posing a fiscal risk to USCIS. Biennial
commenter is correct in stating that the USCIS to conduct such a review and fee reviews must reflect USCIS’ cost
FY 2019 and FY 2020 cost projections make recommendations based on the projections as of a particular point in
in the NPRM exceed the total budget relevant ‘‘costs incurred.’’ The time as best can be determined. The
authority requested for USCIS in the commenter said the proposal’s reliance same logic applies to other operational
Congressional Justifications that on 2018 cost projections is metrics including completion rates,
accompany the President’s annual unreasonable. The commenter said more revenue forecasts, and workload
budget proposal for those years. This recent data and projections were projections. USCIS always leverages the
reflects the fact that the revenue available or could have been if USCIS best information available at the time it
generated under the previous USCIS fee had waited just a bit longer, and USCIS conducts a biennial fee review, but it
schedule was insufficient to adequately provides no reason that 2018 figures are necessarily results in some costs or
fund the agency’s needs. The President’s more relevant. The same commenter savings realized or to be realized not
budget proposal did not request said the proposal is additionally being incorporated in the final fees
authority for USCIS to spend money unreasonable because it is based on simply due to the passage of time for
that it was not expecting to have. The projections for FY 2019 and FY 2020, a rule development and finalization.
difference between the cost projections period that has nearly passed. The In recognition of the constantly
and actual USCIS expenditures across commenter said USCIS should have evolving immigration policy
this time manifested in backlog growth based its modeling on more recent data environment and its obligations under
and unmet operational needs. It does and projected results for the time period the INA and the CFO Act, USCIS
not reflect inaccurate projections of the when any new fee rule would be in regularly conducts biennial fee reviews.
cost to USCIS of fully funding its effect. The two-year review mandate in the
operational requirements. A commenter wrote that USCIS CFO Act forces fee setting agencies to
DHS has fully explained and justified excludes savings and benefits already address the effects of just these sorts of
USCIS’ projected costs to meet its realized such as efficiencies gained policy and practice changes on their
operational requirements and address through investments in information fees; otherwise, bureaucratic inertia
its projected workload. Therefore, DHS technology, closures of international could cause an agency to not address
declines to make changes in this final offices, and lower refugee intake. the soundness of their fees versus costs
rule in response to the comment. Similarly, a commenter wrote that the and services. As it is, the two-year
Comment: Commenters stated that, RIA fails to present data and evidence period provides agencies with a
during a meeting with USCIS Office of on a number of recent changes designed reasonable period within which to
the Chief Financial Officer, the group to reduce costs, including limiting the regularly address such issues, subject to
discussed the timing and availability of availability of printed study materials, the time constraints of notice and
information in the FY 2019/2020 fee no longer providing printed Forms N– comment rulemaking previously
review. A commenter stated that the 400, centralizing all customer inquiries mentioned. To the extent that the recent
cost-modeling software uses information and complaints on a call center, and policy initiatives identified by the
from 2017, which precedes most of the introducing electronic filing for many commenters affect USCIS’ costs, those
notable USCIS policy changes of the benefits. effects will be captured in USCIS’ next
past 3 years. The commenter stated that Response: DHS acknowledges that it biennial fee review. If the totality of new
USCIS apparently attempts to predict did not incorporate cost increases or initiatives reduces USCIS’ costs, it may
how costs for a given form type will savings from policy initiatives for which result in lower fees in the future for
change in the future, but there has been data was not available at the time USCIS applicants and petitioners.
no comprehensive modeling of the conducted the FY 2019/2020 fee review. DHS declines to make changes in this
many recent developments that would DHS rejects the implication that it final rule in response to the comments.
tend to reduce agency costs and put inappropriately failed to account for Comment: A commenter wrote that
downward pressure on user fees. future policy initiatives. DHS must their own estimates suggest USCIS is
The commenter stated that USCIS adjust USCIS fees through notice and attempting to increase revenue by
does not appear to have accounted for comment rulemaking which, especially around 49 percent over current revenue
many recent policy changes because for a rule with a billion-dollar impact, projections based on estimated growth
data was not available ‘‘at the time it is a lengthy process that requires policy in applications. The commenter said
conducted this fee review.’’ The planning, analysis, a proposed rule, this is an extraordinary amount of
commenters wrote that more recent data reading and responding to comments, revenue extracted from its most
could change the number of people and a final rule. DHS must publish a vulnerable users.
applying for immigration benefits, and final rule that only makes changes that Response: DHS is unable to replicate
thus USCIS’ budget estimates and fee are a logical outgrowth from the the commenter’s estimate and does not
calculations. Another commenter stated proposed rule, and a totally new budget know the source or validity of these
that the rule does not suggest that with minor changes in costs or savings calculations. Regardless, as explained in
USCIS has estimated and accounted for cannot be substituted between the the NPRM and this final rule, DHS must
the combined effect of these multiple proposed and final rules, although we adjust USCIS’ fees to recover the
initiatives, nor could it have done so adjust for substantial sums based on estimated full cost of providing
comprehensively as the intervening legislation as we did for adjudication and naturalization
Administration’s adoption of new appropriated funds for ICE and the services. DHS declines to make changes
in this final rule in response to this forms (i.e., N–336, N–400, N–565, N– The fees established in this final rule are
comment. 600, and N–600K) in its final ABC not calculated to provide funds to ICE.
Comment: A commenter said that model because Congress appropriated
USCIS states that it recognizes revenue N. Processing Times and Backlogs
funds for the Citizenship and
when work is completed, asserting that Integration Grant Program. Instead, Comment: A commenter wrote that
the implications of this accounting USCIS reassigns $10 million of non- USCIS should focus on the processing
principle on USCIS’ budget and fee premium funds to other fee-paying times and becoming more efficient. The
modeling is not clear but could be quite forms, thereby reducing the costs commenter also suggested that USCIS
significant. For example, the commenter assigned to and final fees for could benefit from a more streamlined
said it is unclear whether revenue naturalization-related forms. electronic process. One commenter
estimates are based on actual cash flow DHS declines to make any changes in wrote that electronic filing glitches, lost
or the amount of revenue that is this final rule in response to these documents, erroneous rejections, and
recognized in a current year or if USCIS’ comments. lengthy holds should be addressed
budget is inflated with the costs of before fees are raised. One commenter
processing applications for which M. ICE Transfer said USCIS should increase filing
USCIS received a fee in a prior year. Comment: Many commenters wrote technology and training of Service
Response: DHS clarifies that all that they disagree with the proposed Officers to ensure they have the legal
figures in the USCIS fee review, NPRM, transfer of USCIS IEFA funds to ICE. knowledge of the regulations and have
and this final rule reflect projected They provided a number of reasons for the platform to adjudicate cases
costs, workload and associated revenue their objections. Another commenter efficiently. The commenter said
for the FY 2019/2020 biennial period. concluded that eliminating the revenue technology allocations should
DHS did not overstate or inflate the transfer to ICE enforcement would specifically focus on electronic filing
USCIS’ cost baseline because it does not reduce USCIS’ claimed need to systems that can reduce processing
include workload for which USCIS eliminate ability-to-pay waivers. times and make document and forms
received a fee in a prior year. submission from U.S. employers
Response: DHS removed the transfer
DHS declines to make changes in this seamless.
of IEFA funds to ICE from this final rule
final rule in response to the comment. Response: DHS strives to save money,
because Congress appropriated $207.6 be efficient, and process all requests in
5. Alternative Funding Sources million to ICE in FY 2020. See a timely manner while maintaining the
Comment: Commenters wrote that Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, integrity of the United States
funding for USCIS should come from Public Law 116–93, div. D, tit. IV (Dec. immigration system. USCIS agrees with
another source. Multiple commenters 20, 2019). DHS may fund activities commenters that electronic filing,
indicated that Congress should provide conducted by any component of the processing, and record keeping for
appropriations to USCIS to decrease the department that constitute immigration immigration benefit requests is likely to
burden on immigrants. Some adjudication and naturalization services provide operational efficiencies that
commenters also indicated that USCIS using the IEFA. See INA section 286(m), could aid USCIS in better using its
did not consider the $10 million (n), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m), (n). Nevertheless, existing resources and potentially
appropriation for citizenship grants in the fees established by this final rule are reduce processing times and backlogs.
setting its fees. not calculated to provide funds to ICE. Although USCIS is aggressively moving
Response: As stated in the NPRM, fees Comment: A commenter suggested to expand e-processing to more form
have funded USCIS since its inception. that USCIS use the money currently types, its current operational needs
Approximately 97 percent of USCIS’ spent on detention by ICE to instead dictate that it must increase fees to
annual funding comes from fees. USCIS streamline and simplify the application cover projected costs. If USCIS realizes
must rely on fees until the law changes process. operational efficiencies through the
or Congress appropriates funding. For Response: Congress appropriates expansion of electronic benefit request
FY 2019 and FY 2020, Congress funds for ICE Enforcement and Removal filing and processing, those cost savings
appropriated $10 million for the Operations. Those funds are not will be reflected in upcoming fee
Citizenship and Integration Grant available for use by USCIS. DHS reviews and may result in future fees
Program. See Consolidated declines to make changes in this final that are lower than they would have
Appropriations Act, 2019, Public Law rule in response to this comment. been in the absence of such efficiencies.
116–6, div. A, tit. IV (Feb. 15, 2019) and Comment: A commenter wrote that Training, software, and equipment costs
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, recent legislative action suggested are part the IEFA budget. USCIS
Public Law 116–93, div. D, tit. IV (Dec. USCIS would abandon the plan to encourages its employee to discuss with
20, 2020). At the time USCIS conducted transfer funds to ICE, so the commenter their supervisor if they believe that they
the FY 2019/2020 fee review, Congress asked that USCIS confirm in its final lack the resources necessary to do their
had not appropriated $10 million for the rule that it does not have the authority jobs.
Citizenship and Integration Grant to transfer IEFA funds to ICE collected. DHS declines to make changes in this
Program. As a result, USCIS did not Response: DHS may fund activities final rule in response to these
expect to receive the appropriations in conducted by any component of the comments.
FY 2019 or FY 2020. Therefore, USCIS’ department that constitute immigration Comment: Many commenters who
FY 2018 AOP and FY 2019/2020 fee adjudication and naturalization services opposed the NPRM noted that
review cost baseline accounted for these using the IEFA. See INA section 286(m), immigration benefit request backlogs
funds in the IEFA non-premium budget. (n), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m), (n). DHS removed and processing times have increased
In this final rule, DHS clarifies that $10 the transfer of IEFA funds to ICE from under the current administration
million (IEFA non-premium funds; not this final rule because Congress despite a fee increase in December 2016.
appropriated funds) remains in the cost appropriated $207.6 million to ICE in Many commenters stated that since
baseline for other agency initiatives. FY 2020. See Consolidated 2010, USCIS increased filing fees by
However, USCIS does not assign $10 Appropriations Act, 2020, Public Law weighted averages of 10 percent and 21
million to only naturalization-related 116–93, div. D, tit. IV (Dec. 20, 2019). percent but has not achieved any
associated improvement in processing USCIS considered all cost and concrete plan is to spend more money
times, backlogs, or customer service. operational data that was available at on reducing fraud. USCIS intends to use
Commenters cited reports stating that the time it conducted the FY 2019/2020 revenue from the fees to fund multiple
during that same period USCIS’ backlog fee review, including potential process initiatives, including increased staffing
has increased by more than 6,000 efficiencies. It does not account for across the agency. DHS adjusts USCIS’
percent and that the overall average case recent process efficiencies for which fee schedule in this final rule to recover
processing time increased 91 percent data was not yet available at the time. the estimated full cost of providing
between 2014 and 2018. Commenters However, USCIS will evaluate and immigration adjudication and
wrote that fees should not increase until capture any relevant cost-savings data naturalization services for anticipated
USCIS improves its efficiency and for process efficiencies during its next incoming workloads. USCIS does not
management. Commenters wrote that an biennial fee review. To the extent that incorporate the cost of addressing
increase in fees must be accompanied potential process efficiencies are existing pending caseloads in its
by improvement in processing times, recognized in the next biennial fee biennial fee reviews, as it would be
reduced backlogs, improved customer review, cost-savings may lessen the inequitable to require new applicants
service, and services that do not impact of future fee adjustments. and petitioners to pay for the cost
discriminate against the working class, DHS declines to make changes in this addressing previously submitted
low-income applicants, and others who final rule in response to the comment. applications and petitions for which
face financial hardships. Comment: A commenter said an USCIS already collected fees. To the
Response: DHS recognizes the increase in fees would only further extent fee adjustments result in
continued growth of USCIS case burden those who seek services and are additional revenue for USCIS, those
processing backlogs since it last repeatedly met with inefficiency, long additional resources may help limit
adjusted the USCIS fee schedule on wait times, and the inability to get future growth in pending caseload. DHS
December 23, 2016. See 81 FR 73292 answers. This commenter said USCIS declines to make changes in this final
(Oct. 24, 2016). The fees established at has taken away services, such as the rule in response to the comment.
that time proved insufficient to fund ability to make InfoPass appointments Comment: Some commenters noted
USCIS at the level necessary to prevent online, and rerouted those inquiries to USCIS’ failure to implement the
growth in case processing backlogs. Customer Service Center where wait recommendations of the USCIS
USCIS’ costs grew more than expected times to receive calls back make Ombudsman’s Report, which provides a
at that time because of disproportionate emergency situations that require an number of recommendations for
growth in humanitarian workloads that InfoPass appointment even more improving adjudication times. One of
did not generate revenue, increased frustrating. Another commenter also these commenters said DHS’s failure to
adjudicative time requirements per case mentioned the difficulty in making consider, address, or implement
for many different workloads (i.e., InfoPass appointments as an example of recommendations from other federal
increased completion rates), additional how USCIS services have declined in government offices is telling, asserting
staff, and other factors. recent years due to mismanagement. that these changes are simply intended
DHS is adjusting fees in this final rule Commenters said USCIS should end to make the asylum process more
because they are insufficient to generate policies and practices that raise fees to challenging for asylum applicants, and
the revenue necessary to fund USCIS at support the continued administration of to deter asylum applicants.
levels adequate to meet its processing backlog-expanding policies and Response: DHS notes that one of the
time goals. Adjustments to USCIS’ fee practices. USCIS Ombudsman’s recommendations
schedule will generate more revenue to Response: USCIS continually is to address delays in processing Form
fund the operational requirements evaluates potential operational I–765 by ensuring sufficient staffing
necessary to meet projected incoming efficiencies. Reductions in the use of in- resources are available to provide for
workloads and prevent further person appointments through InfoMod timely adjudication. DHS adjusts
deterioration in processing times. The enable USCIS to redirect resources to USCIS’ fee schedule in this final rule,
new fees will allow USCIS to hire more adjudication, potentially improving including the fee for Form I–765, to
people to adjudicate cases and possibly overall customer service. USCIS provide for the recovery of full estimates
prevent the growth of backlogs. USCIS evaluates and incorporates all available of the costs of providing immigration
will continue to explore possibilities for information on both cost-savings and adjudication and naturalization
business process efficiencies. Future fee cost increases as part of its biennial fee services. The Ombudsman did not
adjustments will reflect any efficiencies reviews, including the effects of policy recommend an increase in the Form I–
realized by USCIS. changes and their impact on operational 765 fee; however, adjusting the fee
DHS declines to make changes in this processes. This final rule adjusts USCIS’ schedule will enable USCIS to devote
final rule in response to these fee schedule to recover the estimated more resources, including staffing, to
comments. full cost of providing immigration the adjudication of all applications and
Comment: One commenter suggested adjudication and naturalization petitions, including Form I–765. DHS
that USCIS should internally review its services; removing or reconsidering all reiterates that it does not intend to make
processes and determine how they USCIS policies and practices is beyond the asylum process more complicated.
might be streamlined before increasing the scope of this rulemaking. DHS declines to make changes in this
fees. A few commenters stated that DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in response to these
increased RFEs and mandatory in- final rule in response to these comments.
person interviews, among other policies,
comments.
are labor intensive and should be Comment: Another commenter noted O. Fee Payment and Receipt
addressed to decrease the backlog before that USCIS’ only concrete plan was to Requirements
fees are increased. spend money on reducing fraud, which Comment: Multiple commenters
Response: USCIS continually would not efficiently reduce the opposed the proposal to allow DHS to
evaluates its processes and pursues backlog. require the payment of certain fees by
efficiencies to the greatest extent Response: DHS disagrees with the particular methods, as described in the
possible. As explained in the NPRM, commenter’s statement that its only relevant form instructions. Commenters
wrote that any potential future pay their benefit request fee.110 In Response: DHS declines to publish
requirement to pay fees through addition, since 2018 requesters can use any change in acceptable payment
electronic means such as Pay.gov would a credit card to pay for a USCIS form instruments in the Federal Register.
limit the ability of individuals who lack filing fee that gets sent to and processed However, where DHS limits acceptable
access to bank accounts or credit cards by one of the USCIS lockboxes, or split instruments locally, nationwide, or for
to apply for immigration benefits. the fees between more than one credit certain USCIS benefit requests, it issues
Commenters also wrote that requiring card.111 The credit card used does not multiple communications and provides
payment through electronic means have to be the applicant’s; however, the sufficient advance public notice to
would restrict the availability of person who is the owner of the credit minimize adverse effects on any person
immigration benefits for individuals card must authorize use of his or her who may have plans to pay using
who lack computer and internet access. credit card. Therefore, DHS believes that methods that may no longer be
Commenters stated that it is important requiring the use of a check, credit, or accepted.112 As far as the age of
to maintain the ability to pay fees using debit card will not prevent applicants or payment instruments, as stated in the
cashier’s checks and money orders, petitioners from paying the required NPRM, USCIS generally accepts and
because they are available to individuals fees. In addition, resources such as deposits payments dated up to one-year
without access to other banking libraries offer free online services, before they are received although 6
services, such as a credit card. Another access to information and computers months old is a general standard often
commenter cited data from the New that the public may use to access forms, followed in the financial services
York City Department of Consumer and complete, print or submit them. industry. See 84 FR 62295. Because of
Worker Protection, which found that Nevertheless, in evaluating future the large volume of payments that
less than two-thirds of immigrant changes to acceptable means of payment USCIS receives on a daily basis,
households in New York have access to for each immigration benefit request, handling dishonored payments adds
products such as checking and savings DHS will consider the availability of unnecessary administrative burden to
accounts and that 11 percent are internet access and different means of its intake process. Assigning employees
unbanked and 22 percent are payment to the affected populations. to handle defective payments and, as
underbanked. A few commenters cited DHS declines to make changes in this suggested by the commenter, holding
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation final rule in response to these filings and billing for fees that were not
numbers in writing that the proposal comments. properly submitted, is an opportunity
would inhibit the immigrant portion of Comment: A few commenters raised cost to USCIS because those employees
the ‘‘unbanked’’ and ‘‘underbanked’’ concerns about nonrefundable fees and could otherwise adjudicate immigration
households in the United States from rejecting checks over 365 days old, benefit requests. DHS believes that it is
applying. which they said were listed in the the responsibility of the remitter to
NPRM without explanation. The submit proper fees. USCIS will take
Multiple commenters said prohibiting
commenters stated that relevant fees ameliorative action if a payment error is
cashier’s checks or money orders would
should be refundable in certain caused by the agency. However, USCIS
disproportionately affect low-income
situations, including when an has no obligation to insulate filers from
immigrants and a few commenters
applicant’s health or family conditions a payment problem caused by the
indicated it would impose a substantial
have changed or when an immigrant is requester’s financial institution, agent,
burden on asylum seekers. One
denied on a clear USCIS error. lawyer, third party check validation
commenter said 85 percent of the Response: DHS provided a complete
immigrant clients they help need to use service, or similar parties. DHS makes
explanation of its reasoning behind its no changes in response to these
money orders, and this provision would proposed stale check or refund
negatively affect them. Commenters said comments.
requirements. See 84 FR 62295 and
the proposal would lead to wide scale 62296. In addition, DHS is continuing P. Fees Shared by CBP and USCIS
confusion and inefficiency among its policy to issue fee refunds if there is Comment: One commenter suggested
immigrant and advocacy groups and a clear USCIS error, but we will not that previous fee reviews failed to
requested that USCIS continue to accept codify that discretionary practice as a account for the actual adjudication costs
cashier’s checks and money orders. requirement on USCIS. DHS declines to of these forms. They questioned if CBP
Response: In this final rule, DHS does make changes in this final rule in costs were accounted for in previous fee
not restrict the method of payment for response to these comments. reviews.
any particular immigration benefit Comment: One commenter suggested Response: DHS acknowledges that
request. This final rule clarifies the that USCIS should publish any previous adjustments to the USCIS fee
authority for DHS to prescribe certain restriction of payment in the Federal schedule did not account for CBP costs
types of payments for specific Register. The commenter also suggested for instances where CBP uses the same
immigration benefits or methods of that USCIS should accept financial form as USCIS. DHS set those fees using
submission. DHS does not have data instruments regardless of their age and, USCIS costs and CBP collected the fee
specific to USCIS benefit requestors’ if it does not process, give applicants 14 that was established. This final rule
access to the internet and/or banking days to correct any payment errors. The refines the fee calculation by
but understands that particular commenter wrote that USCIS should not considering CBP costs and workload
populations submitting requests may be rejecting applicants because of volumes in establishing the fees for
have attributes that make access to a payment problems unknown to them or shared forms. However, CBP workload
bank account more or less challenging volumes and associated revenue are
out of their control.

DHS acknowledges that some requestors backed out from the fee schedule shown
may not use banks or use them on a 110 See, e.g., Visa Prepaid Cards, at https:// in the NPRM and this final rule because
limited basis for a number of reasons. usa.visa.com/pay-with-visa/cards/prepaid-
However, any person who can purchase cards.html (last viewed 2/24/20). 112 See, e.g., USCIS Updates Fee Payment System
111 See USCIS Expands Credit Card Payment
a cashier’s check or money order from Used in Field Offices, available at https://
Option for Fees https://www.uscis.gov/news/news- www.uscis.gov/news/news-releases/uscis-updates-
a retailer can just as easily purchase a releases/uscis-expands-credit-card-payment-option- fee-payment-system-used-field-offices (Last
pre-paid debit card that can be used to fees. Reviewed/Updated: 3/07/2019).
that revenue is not available to USCIS that the proposed changes to Form I– days are now ending, does not meet the
for the purposes of funding its 912 would present burdens to Court’s specifications, USCIS may not
immigration adjudication and applicants with increased evidence move forward with implementation of
naturalization services. This ensures requirements and repetitious and this revised I–912 based on the present
that USCIS’ projected revenue matches extraneous information collection. The notice-and-comment process.’’
its estimated costs of adjudication. commenter recommended that USCIS Response: The comment refers to the
Comment: A commenter said that the revert and retain the previous version of effort by USCIS to revise the USCIS
hike in fees shared by CBP and USCIS Form I–912. policy guidance on fee waivers. On
are drastic and unjustified because the Response: DHS agrees that it used an September 28, 2018, USCIS published a
cost to legalize status will rise to outdated burden estimate in the NPRM. 60-day notice in the Federal Register
thousands of dollars per person. In this final rule, DHS has updated the requesting comments on the revised
Response: DHS recognizes that estimated time burden for Form I–912 Form I–912 and instructions and posted
adjustments to the fees for forms shared from 1 hour and 10 minutes to the the documents for review in docket
by USCIS and CBP represent a sizeable currently approved 2 hours and 20 USCIS–2010–0008 at
increase in the cost of those forms. minutes. www.regulations.gov. 83 FR 49120
However, the fees adopted in this final Comment: One commenter noted that (Sept. 28, 2018). The revisions to the fee
rule represent the estimated full cost of using the Paperwork Reduction Act to waiver form revised the evidence USCIS
adjudication. DHS declines to make introduce a revised fee waiver form, would consider in evaluating inability
changes to the final fee schedule on the with new requirements, in October 2019 to pay, required federal income tax
basis of this comment. in lieu of using a NPRM and then transcripts to demonstrate income, and
Comment: Another commenter eliminating fee waivers in this rule, was required use of the Form I–912 for fee
questioned why the NPRM did not a waste of the public’s time to review waiver requests. USCIS complied with
include more recent information both documents. A few commenters the Paperwork Reduction Act and the
regarding CBP costs and suggested that stated that eligibility based on receipt of Office of Information and Regulatory
if CBP needs the revenue, they should a means-tested benefit was due to be Affairs, OMB (OIRA) approved the form
have their own higher fees or fund their eliminated, but the case City of Seattle, changes on October 24, 2019.113 On
operations through annual a court placed a nation-wide injunction October 25, 2019, USCIS published the
appropriations. on that action, thereby affecting USCIS’ revised Form I–912 and instructions,
Response: DHS used the most recent plans to constrict eligibility standards along with corresponding revisions to
CBP data available at the time USCIS for fee waivers. USCIS has already the USCIS Policy Manual and a Policy
conducted the FY 2019/2020 fee review. eliminated the means-tested benefit Alert. The revised form and manual
It includes cost and workload volume criteria for fee waivers, which took effect on December 2, 2019.
information from FY 2017 as the basis drastically limited access to DHS did not consider this
for FY 2019/2020 projections. This is immigration benefits. The proposed rule rulemaking’s impact on that policy
consistent with the data used to develop narrows the criteria for fee waivers even change because DHS was proposing
all other workload and cost projections further and eliminates the financial comprehensive reforms to fee waivers
represented in the fee schedule. The hardship criteria entirely which means which were not certain to occur, and the
fees set in this final rule that affect CBP 400,666 individuals annually, about the rulemaking was separate and
are only those forms that USCIS population of Tampa, FL, would be independent of the October 25, 2019,
prescribes, but CBP shares for certain detrimentally impacted. Another form and policy change. USCIS was
functions. DHS has determined that it is commenter stated that the fee increases losing hundreds of millions of dollars
appropriate to set the fees for these are an attempt to get around the each year to fee waivers and it decided
forms at a level sufficient to ensure that currently enjoined 2019 fee waiver rules not to wait for the comprehensive DHS
both USCIS and CBP recover the because it eliminates fee waivers for fee rulemaking while it continued to
estimated full cost of adjudication, most applicants. The commenter stated ‘‘forgo increasing amounts of revenue as
including the cost of providing similar that the proposal seeks to restrict legal more fees are waived.’’ 84 FR 26138
services at no charge to other immigration and naturalization for (June 5, 2019). Nonetheless, on
immigrants. Therefore, DHS makes no ‘‘poor and non-white people.’’ Another December 11, 2019, the revised Form I–
changes in this final rule in response to commenter recommended that while the 912 was preliminarily enjoined,
the comment. Form I–912 revision is enjoined by the nationwide, by the U.S. District Court
U.S. District Court for the Northern for the Northern District of California.
Q. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
District of California that USCIS request See Order Granting Pls.’ Mot. for
Comment Responses
public comment on a new proposed Nationwide Prelim. Inj., City of Seattle
Comment: Multiple commenters Form I–912 that maintains options to v. DHS, 3:19–cv–7151–MMC (N.D. Cal.,
noted that the increased requirements demonstrate qualification through Dec. 11, 2019). By stipulation of the
and additional evidence required for receipt of means-tested benefits, parties and as agreed to by the court,
filing the Form I–912, Request for Fee financial hardship, or income of up to that injunction will remain pending
Waiver should increase the time burden 150 percent of the federal poverty level. publication of this final rule. The
to applicants. This includes one The commenter wrote that USCIS is injunction does not require that USCIS
commenter who noted that the required by the injunction to restart the may only revise the Form I–912 in a
submitted ‘‘Instructions for request for information collection request clearance way that conforms to the Court’s
fee waiver’’ states that the form will take process anew for a revised I–912 form
decision. Nonetheless, while this final

1 hour and 10 minutes per response, but that conforms to the Court’s decision. rule is not affected by City of Seattle, the
the currently approved form states it The commenter wrote that because the decision in that case only requires that
would take 2 hours and 20 minutes. The version of the Form I–912 published as the October 25, 2019 fee waiver policy
commenter said USCIS did not provide supporting material to USCIS’s
rationale on why the newly revised form November 14, 2019 NPRM, for which 113 The approved package is available at https://
would take half the time when it has not comment periods with a cumulative www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_
been simplified. A commenter stated total length of slightly more than 60 nbr=201910-1615-006# (last visited Feb. 17, 2020).
changes required notice and comment of more than 60 days. Thus, DHS has employers for enforcement action.’’ The
rulemaking to effectuate. DHS is complied with the public comment commenter recommended that USCIS
conducting notice and comment period requirements of 5 CFR 1320.11 either remove the E-Verify questions
rulemaking with this final rule and the for the information revisions associated from forms where it is not mandated, or
City of Seattle injunction does not with this rule. add language to the form instructions to
prevent USCIS from moving forward Comment: A commenter wrote that say that ‘‘. . . these questions are
with implementation of the Form I–912 the collection of a valid domestic optional and are not outcome
revision in accordance with this address for named workers in a Form I– determinative, such that if a petitioner
rulemaking. 129 petition is duplicative given that leaves the information blank it will not
Comment: Several commenters stated USCIS conducts a background check for result in a rejection.’’ The commenter
that the proposed rule also fails to named beneficiaries listed on Form I– also pointed out a typographical error.
comply with a federal agency’s 129. The commenter also wrote that Response: USCIS does not accept the
requirements under the Paperwork USCIS ‘‘failed to articulate in its recommendation to remove E-Verify-
Reduction Act by failing to provide the proposed rule why this new question is related questions on Forms I–129 where
public with a 60-day opportunity to necessary.’’ participation is not mandated.
comment on the collection of Response: DHS disagrees with the Petitioners who choose not to
information under the proposal. One comment that this question is participate in E-Verify are not required
commenter states that ‘‘when proposed duplicative. Providing a valid domestic to enroll in the system; only those who
rule was initially published on address for the beneficiary helps USCIS are already enrolled will need to
November 14, 2019, it provided 60 days to conduct the background check and provide E-Verify information. Requiring
for the public to submit comments on otherwise ensure the integrity of the the petitioner’s name as listed in E-
draft forms and instructions. USCIS information provided on the Form I– Verify, as well as their E-Verify
then posted no fewer than 145 such 129. In addition, USCIS will use a Company Identification Number or
documents on regulations.gov for public beneficiary’s U.S. address to notify them Client Company Identification Number,
review. Then, on December 9, 2019, if USCIS denies a request to change if applicable, protects the interests of
published another proposed rule that status or extend stay. U.S. workers by preventing fraud and
reduced the period for public comments Comment: A commenter wrote that, abuse of E-Verify and employment
on draft forms and instructions to only ‘‘USCIS [should] adopt a timeline that eligibility rules. Having this information
45 days. This clear breach of the allows for a sufficient grace period and on all of the I–129 versions maximizes
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) leaves does not conflict with high-volume E-Verify’s reliability and integrity by
insufficient time for the public to filing seasons’’ when implementing the confirming that certain categories of
adequately comment on the massive new forms and recommended a six- employees who are authorized for
volume of form changes proposed by the month grace period. The commenter employment with a specific employer
agency. USCIS must therefore extend wrote that USCIS should consider high- incident to status are working for the
the comment period for PRA review by volume filing seasons, for which employer specified on the petition.
at least another 30 days.’’ Another petitioners prepare months in advance, USCIS Form Instructions indicate that
commenter stated that ‘‘while the noting that ‘‘refusing to accept a prior all questions should be answered fully
extension notice of December 9, 2019 version of a form during that time could and accurately. They also provide
extends the public comment period, it cause undue burden on the public.’’ direction to write ‘‘N/A’’ or ‘‘None’’
simultaneously shortens it for the Response: DHS will not adopt the when a question doesn’t apply to the
related forms, in violation of the recommendation to provide a minimum applicant, petitioner, requestor or
Paperwork Reduction Act.114 The six-month grace period before the new beneficiary.
extension notice states: DHS also notes forms are mandatory for submission. USCIS reviewed all of the new I–129
and clarifies the comment period for the DHS does not believe that requiring use forms and corrected typographical
of the new forms immediately will errors related to the E-Verify questions.
information collection requests (forms)
cause undue burden on the public. The Comment: A commenter pointed out
that the proposed rule would revise in
proposed forms essentially incorporate that on Form I–129H1, ‘‘. . . in Part 2.
accordance with the Paperwork
the same information as the previous Information about this Petition, question
Reduction Act. The comment period for
forms, but the new forms are shorter 1, Item 1D repeats Item #1C. It appears
the NPRM will end on December 30,
because they are focused on the specific it should read ‘Free Trade, Chile (H–
2019, including comments on the forms
nonimmigrant classification. In 1B1).’ ’’ The commenter also wrote that
DHS must submit to OMB for review
addition, DHS believes the public has they recommended ‘‘. . . that Part 5.
and approval under the Paperwork
had sufficient notice of the proposed Basic Information About the Proposed
Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501–
forms. DHS first published the NPRM Employment and Employer, questions 9
12. The NPRM contained erroneous
on November 14, 2019, subsequently and 10 be struck as they ask for
references to comments being accepted
extended the comment period on information that is beyond what is
for 60 days from the publication date of
December 9, 2019, and the rule is not required for eligibility for H–1B status.
the proposed rule. The commenter
effective until 60-days after publication. Response: USCIS has updated Form I–
requests that the public comment period
USCIS will consider high-volume filing 129H1, Part 1., Item Number 1, Item 1D.
be open for 60 days.
seasons when establishing the Regarding Part 5., Item Numbers 9 and
Response: DHS regrets any erroneous
implementation process for these new 10, these questions relate to the
references in the NPRM. Nevertheless,
forms. ‘‘experience required for the position’’
as the commenters have indicated, DHS

Comment: A commenter wrote, and ‘‘special skills’’ for the position,
published the proposed revisions to the
‘‘about the inclusion of E-Verify both of which are relevant to
information collection requirements for
questions on each of the new [Forms I– determining if the wage level selected
public comment for a cumulative period
129], even when participation in E- on the Labor Condition Application
114 Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law Verify is not mandated for participation (LCA) corresponds to the position as
104–13, §451(b), 110 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified at in nonimmigrant program (sic), as it described in the petition. Per 20 CFR
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)]. could be used inappropriately to target 655.705(b), while the U.S. Department
of Labor ‘‘administers the labor who were previously approved for petitioner for amended status provide
condition application process,’’ the U.S. consular processing but have not been the receipt number of the petition they
Department of Homeland Security admitted with aliens who are currently seek to amend. However, in Part 3,
(DHS) ‘‘determines whether the petition in the United States, the petitioner shall Question #17, the petitioner would have
is supported by an LCA which file an amended petition with fees at the to enter the receipt number again. This
corresponds with the petition.’’ USCIS Service Center where the original is repetitive. There are several bases for
Petitioner’s responses to these petition was filed, with a statement classification in which a previous
questions provide USCIS with a more explaining why the substitution is receipt number would be necessary for
complete picture of the requirements for necessary and evidence that the number adjudication.’’ The commenter ‘‘. . .
the proffered position. This may help to of beneficiaries will not exceed the recommend[ed] that USCIS consolidate
reduce RFEs on this topic, as USCIS number allocated on the approved and only request a receipt number once
officers will have additional information temporary labor certification, such as for any basis that would be applicable.
when initially adjudicating the case. employment records or other Response: On Form I–129MISC, Part 2
Comment: A commenter wrote that documentary evidence to establish that relates to information about the basis for
they appreciated that ‘‘. . . specific the number of visas sought in the the filing (new employment, continued
program requirements have been laid amended petition were not already employment, change of status, or
out in the instructions . . .’’ for the new issued. Thus this requirement is clearly amended petition), and, if an amended
Form I–129H2A and Form I–129H2B supported by the regulations. petition, asks for the receipt number of
that ‘‘. . . will be helpful for newer USCIS has reviewed the forms for the petition being amended. Part 3, on
employers, agents, and attorneys.’’ The consistency and updated Form I– the other hand, seeks information about
commenter objected, however, to the 129H2B to include the appropriate note the beneficiary, requesting the most
‘‘. . . additional requirements for each under Part 3., Item Number 24. recent petition or application number
program that have not been previously Comment: A commenter wrote that for the beneficiary. These requests are
required that are either burdensome or proposed Form I–129MISC ‘‘. . . would not necessarily duplicative as a previous
too broad’’ and that USCIS could make applications for R nonimmigrant receipt number does not always mean
ascertain them ‘‘. . . through its own workers less efficient and more
the filing is an amended petition.
systems . . .’’ The commenter also confusing.’’ The commenter stated that,
Eliminating the question about the
indicated that, ‘‘. . . Part 6. Petitioner ‘‘The current version of the form is
receipt number of the petition to be
and Employer Obligations, question 14, organized and follows a clear structure
amended in Part 2 would make
which requires the H–2A petitioner and . . .’’ but that ‘‘. . . the proposed
matching the amended petition with the
each employer to consent to ‘‘allow revised Form I–129 moves from one
original petition more burdensome.
Government access’’ to the H–2A topic to another, not following a logical
worksite is overly broad and goes progression.’’ The commenter also wrote Comment: A commenter wrote that,
beyond 8 CFR 214.2(h)(5)(vi) which that, ‘‘. . . certain questions are ‘‘Part 4, Questions #9 and #10 ask if the
only requires consent to ‘‘allow access redundant and . . . broaden the scope beneficiary has ever been granted or
to the site by DHS officers.’’ of the question needlessly.’’ denied the classification requested. The
Response: The data collections Response: The comment does not current version of the form limits the
included in Form I–129H2A and Form specify how the organization fails to scope of these questions to the last 7
I–129H2B have a regulatory basis. While follow the progression of the regulation. years. By removing the time limitation
they might technically be ascertainable Notably, the new Form I–129MISC on this question, USCIS is requesting
through USCIS systems, this would structure contains much of the information that may be overly
result in substantially greater eligibility information in the main burdensome for petitioners and
operational burdens and, hence, greater petition. The R Supplement is limited to beneficiaries to provide, if the
expense being passed onto petitioners. It questions about the beneficiary’s family, information has been lost over time.
is also reasonable that petitioners the relationship between the foreign and Information beyond 7 years is also
should properly be on record whether U.S. organizations, and the attestation, unnecessary for USCIS’ adjudication, as
the relevant requirements are met. including attestation regarding secular that time period would necessarily
Regarding the Petitioner and employment, as required by R–1 encompass enough time to demonstrate
Employer Obligations, Item Number 14, regulations. 8 CFR 214.2(r)(8). Plus, that a beneficiary who had spent the
USCIS has changed the language to petitioners no longer must search maximum 5 years in a previous R–1
‘‘DHS access.’’ through lengthy instructions that do not status had spent the requisite one year
Comment: A commenter wrote that apply to their petition. outside the United States to be eligible
the requirement on Form I–129H2B for Comment: One commenter wrote that for readmission.’’
the petitioner ‘‘. . . to provide evidence on Form I–129MISC, ‘‘Part 1, Question Response: USCIS notes that P–1A
of why substitution is necessary and #10 does not include an option to select individual athletes have a 10-year
that the requested number of workers ‘‘Not Applicable’’ if a Social Security admission period when your account for
has not exceeded the number of workers number is not available.’’ their initial and extension period of stay
on the approved temporary labor Response: USCIS has added an ‘‘(as while other P categories may have their
certification . . .’’ could be ‘‘. . . applicable)’’ parenthetical to the U.S. period of stay extended in one-year
burdensome on the petitioner and delay Social Security Number field on the increments. 8 CFR 214.2(p)(14). While
processing.’’ The commenter also form. Per USCIS Form Instructions, all the R–1 classification does have a 5-year
suggested that Forms I–129H2A and I– questions should be answered fully and limit, USCIS will count only time spent
129H2B be reviewed for consistency, accurately. Any questions that do not physically in the United States in valid
noting that helpful language about what pertain to the applicant, petitioner, R–1 status toward the 5-year maximum
evidence to provide appeared in one of requestor or beneficiary should be period of stay, and an R–1 may be able
these forms but not in the other. answered with ‘‘N/A’’ or ‘‘None,’’ to ‘‘recapture’’ time when he or she has
Response: The H–2B Substitution according to the instructions. resided abroad and has been physically
regulation at 8 CFR 214.2(h)(6)(viii) Comment: A commenter noted that, present outside the United States for the
states that to substitute beneficiaries ‘‘Part 2, Question #3 requests that a immediate prior year. 8 CFR
214.2(r)(6).115 Thus the time the to identify and evaluate all potential review of the fees collected by USCIS
beneficiary may have been in R–1 status economic and non-economic costs and and may recommend changes to future
in the United States may be longer than ensure that those costs are outweighed fees. DHS reviewed research cited by
the immediately preceding 7 years in by benefits and that the regulations commenters as evidence that the cost
some scenarios. USCIS does not believe impose the least burden to society. The increases discussed in the rule would be
the questions to be overly burdensome commenter wrote that E.O. 12866 a barrier to immigration and found no
since we are not initially requiring requires agencies to assess all costs and evidence to support the conclusion that
supporting evidence. benefits and should select those the fee changes would have a
Comment: A commenter pointed out approaches that maximize benefits quantifiable causal effect on wages,
a typographical error in Part 5., (including potential economic, family cohesion or domestic violence.
Question #6 of Form I–129MISC. ‘‘ ‘If environment, public health and safety), DHS declines to conduct further
the answered ‘No’ . . .’ should be ‘If and other disadvantages; distributive analysis on this issue or make changes
you answered ‘No’.’’ impacts, and equity. in this final rule in response to this
Response: USCIS has corrected this Response: DHS has identified and comment.
typographical error. evaluated potential economic and non- DHS recognizes the economic and
Comment: A commenter wrote that, economic costs as summarized in table societal value of nonimmigrants,
‘‘R–1 Classification Supplement Section 7 of the Executive Orders 12866 and immigration, and naturalization. DHS
1, Question #18 has been revised to 13563 sections of this rule, table 1 of the agrees that new citizens and
provide less context and detail for this Regulatory Impact Analysis, and in the naturalization are of tremendous
request for information about secular Small Entity Analysis document. As economic and societal value and
employment. Specifically, the phrase stated in multiple places in this final generally agrees with the points made
‘[i]f the position is not a religious rule, DHS is changing USCIS fees to by, and the studies cited by,
vocation . . . has been removed, making recover the costs of administering its commenters. DHS is not adjusting the
the question much broader than the adjudication and naturalization USCIS fee schedule to impede, reduce,
previous version. This broad question is services. DHS is not changing USCIS limit, or preclude naturalization and did
more difficult for petitioners to answer fees with the intent to deter requests not propose to adjust the USCIS fee
and could result in answers that create from low-income immigrants seeking schedule to reduce, limit, or preclude
more confusion for adjudicators.’’ family unity or deterring requests from immigration in any way for any specific
Response: In the R–1 Classification any immigrants based on their financial immigration benefit request, population,
Supplement, Section 1, Item Number or family situation. DHS will continue industry or group, including members of
18, removal of the phrase ‘‘[i]f the to explore efficiencies that improve the working class.
position is not a religious vocation . . .’’ USCIS services and may incorporate DHS acknowledges that some
aligns the question to the relevant corresponding cost savings into future individuals will need to save, borrow, or
regulatory text. Specifically, the biennial fee reviews and rulemakings use a credit card in order to pay fees
regulation at 8 CFR 214.2(r)(8)(xi) accordingly. because they may not receive a fee
requires the prospective employer to Comment: Multiple commenters waiver. DHS does not know the price
attest ‘‘[t]hat the alien will not be generally stated that the RIA does not elasticity of demand for immigration
engaged in secular employment,’’ accurately analyze the impact of benefits, nor does DHS know the level
without regard to the type of religious reduced economic activity generated by at which the fee increases become too
worker position that the beneficiary will immigrants as a result of more arduous high for applicants/petitioners to apply.
hold. As to the commenter’s concern immigrant requirements under this rule. However, DHS disagrees that the fees
that the revised wording creates a Some commenters requested that USCIS will result in the negative effects the
‘‘much broader’’ question that is more analyze whether reduced administrative commenters’ suggested. DHS believes
difficult to answer, we note that it costs as a result of increased fees would that immigration to the United States
remains a yes or no question, requiring be offset by a reduction in the economic remains attractive to millions of
further explanation only if the value generated by immigrants due to individuals around the world and that
prospective employer answers ‘‘no’’ to more costly fees. Similarly, a its benefits continue to outweigh the
the required statement. commenter wrote that the proposed rule costs noted by the commenters. DHS
does not account for the harm posed by also does not believe that the NPRM is
R. Statutory and Regulatory Responses increased naturalization fees such as in any way discriminatory in its
1. General Comments on the Regulatory reduced wages, broken families, and application and effect. DHS did not
Impact Analysis increased vulnerability to domestic target any particular group or class of
violence. individuals. Therefore, DHS declines to
Comment: One commenter cited the Response: DHS notes that previous fee make changes in this final rule in
APA and Supreme Court precedent, increases in 2007, 2010 and 2016 have response to these comments.
stating that the asylum fee is such a had no discernible effect on the number Comment: A commenter wrote that
departure from prior policy that the of filings that USCIS received.116 the RIA does not consider the costs to
agency must provide a ‘‘reasoned DHS recognizes the contributions that the families and communities of asylum
analysis for the change.’’ The naturalized citizens make to American seekers who will need to help cover fees
commenter wrote that the agency society. However, USCIS must fund for indigent individuals.
provided no evidence, analysis, or itself through fees. DHS does not have Response: DHS did not consider the
discussion to support its conclusions, any data to establish that these fees, costs to the families and communities of
and that under the APA and Executive though required, are a significant asylum seekers, who will need
Orders 12866 and 13563, USCIS failed impediment to naturalization or assistance with fees for indigent
economic and social mobility. As stated individuals who are more likely to be
115 See Procedures for Calculating the Maximum
in the proposed rule and elsewhere in asylum seekers. DHS expects that
Period of Stay for R–1 Nonimmigrants, available at
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/ this final rule, DHS performs a biennial charging this fee will generate some
Laws/Memoranda/2012/March/R-1_Recapture_ revenue to offset adjudication costs but
%20AFM_Update_3-8-12.pdf. 116 See RIA, Section M: Fee Waivers. is not aligning with the beneficiary-pays
principle, as the estimated cost of agency has no data describing the doesn’t align with the Federal
adjudicating Form I–589 exceeds $50. myriad complex and changing government’s fiscal quarters.
DHS recognizes that these families and unobservable factors that may affect Response: The calculations in this
communities will have to find a way to each immigrant’s unique decision to file rule’s RIA estimate the annual amounts
pay, whether through their for a particular immigration benefit. of each proposed change in Table 1. In
communities, friends, loans, or credit DHS notes that previous fee increases in further detail of each proposed change,
cards. DHS discusses the impact of the 2007, 2010 and 2016 have had no transfers, costs, or cost savings are
asylum fee and determines that some discernible effect on the number of displayed in relation to the affected
applicants may no longer apply for filings that USCIS received.117 population. USCIS then shows the total
asylum in Section P, Charge a Fee for Comment: A commenter wrote that costs over 10-years discounted at 3
Form I–589 Application for Asylum and USCIS failed to present an accurate percent and 7 percent (see RIA Section
for Withholding, of the final RIA. DHS analysis of increased administrative 2—Total Estimated Transfers and Costs
notes that some applicants would be processing costs under the proposed of Regulatory Changes) as suggested by
able to find other means to pay for this rule, wherein ‘‘hundreds of thousands’’ regulatory in guidance. See Circular A–
application fee, such as borrowing of means-tested applicants will begin 4, (Sept. 17, 2003).118 The preamble of
money or using a credit card. DHS is not submitting fee waiver requests under this rule bases receipt and revenue
able to estimate the effect of the new the household income basis. projection data covering two years due
$50 fee on asylum applicants who may Response: Based on the OIDP survey, to the biennial fee study. This study is
not be able to afford the new fee and as described in the RIA, approximately repeated and analyzed every two years.
cannot accurately or reliably predict 16.36 percent of all fee waiver However, USCIS does not choose to
how many applicants would no longer applications become ineligible by alter its fee schedule through regulation
apply for asylum as result of the $50 fee. lowering the income criteria from 150 every two years. Therefore, the impacts
Comment: Multiple commenters percent to 125 percent of the FPG. As a in the RIA cover a longer timeline to
wrote that USCIS failed to sufficiently result, DHS estimates about 22,940 estimate the perpetual impacts of this
analyze the price elasticity or price fewer fee waiver applications will be rule.
sensitivity of naturalization eligible for a fee waiver according to the Comment: A commenter provided the
applications, and as a result total agency approval eligibility criterion to limit fee following criticism of the methodologies
revenue could actually decrease due to waivers to households with income at or and data used by USCIS in developing
reduced naturalization applications below 125 percent of FPG. See 8 CFR the RIA:
from higher fees under the proposed 106.3. Therefore, DHS disagrees that • USCIS estimates 1 hour and 10
rule. One commenter cited research USCIS failed to present an accurate minutes to complete Form I–912 when
demonstrating that subsidizing analysis of increased administrative the actual OMB approved burden is 2
naturalization fees for low income processing costs under the proposed hours and 20 minutes.
individuals increased applications by 41 rule. • USCIS states that data on fee waiver
percent. A commenter wrote that USCIS Comment: A commenter wrote that requests were not available due to
argues that the lack of a fee waiver will the RIA suggests that USCIS cannot limitations, but the agency does not
not affect the number of requests filed, reliably predict the number of asylum explain what their limitations are.
however research shows that fee waiver applicants who would be deterred by • USCIS used fee waiver data from
standardization increased applications the proposed rule’s $50 fee, but then lockbox facilities in October 2017 but
for low income immigrants. A argues it would be a smaller number does not report any data related to the
commenter wrote that USCIS fails to without providing any data to back the surveys and provides no insight into
produce an incremental analysis claim. why data for just one month was
considering the difference in money Response: As stated in the NPRM RIA appropriate for cost projections.
flow between the original situation and and in this Final Rule RIA (Section P), Response: DHS agrees with the
the proposed changes. DHS agrees with the commenter that commenter that the time burden
Response: DHS acknowledges that USCIS cannot reliably estimate the estimate utilized in the proposed rule
one randomized control trial mentioned numbers of asylum applications who was incorrect. For this final rule, USCIS
by the commenter observed a 41 percent may not be able to afford the $50 fee for has accounted for the new burden
increase in applications for Form I–589. DHS does not believe that places on applicants as the current time
naturalization amongst immigrants the new fee will deter asylum burden for Form I–912 of 1 hour and 10
randomly selected to have their filing applications, and the commenter minutes to 2 hours and 20 minutes
fees paid by an outside party. provides no data to support its claim under this rule. The cost calculations for
Commenters cited another study’s that it will. the final rule have been updated
findings that standardization of the fee accordingly. DHS used data that was
waiver process, and incorporation of the 2. Methodology Issues
collected from a statistically valid
FPG for determining eligibility resulted Comment: Some commenters had random sample from October 2, 2017 to
in the largest increases in naturalization issue with the timelines used in the October 27, 2017 on approved fee
rates for low-income immigrants. While RIA. A commenter wrote that the waivers. Using a standard statistical
DHS acknowledges immigrants facing proposed rule covers a 10-year formula based on the average annual fee
financial challenges encounter added implementation period, but USCIS’ waiver population, DHS determined
difficulty paying filing fees, these calculations do not show the impact of that a random sample size of 384
studies highlight the impact of removing fees on workload over a 10 year period.
applications was necessary to yield

fees entirely on many immigrants who A commenter wrote that the RIA uses statistically significant results with a 95
would not have naturalized without full receipts from June 2016 to May 2017 to percent confidence level and a 5 percent
subsidization or waiver, thus these make revenue projections for FY 2019/ confidence interval. USCIS analyzed
effects are not informative of price 2020, however USCIS does not explain
sensitivity in the context of this rule. why this time frame is used or why it 118 Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/
DHS has not omitted data describing sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A4/a-
the price sensitivity to fees, rather, the 117 See RIA, Section M: Fee Waivers 4.pdf. (Sept. 17, 2003) (last viewed April 2, 2020).
data on 4,431 approved fee waiver change in the rule to a specific benefit until reaching the desired level in order
requests, which exceeded the necessary request is to increase the fee, the RIA to avoid disruption. Another commenter
sample size of 384 for statistical does not specifically calculate the total also said USCIS fails to consider less
significance. The study of statistics amount of new fees per year that will be burdensome alternatives.
allows us to apply the results from this paid for all filings of that particular Response: As mentioned in response
statistically valid random sample to the benefit because those amounts and the to a previous comment, for FY 2019 and
population of fee waivers resulting in new fee times projected volume are FY 2020, Congress appropriated $10
the same results 95 percent of the time. already included in the tables and text million for the Citizenship and
This data from the survey is in Section describing the fee calculation model. Integration Grant Program. See
(E) of the Regulatory Impact Analysis Finally, DHS does not include the costs Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019,
and Table 10 of the RIA displays the for applicants to hire legal Public Law 116–6, div. A, tit. IV (Feb.
overall approvals, denials, and foregone representation in completing forms 15, 2019) and Consolidated
revenue estimates of a 5-year average. because DHS does not require that Appropriations Act, 2020, Public Law
Additionally, DHS has included the raw applicants hire anyone to assist them in 116–93, div. D, tit. IV (Dec. 20, 2020).
data of the survey questions and results preparing USCIS benefit requests. Other than that, USCIS receives no
in the appendix Office of Intake Comment: A commenter wrote that appropriations to offset the cost of
Production (OIDP) Fee Waiver Results USCIS excludes savings and benefits adjudicating immigration benefit
from October 2, 2017 to October 27, already realized such as efficiencies requests.119 As a consequence of this
2017 stand-alone RIA found in the gained through investments in IT, funding structure, taxpayers do not bear
docket of this final rulemaking. closure of international offices, and any costs related to the IEFA and bear
Comment: Similarly, another lower refugee intake. A commenter only a nominal burden to fund USCIS.
commenter provided the following wrote that the RIA fails to present data However, in the event appropriations
critiques of the methodologies and data and evidence on a number of recent that would materially change IEFA fees
used by USCIS in developing the RIA: changes designed to reduce costs are provided, then DHS could pursue a
• USCIS underestimates the need and including limiting the availability of rulemaking to adjust fees appropriately.
subsequent costs that a number of printed study materials, no longer DHS considered alternatives such as
applicants will have for legal providing printed N–400 forms, using existing carryover funds instead of
representation in completing new form centralizing all customer inquiries and adjusting fees. However, DHS
requirements as well as opportunity complaints on a call center, and determined that USCIS has insufficient
costs of time for HR specialists and introducing electronic filing for many carryover funds to obviate the need to
attorneys used in the economic analysis. benefits. adjust fees. As stated in the Supporting
• The economic analysis showed that Response: DHS acknowledges that Documentation accompanying this rule,
services previously provided without there are these costs savings. The RIA USCIS projected that, if DHS did not
user fees are a transfer from the Federal calculates cost savings and efficiencies adjust fees, USCIS would exhaust all of
government to the applicant, however to applicants/petitioners that are built its existing carryover funds during the
this is not accurate as tax revenues do into the ABC model. Despite the money FY 2019/2020 biennium, reaching a
not support the functions of USCIS. saved it still leads USCIS to these fee carryover balance of –$1.069 billion at
Response: While DHS acknowledges changes. In this final rule, each policy the end of FY 2020. USCIS cannot have
that some attorneys charge higher fees justification is included in the RIA a negative carryover balance, as a
than those used in the economic summary table, with the estimated negative carryover balance indicates
analysis, the agency continues the benefits of the provision. Cost savings that USCIS has incurred costs greater
standard practice of using BLS average and benefits are displayed for both the than its available financial resources.
occupational earnings estimates. applicant(s)/petitioner(s) and the DHS. USCIS must maintain a positive
Similarly, it is acknowledged that some Once the new fees are established, DHS carryover balance to ensure that USCIS
petitioners may incur additional legal calculates the opportunity costs of the is able meet its financial obligations at
fees. The economic analysis does not time burden required for completing the times when USCIS operating costs
describe every immigrants’ situation, applicable impacted forms. If the only temporarily exceed its revenues.
rather, DHS presents our best estimates change in the rule to a specific benefit DHS does not believe that gradually
of the impact of the rule. In addition, request is to increase the fee, the RIA adjusting the USCIS fee schedule over
form fees that required no change in does not specifically calculate the total multiple years represents a reasonable
time burden, documentation, or amount of new fees per year that will be alternative to this final rule, as such an
biographical information will be a paid for all filings of that particular approach would ensure that USCIS does
transfer from current fee-paying benefit because those amounts and the not recover full cost and is not able to
applicants and/or petitioners to those new fee times projected volume are fully fund its operational requirements
filing for a particular immigration already included in the tables and text while the new fees are phased-in. DHS
benefit using a form with a revised form describing the fee calculation model. declines to make changes in this final
fee. The RIA calculates the new costs rule in response to these comments.
and/or cost savings to applicants/ 3. Other Comments on the Cost-Benefit
Analysis Comment: A commenter wrote that
petitioners, from the impact of each the cost analysis provided in the NPRM
policy decision. In this final rule, each Comment: A commenter wrote that was ‘‘incomplete and arbitrary’’ and
policy justification is included in the the proposed rule does not consider less rejected the NPRM’s ‘‘allegation’’ that
RIA summary table, with the estimated costly alternatives to raising fees such as
the agency’s operations are conducted

benefits of the provision. Cost savings reducing operating costs, drawing on efficiently. The commenter cited
and benefits are displayed for both the carryover funds, or seeking Congressional testimony and an article
applicant(s)/petitioner(s) and the DHS. discretionary appropriations from from the American Immigration
Once the new fees are established, DHS Congress. The commenter also Lawyers Association that discussed
calculates the opportunity costs of the suggested that USCIS should analyze
time burden required for completing the the impacts of slowly increasing the 119 Congress provides USCIS with appropriations
applicable impacted forms. If the only proposed fees on a year by year basis for the E-Verify program.
USCIS’ decreased cost-effectiveness and However, collectively these studies 6.6 percent of the State’s total
changes to operational procedures that suggest that the incomes of some population) were U.S.-born Americans
have increased costs without tangible immigrant families may result in with at least one immigrant parent, and
improvements to adjudication quality. adverse outcomes, rather than that that ‘‘nearly half’’ of all the immigrants
Response: USCIS analyzed the present USCIS fees have caused such in Minnesota were naturalized citizens.
impacts of this rule using the best outcomes. The comments do not The rule would have a
available data at the time the analysis indicate that net costs of the final rule disproportionately negative impact on
was written in an objective manner. would be improved by shifting the costs low-income and vulnerable immigrants
USCIS’s goal in the analysis was to of certain benefit requests to other and would limit access to essential
produce an objective assessment of the requestors. immigration benefits to the wealthy.
cost, benefits, and transfers associated Response: This rule in no way is
with this rule as required by Executive 5. Impacts on Immigrant Populations in intended to reduce, limit, or preclude
Orders 12866 and 13563. DHS believes Distinct Geographic Areas any specific immigration benefit request
these operational changes are necessary Comments: from any population, industry, or group.
to ensure that applicants seeking • Citing economic conditions in the DHS acknowledges that individuals
immigration benefits are properly vetted State of California, including earning the federal minimum wage may
and eligible for the benefit for which information about earnings, the State’s need to use an entire paycheck to pay
they have applied. high poverty rate, and the increasing the filing fee for Form I–485. While
costs of housing, commenters studies indicate that some lawful
4. Impacts on Lower-Income Individuals underscore their opposition to all immigrants who have not naturalized
and Families aspects of the proposed rule that would cite administrative and financial
Comment: One commenter cited act as a barrier between low-income barriers as a reason for not naturalizing,
research from the Kaiser Family immigrants and benefits for which they this alone does not establish that
Foundation, the Urban Institute and the qualify. previous fee levels were prohibitive.
Foundation for Child Development, • One million individuals would be Similarly, financial support provided by
demonstrating that even though U.S. adversely impacted by the proposed communities to local immigrants does
citizen children with an immigrant rule in Los Angeles County. There are not establish that these immigrants
parent are more likely to live in families 1.5 million immigrants in Los Angeles would be unable to afford fees set by
with a full-time worker, such families and the proposed rule would impede this rule. None of the studies cited by
still experience economic hardships that their ability to apply for, or renew, commenters conclude that the rule
carry adverse health and developmental immigration benefits allowing them to would explicitly preclude access to any
outcomes for children. The commenter work, attend school, and access critical specific immigration benefit request,
cited research from various other community services. population, industry, or group. USCIS
sources documenting the impact of • The immigrant community would must fund its operations from fees
economic hardships and stated that the have to choose between using their regardless of state and regional
proposal would exacerbate such income to provide for their families or economic conditions, the costs of
hardships. The commenter wrote that applying for immigration benefits for housing, household earnings, and
changes to the fee waiver program which they qualify. poverty. This final rule provides for
would discourage low-income families • The proposal would make it nearly some fee waivers and does not preclude
from applying for needed benefits and impossible for more than 50,000 low- individuals from receiving public
may lead to family separation, an income non-citizens in San Francisco to benefits or pursuing higher-paying
outcome that would carry profound seek or renew immigration benefits. opportunities for work in more
negative impacts on child health and • Individuals in full-time, minimum affordable communities.
well-being. The commenter also said wage jobs would need to dedicate a full
that ‘‘decades of research’’ demonstrates month’s salary towards green card 6. Immigrants’ Access to Legal and
that family stability supports early applications and many immigrants earn Supportive Services
childhood health and development and even less and may not be able to afford Comment: One commenter wrote that
wrote that the fee increases making immigration benefits at all. workshops run by non-profit
naturalization less accessible for low- • Alameda county is the fourth most immigration legal service providers are
income immigrants would yield poor diverse county in the nation with more ‘‘the most efficient model’’ to help
health outcomes among children. A than half a million immigrants, and that vulnerable populations seek
commenter addressed the proposed 90,000 adults eligible for naturalization immigration relief and wrote that the
rule’s potential impact on health care, in the county would be faced with proposed changes to the fee waiver
including forgone medical care, insurmountable barriers in securing forms would make it harder for these
increased detrimental health conditions, their status, keeping communities providers to complete applications in
and increased costs to the health care together, and participating fully in civic the workshop setting. The commenter
system. The commenter suggested there life. The proposal would exacerbate also said the proposed rule would
would be cost increases for State existing socio-economic and health ‘‘decrease the resources practitioners
Medicaid programs and urged USCIS to disparities in San Joaquin Valley in can dedicate to actual legal
fully analyze and explain such costs. California which suffers from socio- representation’’ due to the increased
Response: DHS recognizes that the fee economic and health disparities, burden associated with generating
increases may create an economic including the fact that over half of the Forms I–912 that are already denied at
hardship for some families. area’s residents are enrolled in Medicaid a high rate, and without cause, by
Furthermore, DHS acknowledges the and nearly 20 percent use SNAP USCIS. One commenter said their
studies and data cited suggesting that benefits and more than 40 percent of organization, and other organizations
many families struggle to afford children are living with at least one like Kids in Need of Defense, provide
healthcare and connecting such foreign-born parent. social services and legal assistance to
financial risks to adverse health and • The American Immigration Council unaccompanied children, and wrote
developmental outcomes in children. found 357,652 Minnesota residents (or that if organizations that provide such
services pro bono ‘‘must find ways to reaching impacts on the classifications immigrant families already struggling to
subsidize unreasonable fees,’’ they may and applicants that the comment support their college-age children.
have to reduce the number of children mentions, aside from, as discussed Response: DHS acknowledges the
they serve. Another commenter that elsewhere in this final rule, a large studies and statistics presented by
provides services to survivors of gender- increase in the number of fee waivers commenters demonstrating that paying
based violence said if their organization granted to naturalization applicants for college is a significant challenge for
must divert resources towards since 2010. DHS is increasing the fees many students, more so for students of
fundraising for application fees it may that USCIS charges for immigration lower income. These studies also show
be unable to serve the same volume of adjudication and naturalization services that community college and student
clients. to recover the costs of running its loans are among the existing market-
Response: DHS recognizes the programs. DHS can readjust the fees in oriented solutions available to mitigate
challenges that gender-based violence its next fee rulemaking that follows its the cost burden of pursuing higher
survivors face when fleeing from the next biennial fee review if necessary. education. DHS is changing USCIS fees
violence of their abusers. In addition, Still, in this final rule, DHS is to recover the costs of administering its
there continues to be no fees for Form addressing the issues that the adjudication and naturalization
I–914 or I–918 for applications for T or commenter touches on by expanding fee services. DHS is not changing USCIS
U non-immigrant status. DHS believes waivers and exemptions from what was fees with the intent to deter requests
that these fee exemptions and waivers proposed, not charging a DACA renewal from low-income immigrants seeking to
mitigate concerns that other provisions fee, and not transferring any fee revenue reunite with family or based on race,
of this final rule may harm victims of to ICE. financial, or family situation.
abuse and domestic violence. The RIA Comment: One commenter cited
calculates the new costs and/or cost 8. Impacts on Victimized Groups and
research from the Community College
savings to applicants/petitioners from Other Vulnerable Populations
Research Center at Columbia University
the impact of each policy decision. In demonstrating that more than a third of Comment: A commenter suggested
this final rule, each policy justification community college students come from that the costs associated with the
is included in the RIA summary table, families with incomes less than $20,000 proposed rule vastly outweighed any
with the estimated benefits of the per year, and research from the benefits of the proposed rule and said
provision. Cost savings and benefits are Migration Policy Institute showing DHS had not attempted to quantify the
displayed for both the applicant(s)/ immigrants and their children make up cost associated with being unable to
petitioner(s) and the DHS. receive protections under a winning
nearly a third of community colleges’
DHS does not include the costs for
student population. The commenter asylum claim. The commenter said the
applicants to hire legal representation in
said immigrant-origin students at proposal did not offer any evidence that
completing forms because DHS does not
community colleges face unique a $50 fee for asylum applications would
require that applicants hire anyone to
challenges, and cited research deter ‘‘frivolous filings’’ and wrote that
assist them in preparing USCIS benefit
demonstrating that such students are DHS’ goal in promulgating the proposal
requests. Similarly, DHS recognizes
more likely to apply for financial aid, was simply to reduce the number of
comments concerning individuals and
community organizations that choose to are typically ‘‘debt inverse,’’ and cover people filing asylum claims. The
donate valuable assistance to applicants, most of their own educational expenses. commenter also said the introduction of
but DHS finds no evidence that the rule The commenter said the proposed fee a $490 fee for employment authorization
prevents organizations from choosing to increases and elimination of fee waivers would negatively impact asylum seekers
continue providing a level of assistance. will prove ‘‘punishing’’ for hard- and the ‘‘overstretched’’ organizations
DHS declines to make changes in this working, low-income immigrant that assist asylum seekers.
final rule in response to these students by denying them opportunities Response: DHS does not believe that
comments. to adjust their status, pursue establishing an asylum application fee
citizenship, and apply for DACA of $50 unduly burdens or harms any
7. Impacts on Students From Low renewal. applicants. DHS carefully assessed the
Income Families A commenter said more than 600 costs associated with the adjudication of
Comment: One commenter stated the Latina girls participate in one of its asylum applications and other types of
proposed rule would have ‘‘far-reaching programs with a 99 percent high school immigration benefits and concluded
effects’’ on employers, international graduation rate and wrote that the that the $50 fee for asylum applications
students, H–1B nonimmigrants, L–1 prohibitive costs for immigration is warranted. The approximate cost of
nonimmigrants, EB–5 investors, DACA benefits would hinder this success since adjudicating an asylum application is
recipients, asylum seekers, and those many of these participants work full $366, and the $50 fee is well below the
seeking naturalization, and provided a time while attending school. Another full cost of adjudicating the application.
‘‘visual representation’’ of the proposed commenter said the proposal would Moreover, the asylum application fee is
fee schedule increases that shows the generate additional cost burdens for in line with international treaty
average increase will be ‘‘far greater’’ economically disadvantaged students obligations under the 1951 Refugee
than the 21 percent average increase and their families, placing ‘‘the dream of Convention, as incorporated by
cited in the proposal. completing a degree’’ out of reach for reference in the 1967 Refugee Protocol,
Response: The commenter does not many students. The commenter also and domestic law.
provide details or explanations of the wrote that 46 percent of the Latino DHS recognizes the economic
far-reaching impacts that it estimates population aged 18 and over in its area challenges faced by asylum seekers.
will result from an increase in USCIS were born outside the United States, However, DHS does not believe that
immigration benefit request fees that while only 4 percent of Latinos under charging asylum seekers for a work
DHS can address in this final rule short age 18 were born outside the United authorization application will prevent
of abandoning the rule altogether. When States. The commenter stated this them from obtaining legal counsel. DHS
DHS increased USCIS fees in 2007, statistic meant that the proposal would does not believe that the EAD fee is
2010, and 2016 there were no far have a strong negative effect on unduly burdensome for asylum seekers.
Comment: Many commenters wrote eligible parents. The commenter resources to spend on necessities
that immigrants are particularly described the consequences of children despite the fact that Latinas are
vulnerable to violence or abuse, and living with an undocumented parent, ‘‘breadwinners’’ in more than 3 million
cited research from the Journal of including the fear of being separated households. The commenter wrote that
Interpersonal Violence demonstrating from their families and higher rates of the proposed fee increases and
that immigrant women are more likely post-traumatic stress disorder or similar elimination of fee waivers would make
than U.S. born women to suffer violence mental health problems. The commenter it less likely that Latinas could become
or death from intimate partners. The cited research from several sources U.S. citizens.
commenters wrote that this problem demonstrating how U.S. born children Response: DHS acknowledges the
was especially acute among Asian and of undocumented parents stand to comments about Latina women, but
Pacific Islander populations, citing benefit when their parents achieve legal DHS is not adjusting its fees with a
research from the Asian Pacific Institute status. The commenter said the proposal planned effect on any particular group
on Gender-Based Violence. The would make it harder for undocumented or class of individuals. This rule adjusts
commenters wrote that the proposed fee parents to achieve adjustment of status USCIS’ fee schedule to recover its cost.
schedule increases would reinforce and wrote that their children and With limited exceptions as noted in the
abusers’ ability to use immigration families would be harmed by the NPRM and this final rule, DHS
status and financial circumstances as family’s reduction of disposable income establishes its fees at the level estimated
tools to abuse victims, citing research due to the fee increases. to represent the full cost of providing
from various sources documenting the Response: DHS is changing USCIS adjudication and naturalization
tactics used and the frequency of such fees to recover the costs of services, including the cost of relevant
abuse. The commenters said it was administering its adjudication and overhead and similar services provided
‘‘crucial’’ for immigrant survivors of naturalization services. DHS is not at no or reduced charge to asylum
abuse to access immigration relief in changing USCIS fees with the intent to applicants or other immigrants. This is
order to ensure they can ‘‘seek and find deter requests from low-income consistent with DHS’s legal authorities.
safety.’’ One commenter said the immigrants seeking family unity or See INA section 286(m), 8 U.S.C.
proposal would make it harder for deterring requests from any immigrants 1356(m).
victims of abuse to apply for based on their race, financial, or family As stated previously, the USCIS fee
immigration relief independently of situation. While one commenter shared changes in 2007, 2010 and 2016 had no
their abusers and said the proposed survey results indicating many effect on the number of benefit requests
elimination of fee waivers was undocumented immigrants are eligible received.120 The commenters simply
‘‘frustrating the intent of Congress’’ to to adjust their status, this alone does not assert that the fees are too high for
enable victims to escape ‘‘unhealthy suggest this rule would preclude them certain potential benefit request filers
power dynamics.’’ A commenter wrote from doing so. DHS recognizes such without providing data to support their
that the proposal to limit the availability individuals will consider many factors, assertions. DHS has no way to
of fee waivers and increase fees would including future earnings and costs, effectively determine how these new
negatively impact survivors of domestic before deciding if, how and when to fees will affect anyone, but DHS
violence because the changes would adjust their status. DHS appreciates and believes that benefit request filings will
deprive this vulnerable population of acknowledges all of the positive not decrease substantially.
the opportunity to pursue immigration contributions of immigrants to the Comment: Some commenters wrote
protections that Congress specifically United States. that survivors of violence may pursue
provided for them. Comment: Some commenters cited immigration benefits through non-
Response: In this final rule, VAWA data from a variety of sources to humanitarian channels and would no
self-petitions, applications for T underscore their comment that the longer have access to fee waivers under
nonimmigrant status application, proposal would create barriers that the proposed rule. The commenters said
petitions for U nonimmigrant status and disproportionately harm low-income the elimination of fee waivers, coupled
applications for VAWA cancellation or immigrant women. The research cited with the increased fees for
suspension of deportation are fee by the commenters demonstrated that naturalization, would force LPR
exempt, and fee waivers will remain immigrant women are at a higher risk of survivors to choose between providing
available for all ancillary forms economic insecurity due to pay basic necessities for their families and
associated with those categories. DHS disparities and other forms of pursuing citizenship.121 A commenter
believes that these fee exemptions and discrimination, that domestic violence said the heightened standards for fee
waivers mitigate concerns that other carries severe economic consequences waiver eligibility, combined with
provisions of this final rule may harm including jeopardizing women’s job increased fees for naturalization or
victims of abuse and domestic violence. prospects, that immigrant women are adjustment of status, would cause
DHS declines to make changes in this vulnerable to abuse from employers, irreparable harm to survivors of gender-
final rule in response to these and that women take on a based violence. The commenter said
comments. disproportionate share of caregiving that access to immigration relief and
Comment: One commenter wrote that responsibilities. The commenters said regularization of immigration status
the proposal would disproportionately these factors would make it more increases employment opportunities
impact women, children, and older difficult for immigrant women to and decreases vulnerability to
adults because these populations often account for the ‘‘onerous cost increases’’ continued abuse for survivors, and that
depend on means-tested public benefits in the proposed rule and would be survivors should not have to choose
or familial support due to their inability deprived of access to immigration between pursuing citizenship and
to find work. Another commenter cited benefits at a higher rate than males.
research from various sources Another commenter cited research from 120 SeeRIA, Section M: Fee Waivers.
121 National Women’s Law Center; California
documenting the numbers of U.S. born the National Women’s Law Center
Partnership to End Domestic Violence; Illinois
children living with an undocumented demonstrating that Latinas make $0.54 Coalition Against Domestic Violence; National
family member and the fact that many cents for every dollar earned by a white, Partnership for New Americans; Texas RioGrande
of these children are born to DACA- non-Hispanic male, and have less Legal Aid, Inc.
acquiring food and shelter for their submit certain evidence is the result of rejection, and gang violence said the
families. the victimization and abuse and not proposed fee increases would be
Response: DHS recognizes the require proof of a nexus between especially burdensome for the
challenges that gender-based violence victimization and the inability to pay, populations it serves and increase filing
survivors face when fleeing from the but the request must demonstrate fees for its clients by $22,700 annually.
violence of their abusers. Victims of inability to pay to the extent necessary • The proposal would further
abuse that file a VAWA self-petition, an for USCIS to grant a discretionary fee victimize and isolate LGBTQ refugees
application T nonimmigrant status or waiver. All applicants for a fee waiver seeking asylum and many older LGBTQ
petition for U nonimmigrant status, or are subject to the evidence requirements people who have lived in the U.S. for
an application for VAWA cancellation as provided in the revised form many years.
or suspension of deportation are fee instructions, which include more • LGBTQ, women, and minors would
exempt, and fee waivers remain flexible rules with respect to the groups be ‘‘hardest hit’’ by the proposed fee
available for filing all ancillary forms these comments mention. If individuals increases given the pervasive nature of
associated with those categories. DHS are unable to obtain documents without gender inequity and prejudice against
proposed adjustments to USCIS’ fee risking further abuse, they can explain LGBTQ populations.
schedule to ensure full cost recovery. why they are unable to obtain such Response: DHS acknowledges that
DHS did not target any particular group documentation and submit other asylum applicants face challenges. DHS
or class of individuals. With limited evidence to demonstrate their eligibility. is not adjusting the USCIS fee schedule
exceptions as noted in the NPRM and Obtaining information from the IRS in to reduce, limit, or preclude any
this final rule, DHS establishes its fees transcripts, a W–2, or proof of non- individuals or groups of individuals
at the level estimated to represent the filing, if applicable, is sufficient from requesting asylum or seeking any
full cost of providing adjudication and documentation to establish the other type of immigration benefit and
naturalization services. necessary income or no income. does not intend to discourage
Comment: Another commenter wrote Comment: Several comments were meritorious asylum claims or unduly
that removing the financial hardship submitted about LGBTQ asylum seekers burden any applicant or group of
grounds for fee waivers ‘‘overlooks’’ the and transgender applicants. These applicants. More broadly, DHS is
financial challenges survivors of comments are summarized as follows: adjusting the USCIS fee schedule to
violence face, including ruined credit • LGBTQ people suffer significant recover the full cost of providing
scores, high levels of debt, relocation economic hardships, have past medical immigration adjudication and
costs, medical bills from injuries, and conditions and traumas, language naturalization services (with some
attorney and court costs. The barriers that make it more difficult to exceptions, as stated earlier). However,
commenter also said the heightened find housing and employment, in recognition of the circumstances
documentation requirements, including difficulty finding legal services, and particular to asylum applicants, DHS is
the time-consuming process of obtaining other challenges. not aligning the fee with the beneficiary-
IRS documents, would negatively • The proposal would pays principle and does not intend to
impact survivors because they often disproportionately impact transgender recover the full cost of adjudicating
need to move quickly to meet deadlines people because they are more likely to Form I–589 asylum applications.
and avoid delays in filing that would be indigent and are frequently seeking Instead, DHS is establishing a $50 fee
harm the merits of their applications in asylum as they seek to escape for Form I–589 even though the
adjudication. The commenter wrote that ‘‘extraordinary levels of violence and estimated adjudication costs exceed
the proposed rule falls short of the ‘‘any persecution.’’ $50. DHS has determined that the only
credible evidence’’ standard Congress • Violence and persecution towards exception to the fee should apply to
mandated for humanitarian-based transgender people was well- unaccompanied alien children in
benefit requests by ‘‘impermissibly documented in reports and analyses removal proceedings who file Form I–
requiring specific types of evidence,’’ from the U.S. Department of State and 589 with USCIS. DHS does not believe
such as IRS documentation. various other sources. that it is reasonable or appropriate to
Response: To obtain a fee waiver, an • LGBTQ asylum seekers face dangers make additional exceptions to the fee,
applicant must demonstrate that he or in their countries of origin which do not particularly on the basis of factors tied
she is at or below 125 percent of the protect them from violence and to underlying asylum claims.
FPG, and submit the form along with oppression. DHS expects that charging a $50 fee
the information and evidence available • According to the United Nations to asylum applicants except for the
in order to establish eligibility. The High Commissioner for Refugees, 88 narrow group of unaccompanied alien
applicant need only provide sufficient percent of LGBTQ asylum seekers and children will generate some revenue to
information to establish why the refugees fleeing persecution from the offset adjudication costs. With respect to
documentation is not available and not Northern Triangle have faced sexual or charging a fee to initial Form I–765 EAD
that it is unavailable directly or gender-based violence in their home applicants with pending asylum
indirectly as a result of the country. applications, DHS will be able to keep
victimization. The form provides space • LGBTQ and HIV-positive the fee for all fee-paying EAD applicants
for explanations and attachments are individuals sometimes seek asylum in lower. Asylum applicants will pay no
accepted, but a separate declaration is the United States as a result of more and no less than any other EAD
unnecessary. Although not required by persecution by their own families and applicant (except for those who are
statute, USCIS has provided flexibilities communities and often cannot rely on eligible for a fee waiver) for the same
in the instructions for the VAWA, T, family or community networks in the service.
and U populations, permitting them to United States for financial support and DHS is acting in compliance with
submit information regarding their therefore require the United States to sections 208(d)(3) of the INA, which
inability to obtain documentation on intervene. provides that, ‘‘[n]othing in this
their income with their fee waiver • A commenter that serves the LGBT paragraph shall be construed to require
request. DHS will presume that the community, survivors of misogyny, the Attorney General to charge fees for
inability of this group of applicants to homophobia, transphobia, family adjudication services provided to
asylum applicants, or to limit the Department of Labor (DOL) showing Another commenter said the proposal
authority of the Attorney General to set that farmworkers’ average household would make it cost prohibitive for small
adjudication and naturalization fees in income ranged from $20,000 to $24,999 farms and ranchers to remain in
accordance with section 286(m).’’ DHS per year, and that 33 percent of production and suggested that the loss
believes that charging asylum applicants farmworkers have family incomes below of agricultural production was a
for asylum applications and EADs does 100 percent of FPG. The commenter national security concern. One
not impose an unreasonable burden on said farmworkers’ wages are low commenter suggested that the proposal,
asylum seekers. ‘‘through no fault of their own’’ and in conjunction with Policy Memo PM–
Comment: One commenter wrote that wrote that farm work is seasonal by 602–0176, would increase ranchers
foreign national students represent the nature, a fact that causes periods of costs by 274 percent (rather than 87
majority of science, technology, unemployment and fluctuating incomes percent). The commenter wrote that
engineering and mathematics (STEM) throughout the year. The commenter since agricultural producers are price
graduates from master’s degree and drew upon its experience serving takers, they are unable to pass these
Ph.D. programs, and that these students farmworker clients in remarking that extra costs onto consumers and would
help fill the demand for ‘‘high-level low-wage farm work should not indicate see their margins depleted. The
technical talent,’’ permit U.S. an immigrant’s inability to be self- commenter said it would support a flat
universities to sustain competitive sufficient. The commenter also said a application fee with an additional add-
STEM programs, and help cement majority of its clients use fee waivers or on for each beneficiary (such as $425
America’s role as a leader in other forms of financial assistance to per application and $10 per
technological innovation. The pay for applications and wrote that the beneficiary). Other commenters stated
commenter discussed the demand for combination of fee increases and the that the proposed increase would hurt
highly skilled technical workers and elimination of fee waivers would mean agriculture businesses because they
cited research showing that there were that its communities will be hard hit. cannot pass down additional costs to
3.3 million STEM job openings in 2016, Response: The commenters do not consumers. One commenter stated low-
but only 568,000 students graduating offer evidence to support their claims wage H–2A agricultural workers would
with STEM degrees. The commenter that the new fees will result in the have their fees increased by four times
said that employers of all sizes, and negative effects suggested. Seasonal the amount of H–1B workers, who are
across industries, faced challenges in farmworkers employed as H–2A more likely to be able to afford the
securing high-skilled, available workers are not required to pay any fees proposed increased, which highlights
candidates, and that issues relating to or expenses for recruitment, travel, or the ‘‘deeply flawed’’ perspective that
‘‘employment immigration’’ were of USCIS petitions, so it is assumed that those workers that serve as the backbone
utmost importance to the technology the immigrant workers that the of our agricultural industry are less
industry. The commenter expressed commenter is referencing immigrated to necessary to the U.S. economy. A
their support for comprehensive the U.S. as beneficiaries of a petition for commenter wrote these increased fees
immigration reform that meets a family member. In that case, the could lead to decreased participation in
employers’ demands in a globally immigrant will be subject to an affidavit the H–2A program. A commenter
competitive and digital economy. of support from a family member who indicated that the proposed increase of
Another commenter said the proposal must support them at an income above H–2A filing fees would burden the
would accelerate the loss of U.S. 125 percent of FPG. If the farmworker is livestock industry, substantially and
information technology jobs. The a TPS registrant, then they may request disproportionately harming small
commenter said access to information a fee waiver. businesses.
technology workers on H–1B DHS is changing USCIS fees to Response: DHS understands the need
nonimmigrant workers was critical for recover the costs of administering its for nonimmigrant workers to meet
the industry and wrote that the proposal adjudication and naturalization seasonal demands in agriculture in the
would make U.S.-based information services. DHS is not changing USCIS United States and is sympathetic to the
technology projects ‘‘less economically fees with intent or effect of deterring costs for agricultural employers
viable.’’ The commenter said proposed requests from low-income immigrants involved in doing so. With that in mind,
fee increases would make it more seeking family unity or deterring
DHS notes, preliminarily, that the
difficult to create and retain information requests from any immigrants based on
current fee for Form I–129 is $460, and
technology jobs in the U.S. their financial or family situation.
Comment: Some commenters opposed DHS is imposing a fee for new Forms I–
Response: DHS recognizes that 129H2A of $415 for petitions for
immigrants and international students the proposed rule increasing burdens on
employers participating in the H–2A unnamed workers—an actual reduction
make significant contributions to the in the filing fee from the current $460.
U.S. technology industry. The program. One commenter wrote that
farmworkers help sustain the $47 billion We note that the filing fee for named H–
commenter’s suggestion that high 2A workers, however, will be increasing
demand by globally competitive firms agriculture industry and that
immigrants have supplied the industry from $460 to $850 per petition, with a
for high-skilled occupations would be maximum of 25 named workers per
affected by the fee changes is not clearly with a needed workforce. One
commenter stated its members need H– each H–2A petition. The change in these
explained or supported with evidence. filing fees, as provided in this final rule,
2A workers because there are no
9. Impacts to Industries That Use H–2A domestic workers willing to perform is consistent with the recommendation
Workers jobs its members need. The commenter of the DHS Office of the Inspector
Comment: A commenter provided wrote that the proposal would diminish General (OIG) of March 6, 2017.122 That
statistics detailing the economic employers’ use of the H–2A program, an report reviewed whether the fee
condition of farmworkers in the U.S. outcome that the commenter also wrote structure associated with the filing of
and said many of its farmworker clients would lead to the elimination of jobs in 122 DHS OIG, H–2 Petition Fee Structure Is
struggle to meet their families’ financial certain sectors, slowed economic Inequitable and Contributes to Processing Errors
needs despite working long hours. The growth, and reduced national security (Mar. 6, 2017), available at www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/
commenter cited figures from the due to a less secure food supply. default/files/assets/2017/OIG-17-42-Mar17.pdf.
H–2 petitions is equitable and effective, into the unauthorized workforce due to regulatory action’’ under section 3(f)(1)
and recommended separate fees for their inability to afford work of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, the rule has
petitions with named workers, which, authorization fees. been reviewed by the Office of
due to the need to verify eligibility of Response: With regard to the Management and Budget (OMB). E.O.
individually named workers, is more documentation required from the IRS 13771 directs agencies to reduce
costly to USCIS than the costs for fee waivers, all other Federal regulation and control regulatory costs.
associated with adjudicating petitions agencies, including the Department of Because the estimated impacts range
filed on behalf of unnamed workers.123 the Treasury and Department of Labor, from costs to cost savings, this final rule
Consistent with the OIG’s reviewed the NPRM through the is considered neither regulatory or
recommendation, USCIS conducted a interagency review process and deregulatory under E.O. 13771. Details
study to address the inequities provided no objections, thus DHS on the estimated impacts of this final
identified in the OIG report, and, based believes that the IRS and DOL can rule can be found in the rule’s economic
on its study, USCIS determined that the handle any additional workload arising analysis, section 2.
filing fees in this final rule reflect the from this rule. This final rule adjusts certain
relative costs to USCIS in processing immigration and naturalization benefit
IV. Statutory and Regulatory
these two different types of H–2A request fees charged by U.S. Citizenship
Requirements
petitions. USCIS also notes that limiting and Immigration Services (USCIS). It
the number of beneficiaries in an H–2A A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory also removes certain fee exemptions,
petition with named workers to a Planning and Review), Executive Order changes fee waiver requirements,125
maximum of 25 is intended not only to 13563 (Improving Regulation and alters premium processing time limits,
make the processing of such petitions Regulatory Review), and Executive and modifies intercountry adoption
more efficient, but to provide better data Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and processing. This final rule removes the
on the actual costs of adjudicating Controlling Regulatory Costs) proposed fee that was introduced in the
various nonimmigrant classifications, The fee schedule that went into effect NPRM of this rule for Form I–821D; 126
thereby permitting USCIS to refine its on December 23, 2016 was expected to it does not provide for the proposed
fee calculations in the future to better yield approximately $3.4 billion of transfer of any Immigration Examination
reflect relative costs. average annual revenue during the FY Fee Account (IEFA) funds collected by
2019/2020 biennial period. This USCIS to ICE; 127 it reassigns the
10. Effects on Other Federal Agencies
represents a $0.9 billion, or 36 percent, proposed National Record Center (NRC)
Many commenters wrote about their increase from the FY 2016/2017 fee rule costs that do not directly apply to the
predictions of the problems that the fee projection of $2.5 billion. See 81 FR genealogy program, thereby setting
rule would cause other Federal agencies 26911. The projected revenue increase genealogy fees lower than proposed; 128
and their employee. Those commenters is due to higher fees as a result of the and it now allows for a $10 reduction
wrote that the new USCIS fees would FY 2016/2017 fee rule and more in filing fee for applicants who file
result in the following: anticipated fee-paying receipts. The FY online for forms that are electronically
• Would place an unnecessary 2016/2017 fee rule forecasted available by USCIS rather than submit
burden on the IRS by requiring fee approximately 5.9 million total paper applications.129
waiver applicants to provide IRS workload receipts and 4.9 million fee- USCIS conducted a comprehensive
documentation to demonstrate their paying receipts, excluding biometric biennial fee review and determined that
eligibility. services. See 81 FR 26923–4. However, current fees do not recover the full cost
• Would require IRS verification and of providing adjudication and
the FY 2019/2020 fee review forecasts
did not consider whether the IRS was naturalization services. Therefore, DHS
approximately 8.5 million total
prepared to handle a substantial adjusts USCIS fees by a weighted
workload receipts and 7.0 million fee-
increase in requests for documents. paying receipts, excluding biometric average increase of 20 percent, adds
• The increases to employment new fees for certain immigration benefit
services. This represents a 44 percent
authorization application fees may place requests, establishes multiple fees for
increase to workload and a 43 percent
vulnerable workers in exploitative nonimmigrant worker petitions, and
increase to fee-paying receipt
arrangements which would make DOL limits the number of beneficiaries for
assumptions.124
incur increased burden for enforcing Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and certain forms. This final rule is intended
federal workplace laws. 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs to ensure that USCIS has the resources
• Increased immigrants’ fear of it needs to provide adequate service to
and benefits of available alternatives,
government officials would hamper applicants and petitioners. It also makes
and if regulation is necessary, to select
DOL workplace investigations and changes related to setting, collecting,
regulatory approaches that maximize
enforcement. net benefits (including potential and administering fees. DHS has kept
• Would cause the IRS to lose income
economic, environmental, public health certain fees, such as the fee for the Form
revenue from a reduction in asylum
and safety effects, distributive impacts,
applications and would need to
and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the 125 Also, in this final rule DHS consolidates the
dedicate more resources to Director’s discretionary provision on fee waivers to
importance of quantifying both costs
investigations of tax liability for remove redundancy. 84 FR 62363. New 8 CFR
and benefits, of reducing costs, of
unauthorized employment. 106.3.
harmonizing rules, and of promoting
• DOL would need to investigate 126 84 FR 62320, 62362; proposed and new 8 CFR
flexibility. This rulemaking has been 106.2(a)(2)(38).
more incidences of wage theft and
designated an ‘‘economically significant 127 84 FR 62287, 84 FR 67243. This final rule does
unsafe working conditions because not transfer funds to ICE. Therefore, DHS removes
many asylum seekers would be forced 124 See FY 2019/2020 Immigration Examinations $207.6 million for ICE from its cost baseline,
Fee Account Fee Review Supporting resulting in lower fees than if DHS pursued the
123 DHS OIG, H–2 Petition Fee Structure Is
Documentation with Addendum, which is part of transfer of funds.
128 84 FR 62315, 62316, 62362; proposed and new
Inequitable and Contributes to Processing Errors the docket for this final rule. DHS revised the
(Mar. 6, 2017), available at https://www.oig.dhs.gov/ volumes to exclude DACA and change fee-paying 8 CFR 106.2(c)(1)–(c)(2); new 8 CFR 106.2(c)(1)–
sites/default/files/assets/2017/OIG-17-42- assumptions for Forms N–400, N–600, and N–600K, (c)(2).
Mar17.pdf. as discussed later in this preamble. 129 New 8 CFR 106.2(d).
N–400, Application for Naturalization, adopted it in this fee rule. Regardless, costs and savings of the rule to range
below the level indicated by the fee fee schedule adjustments are necessary from costs of $7,664,090 to savings of
setting model based on policy choices, to recover the full operating costs of $8,689,762. Over the 10-year
or provided that certain fees may be administering the nation’s lawful implementation period of the rule, DHS
waived, transferring the costs not immigration system, safeguarding its estimates annualized transfers to the
covered by the lower or waived fee to integrity and promise by efficiently and government from applicants/petitioners
other benefit requests. However, in this fairly adjudicating requests for to be $551,842,481 annualized at either
rule, DHS is focusing on the beneficiary immigration benefits, while protecting 3- and 7-percent discount rates. Over
pays principle and assigning fees to Americans, securing the homeland, and 10-year implementation period of the
those who are going to directly reap the honoring our values. This final rule also rule, DHS estimates the annualized
benefits of the applicable immigration makes certain adjustments to fee waiver
transfers of the rule between different
benefit request. DHS’s policy shift to the eligibility, filing requirements for
groups of fee-paying applicants and/or
beneficiary-pays principle, as detailed nonimmigrant workers, the premium
in the preamble, recognizes that processing service, and other petitioners to specific form populations
different immigration services provide administrative requirements. is $832,239,426, annualized at either 3-
varying levels of societal net benefits For the 10-year implementation and 7-percent discount rates.
(whether economic or humanitarian), period of the rule, DHS estimates the The final revenue increase is based on
and previously DHS accounted for some annualized costs of the rule to be USCIS costs and volume projections
aspects of the social benefit of specific $13,856,291, annualized at either 3- and available at the time of the USCIS fee
services through holding fees below 7-percent discount rates. DHS estimates review. Table 7 provides a detailed
their cost.130 However, DHS believes the annualized cost savings to be summary of the provisions of this final
that the beneficiary-pays principle is $6,192,201 to $22,546,053. DHS rule and their impacts.
generally more equitable and has largely estimates the annualized net societal
TABLE 7—SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS AND IMPACTS—COSTS, TRANSFERS, AND BENEFITS OF THIS FINAL RULE SUMMARY
Provision Purpose of provision Estimated costs or transfers of provision Estimated benefits of provision
(a) Reduced Fees for Filing Online. USCIS does not require that immigration ben- Quantitative: Quantitative:
• Form I–90, Application to Replace Perma- efit requests be filed online. Voluntarily, fil- Applicants— Applicants—
nent Resident Card ing on paper remains a valid option. How- • A transfer of $6.1 million annually from ap- • None.
• Form N–336, Request for a Hearing on a ever, for forms currently eligible for online plicants/petitioners who will pay $10 more Qualitative:
Decision in Naturalization Proceedings filing, the fee will be $10 more if filed on for those same filings on paper to fee-pay- Applicants—
(Under Section 336 of the INA) paper. ing applicants/petitioners filing eligible forms • Facilitates electronic processing and adju-
• Form N–400, Application for Naturalization online for a particular immigration benefit or dications which helps streamline USCIS
• Form N–565, Application for Replacement request as a result of the final applicable processes. This could reduce costs and
Naturalization/Citizenship Document USCIS filing fees. could speed adjudication of cases.
• Form I–130/130A, Petition for Alien Relative Qualitative: • Results in more accurately prepared and
• Form N–600, Application for Certificate of Applicants— supported requests accompanied by nec-
Citizenship • None. essary evidence and documentation. Re-
• Form N–600K, Application for Citizenship DHS/USCIS— duces the need for USCIS to request addi-
and Issuance of Certificate Under Section • None. tional data, clarifying information, or docu-
322 ments.
• Form I–539/539A, Application To Extend/ • Reduce the collection of unnecessary or du-
Change Nonimmigrant Status plicative information as the system guides
• Form G–1041, Genealogy Index Search Re- requestors to provide responses that com-
quest ply with requirements and instructions that
• Form G–1041A, Genealogy Records Re- are pertinent to their benefit requests
quest DHS/USCIS—
• USCIS will save in reduced intake and stor-
age costs at the USCIS Lockbox or other
intake facilities. Based on current USCIS in-
ternal lockbox analysis at this time, each
submission completed online rather than
through paper provides a cost savings of $7
per submission and operational efficiencies
to both USCIS and filers—benefits that will
accrue throughout the immigration lifecycle
of the individual and with the broader use of
online filing and e-processing.
• USCIS also realizes cost savings from no
longer having to send paper-based notices,
requests, and other communications to re-
questors via mail.
• Decrease the risk of mishandled, misplaced,
or damaged files; increase availability of ad-
ministrative records; and decrease occa-
sionally lost paper files; electronic records
would not be physically moved around to
different adjudication offices. USCIS could
easily redistribute electronic files among ad-
judications offices located in different re-
gions, for better management of workload
activities.
130 Government Accountability Office (GAO), available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-

Federal User Fees: A Design Guide (May 29, 2008), 386SP. (last accessed Feb. 24, 2020).
TABLE 7—SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS AND IMPACTS—COSTS, TRANSFERS, AND BENEFITS OF THIS FINAL RULE
SUMMARY—Continued
(b) Secure Mail Initiative. USCIS will use the Signature Confirmation Quantitative: Quantitative:
Restricted Delivery as a method of delivery Applicants— Applicants—
of secure documents for USCIS. • None. • Applicants with unstable addresses or who
Qualitative: move often will be more certain to receive
Applicants— their documents.
• None. Qualitative:
DHS/USCIS— Applicants—
• DHS will experience a cost of $34.5 million • USCIS and applicants can track their docu-
from the United States Postal Service ment using the USPS website up to when
(USPS) for total mail cost, which includes the document is delivered.
Signature Confirmation Restricted Delivery • Recipients will also have the ability to
confirmation to re -send secure documents change their delivery location by going to
to the proper recipient. When they fail to the USPS website and selecting ‘‘hold for
make it to their proper recipient. pickup’’ to arrange for pickup at a post of-
fice at a date and time that suits them.
DHS/USCIS—
• Ensure secure and important identity docu-
ments issued by USCIS are delivered to the
address of person to whom they rightfully
belong.
• Will reduce the likelihood of mis-delivered
documents that could be mis-used.
(c) Clarify Dishonored Check Re-presentment DHS is changing its provision in this rule that Quantitative: Quantitative:
Requirement and Fee Payment Method, and if a check or other financial instrument used Applicants— Applicants—
Non-refundability. to pay a fee is returned as unpayable be- • None. • None.
cause of insufficient funds, USCIS will re- Qualitative: Qualitative:
submit the payment to the remitter institu- Applicants— Applicants—
tion one time. • None. • None.
If the remitter institution returns the instrument DHS/USCIS— DHS/USCIS—
used to pay a fee as unpayable a second • None. • By clarifying the dishonored fee check re-
time, USCIS will reject the filing. USCIS will presentment processes, USCIS will reduce
not re-deposit financial instruments returned administrative burdens and processing er-
as unpayable for a reason other than insuf- rors associated with fee payments.
ficient funds. • In the event that the bank that issues the
In addition, DHS may reject a request that is credit card rescinds the payment of a fee to
accompanied by a check that is dated more USCIS, USCIS will be able to invoice the
than 365 days before the receipt date. responsible party (applicant, petitioner, or
DHS is also clarifying that fees are non-re- requestor) and pursue collection of the un-
fundable regardless of the result of the im- paid fee in accordance with 31 CFR 900—
migration benefit request or how much time 904 (Federal Claims Collection Standards).
the request requires to be adjudicated. Clarifying that fees are due regardless of
the result or how long the decision takes,
and there are no refunds, is expected to re-
sult in USCIS losing fewer credit card dis-
putes.
(d) Eliminate $30 Returned Check Fee. DHS is removing the $30 charge for dishon- Quantitative: Quantitative:
ored payments. Applicants— Applicants—
• None. • $0.17 million annual savings.
Qualitative: Qualitative:
Applicants— Applicants—
• None. • The current $30 charge and the potential of
DHS/USCIS— having a benefit request rejected encour-
• There may be an increase in insufficient ages applicants to provide the correct filing
payments by applicants because the $30 fees when submitting an application or peti-
fee may serve as a deterrent for submitting tion.
a deficient payment. • Applicants who submit bad checks will no
longer have to pay a fee.
DHS/USCIS—
• DHS will not have to seek payment of the
$30 fee if payment is dishonored resulting
in a savings to USCIS as it spends more to
collect the $30 returned payment charges
than the $30 itself. USCIS hires a financial
service provider to provide fee collection
services to pursue and collect the $30 fee.
This expense would no longer be necessary
with this change.
• DHS assumes that the current $30 charge
and the potential of having a benefit request
rejected encourages applicants to provide
the correct filing fees when submitting an
application or petition.
(e) Removal of Fee waivers. DHS is limiting fee waivers to statutorily man- Quantitative: Quantitative:
dated fee waivers and two other humani- Applicants— Applicants—
tarian programs and to those applicants • A transfer of $368.3 million annually to • Current fee-paying applicants are no longer
who have an annual household income of those applicants who previously received a burdened with covering the costs for those
less than 125% of the Federal Poverty fee waiver from different groups of fee-pay- applicants who currently receive fee waiv-
Guidelines (FPG). Additionally, fee waiver ing applicants. These transfers derive from ers.
applicants cannot have been admitted into applicable USCIS filing fees. DHS/USCIS—
the United States subject to an affidavit of DHS/USCIS— • None.
support under INA section 213A, 8 U.S.C • None. Qualitative:

1183a or be subject to the public charge in- Qualitative: Applicants—
admissibility ground under INA section Applicants— • None.
212(a)(4), 8 U.S.C. 1182 • Limiting fee waivers may adversely affect DHS/USCIS—
(a)(4). some applicants’ ability to apply for immi- • This provision may reduce administrative
gration benefits. costs to USCIS of adjudicating fee waiver
DHS/USCIS— requests. It may also reduce the amount of
• None. training or guidance necessary to adjudicate
unique fee waiver requests.
SUMMARY—Continued
(f) Fee Exemptions. DHS is removing the fee exemptions for an Quantitative: Quantitative:
initial request for an employment authoriza- Applicants— Applicants—
tion document (EAD) for the following clas- • A transfer of $3.9 million annually in filing • None.
sifications: fees to the categories listed in the provision
that are no longer exempted from different
groups of fee-paying applicants of Form I–
765.
• Citizen of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, or Qualitative: Qualitative:
Palau; Applicants— Applicants—
• Granted Withholding of Deportation; • This could result in lost wages for the work- • The removal of fee exemptions for these
• Temporary Protected Status (TPS) if filing ers who may not be able to afford the costs populations may reduce further increases of
an initial TPS application for individuals of filing Form I–765 and lost productivity for other fees to the fee-paying population.
under 14 years of age or over 65 years of the employers that hire these workers. The DHS/USCIS—
age. lost wages and productivity can be consid- • Continuing to provide these fee exemptions
• Applicant for Asylum and Withholding of De- ered as costs of the forgone benefits. would result in the costs of those services
portation or Removal. DHS/USCIS— being transferred to the fees for other
• None. forms.
• Removing the exemptions allows DHS to
recover the costs of adjudication of Form I–
765 for these categories from those who
benefit from the service instead of other fee
payers.
(g) Changes to Biometric Services Fee. DHS is incorporating the biometric services Quantitative: Quantitative:
cost into the underlying immigration benefit Applicants— Applicants—
request fee instead of charging a flat $85 • $12.4 million costs for asylum applicants • $15.0 million in transfers from the govern-
biometric services fee. paying the biometrics service fee and for ment to fee paying applicants/petitioners for,
those completing and submitting new Form EOIR, TPS, and term CNMI resident appli-
I–600A/600 Supplement 3. cants resulting from a $55 reduction in bio-
metrics service fees per applicant.
DHS will require a $30 biometric services fee Qualitative: Qualitative:
for an applicant for asylum or an alien ap- Applicants— Applicants—
proved for parole who applies for employ- • None. • Simplifies the process to submit payments.
ment authorization (c)(8)’s, TPS initial appli- DHS/USCIS— • May result in fewer incorrect payments and
cations and re-registrations, EOIR appli- • None. therefore, fewer rejected applications.
cants, and term CNMI resident program ap- • Biometric costs incorporated into the fee will
plicants. actually correspond to the services pro-
vided.
DHS/USCIS—
• Eliminating the separate payment of the bio-
metric services fee will decrease the admin-
istrative burden required to process both a
filing fee and biometric services fee for a
single benefit request.
• USCIS can assign a biometric cost to the
form fee that is based on the appropriate
contract instead of a standard cost.
(h) Discontinue bundling of interim benefits DHS is requiring separate fees for Forms I– Quantitative: Quantitative:
when Forms I–765 and I–131 are filed con- 765 and/or I–131 when filed concurrently Applicants— Applicants—
currently with pending Form I–485 or when with Form I–485 or when a Form I–485 is • A transfer of $597.3 million from those ap- • Not estimated.
a Form I–485 is pending. pending. plicants who file for Forms I–765 and/or I–
131 concurrently filed with Form I–485 or
while it is pending to different groups of fee-
paying applicants.
• None. • None.
DHS/USCIS—
• The provision will isolate stand-alone interim
benefit applicants from those concurrently
filing Form I–485 allowing USCIS to more
accurately assess fee-paying percentages,
fee-paying volumes, and fees for all three
benefit types.
• Easier to administer separate fees than to
determine if the Forms I–131 and/or I–765
is supposed to be free or require a fee.
• Form I–485 applicants will be treated the
same as other applicants for employment
authorization and advance parole. Requests
for interim benefits associated with a pend-
ing Form I–485 will be adjudicated the
same as all other requests for interim bene-
fits.
(i) Form I–485 Fee for Children Under 14, Fil- DHS is requiring payment of the full $1,130 Quantitative: Quantitative:
ing with Parent. fee for a child under the age of 14 years Applicants— Applicants—
when concurrently filing Form I–485 with a A transfer of $11.4 million from applicants who • Not estimated.
parent. concurrently file a Form I–485 with a child
under the age of 14 to different groups of
fee-paying applicants.
DHS/USCIS— • None.
• None. DHS/USCIS—
• Easier to administer one single fee for Form
I–485 will reduce the burden of adjudication
and better reflect the cost of adjudication.
(j) Allow Individuals with Advance Parole to DHS is expanding the population eligible to Quantitative: Quantitative:
use Form I–131A, Application for Travel use Form I–131A to include individuals with Applicants— Applicants—
Document (Carrier Documentation) advance parole documents. A transfer of $10.1 annually to applicants who • None.
file Form I–131A from different groups of
applicants.
SUMMARY—Continued
• In addition to the filing fee, DHS estimated • Individuals who lose their advance parole
a qualitative per unit cost per applicant for cards while abroad now have a defined
the opportunity cost of time for completing process to receive carrier documentation to
Form I–131A and submitting one passport- return to the U.S.
sized photo of $32.66 per unit application DHS/USCIS—
cost. • None.
DHS/USCIS—
• None.
(k) Separating Form I–129, Petition for a Non- DHS is separating the Petition for a Non- Quantitative: Quantitative:
immigrant Worker, into Different Forms, and immigrant Worker, Form I–129, into several Applicants— Applicants—
Limit Petitions Where Multiple Beneficiaries forms with different corresponding fees. • A transfer of $75.1 million in filing fees of • $5.9 million if HR specialist file, $12.8 mil-
are Permitted to 25 Named Beneficiaries per DHS also is imposing a limit of 25 named visa category specific petitions from peti- lion if in-house lawyers file, or $22.3 million
Petition. beneficiaries per petition where multiple tioners using the specific new Form I–129 if outsourced lawyers file in annual savings
beneficiaries are permitted. classification forms to different groups of to the petitioners filing Form I–129 new visa
fee-paying petitioners. category specific petitions. The annual sav-
DHS/USCIS— ings will be in the Form I–129 opportunity
• Not estimated. costs of time to complete the different form
classifications.
DHS/USCIS—
• None.
• None. • Separating forms will reduce the need to
DHS/USCIS— navigate lengthy instructions that do not
• None. apply to their petition.
DHS/USCIS—
• By splitting the form and introducing several
different fees, this provision will simplify or
consolidate the information requirements for
petitioners and applicants as well as better
reflect the cost to adjudicate each specific
nonimmigrant classification type.
(l) Extend premium processing timeframe from DHS is changing the premium processing Quantitative: Quantitative:
15 calendar days to 15 business days. timeframe from 15 calendar days to 15 Applicants— Applicants—
business days. • Not estimated. • Not estimated.
Petitioners— Petitioners—
• An employer may lose some productivity • Removes petitioner expectation of 15 cal-
but USCIS has no way to estimate what endar day processing to allow for better
that loss may be. business planning. Premium processing is
• Applicants and employers may have to wait for quick adjudication and certainty, but they
4 days or longer for decisions on their lose no productivity from the additional 4
cases days.
DHS/USCIS— DHS/USCIS—
• None. • USCIS will have additional time to process
a petition before it has to issue a refund for
not meeting the guaranteed timeline.
• In addition, the extra time will allow USCIS
to avoid suspending premium processing
service as often as has recently been re-
quired when premium processing request
volumes are high.
(m) Creation of Form I–600A/600 Supplement DHS is creating a new form, Form I–600 Sup- Quantitative: Quantitative:
3, Request for Action on Approved For I– plement 3, Request for Action on an Ap- Applicants— Applicants—
600A/I–600 and new fee. proved Form I–600A/I–600 and new fee to • $0.14 million costs for completing and sub- • None.
clarify the regulations and formalize current mitting new Form I–600A/600 Supplement
practice for requests for action on approved 3.
Forms I–600A/I–600.
DHS is altering the validity period for a Form Qualitative: Qualitative:
I–600A approval in an orphan case from 18 Applicants— Applicants—
to 15 months to remove inconsistencies be- • None. • Improve and align the adjudication and ap-
tween Form I–600A approval periods and DHS/USCIS— proval processes for adoptions from coun-
validity of the Federal Bureau of Investiga- • $0.13 million in costs for processing and re- tries that are party to the Hague Adoption
tion (FBI) background check. viewing the new Form I–600A/600 Supple- Convention and countries that are not.
ment 3. • Clarify the process for applicants who would
like to request an extension of Form I–
600A/I–600 and/or another type of approved
change to their application/petition.
DHS/USCIS—
• Standardizes USCIS process and provides
for the ability to collect a fee.
• Improve and align the USCIS adjudication
and approval processes for adoptions of
children from countries that are party to the
Hague Adoption Convention and from coun-
tries that are not.
• Changing the validity period to 15 months
will make the Form I–600A approval periods
consistent with the validity of FBI biometric

related background checks. The uniform 15-
month validity period will also alleviate the
burden on prospective adoptive parents and
adoption service providers to monitor mul-
tiple expiration dates.
SUMMARY—Continued
(n) Changes to Genealogy Search and DHS is changing how USCIS processes gene- Quantitative: Quantitative:
Records Requests. alogy requests. Applicants— Applicants—
DHS is expanding the use of electronic gene- • DHS estimates the new annual costs to file • Index search and records requestors who
alogy requests; changing the search re- Form G–1041 index search requests and file online, will pay a reduced fee of $10
quest process so that USCIS can provide Form G–1041A records requests will be dollars compared to those who file by
requesters with digital records, if they exist; $1.3 million annually. paper.
and changing the genealogy fees.
DHS is also offering an online filing fee, for Qualitative: Qualitative:
those genealogy searches and records re- Applicants— Applicants—
quests. • In addition to the filing fee increase, DHS • Genealogy search and records request
estimated qualitative per unit cost of $14.70 process changes will increase accuracy and
per index search requests and records re- decrease wait times for requestors.
quest. • Fewer individuals may need to file Form G–
DHS/USCIS— 1041A to request a record if it is provided
• USCIS will still need to mail some records digitally in response to a Form G–1041 fil-
in cases where requestors who cannot sub- ing.
mit the forms electronically need to submit DHS/USCIS—
paper copies of both forms with required fil- • Reduce costs for mailing, records proc-
ing fees. essing, and storage costs because elec-
tronic versions of records requests will re-
duce the administrative burden on USCIS.
• USCIS will save $16 to $45 per index
search service and $26 to $55 for each tex-
tual file retrieved.
• The provisions are streamlining the gene-
alogy search and records request process
increases accuracy.
(o) Remove Reduced Fee for Naturalization DHS is eliminating the reduced fee option for Quantitative: Quantitative:
Applicants Using Form I–942, Request for Form N–400 that applies to applicants Applicants— Applicants—
Reduced Fee. whose documented household income is • A transfer of $3.7 million annually from ap- • None.
greater than 150 percent and not more than plicants who previously filed Form N–400
200 percent of the Federal Poverty Guide- with the reduced fee. These individuals will
lines. no longer be able to request a reduced
Form N–400 fee using Form I–942 from dif-
ferent fee-paying applicants.
Qualitative: Quantitative:
• Applicants will have a total per unit cost for • $0.05 million annual quantitative savings to
N–400 applications of $182.12 (opportunity the applicants filing for a N–400 will be in
cost to file, biometric collection and travel) the I–942 opportunity costs of time, to com-
with the increased filing fee. plete the form being eliminated.
• None. • A qualitative benefit to DHS by eliminating
the Form I–942 will reduced the administra-
tive burden on the agency to process the
Form I–942.
(p) Charge for an initial Form I–765 while an DHS will require a fee for an initial Application Quantitative: Quantitative:
asylum application is pending. for Employment Authorization, Form I–765, Applicants— Applicants—
when asylum applicants apply for asylum or • A transfer of $118.8 million annually to ap- • Other EAD applicants will not be required to
file an Application for Asylum and for With- plicants who file an initial Form I–765 with a subsidize EADs for pending asylum appli-
holding of Removal, Form I–589. Currently, pending asylum application from different cants.
USCIS exempts these initial applicants from fee-paying applicants. Qualitative:
a fee with pending asylum applications. • Applicants could have costs in lost wages Applicants—
and employers could have costs in terms of • None.
lost productivity. DHS/USCIS—
DHS/USCIS— • None.
• None.
(q) Charge a fee for Form I–589, Application DHS will require a $50 fee for Form I–589, Quantitative: Quantitative:
for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal. Application for Asylum and for Withholding Applicants— Applicants—
of Removal. • A transfer of $5.5 million from Asylum appli- • $0.74 million in transfers from the govern-
cants filing Form I–589 to different fee-payment to asylum I–589 applicants who will
ing applicants. pay a reduced fee of $50 for Form I–485
Application to Register Permanent Resi-
dence or Adjust Status from $1,130 to
$1,080 because their I–589 was approved.
• Some applicants may not be able to afford • None.
this fee and will no longer be able to apply DHS/USCIS—
for asylum. • None.
(r) Combining Fees for Form I–881, Applica- DHS is combining the current multiple fees Quantitative: Quantitative:
tion for Suspension of Deportation or Spe- charged for an individual or family into a Applicants— Applicants—
cial Rule Cancellation of Removal (Pursuant single fee for each filing of Form I–881, Ap- • A transfer of $0.43 million annually to those • $0.03 million in savings from the reduced
to Section 203 of Public Law 105–100 plication for Suspension of Deportation or who apply for suspension of deportation or passport-style photos requirement. They
[NACARA]). Special Rule Cancellation of Removal (Pur- special rule cancellation of removal under currently have to provide 4 photos and now
suant to Section 203 of Public Law 105– NACARA using Form I–881 from different they will only be required to provide 2 which
100, the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Cen- groups of fee-paying individuals. will save each applicant money and by not
tral American Relief Act [NACARA]). traveling to ASC facilities, for biometric col-
lection/submission.
• None. • None.
• None. • Combining the two IEFA fees into a single
fee will streamline the revenue collections
and reporting.
• A Single Form I–881 fee may help reduce
the administrative and adjudication process
for USCIS more efficient.
SUMMARY—Continued
(s) Clarify who must pay a 9–11 Response DHS will apply the 9–11 Response and Bio- Quantitative: Quantitative:
and Biometric Entry-Exit Fee for H–1B and metric Entry-Exit Fee to all covered petitions Applicants— Applicants—
L–1. (meaning those meeting the 50 employee/ • A transfer of $199.2 million in petition fees • None.
50 percent H–1B or L test), whether for new to the government from fee paying peti- Qualitative:
employment or extension. tioners for extensions into the 9–11 Re- Applicants—
sponse Biometric Entry-Exit account. • Fee will consistently be applied to all H–1B
Qualitative: or L–1 petitions, whether for new employ-
Applicants— ment or extension.
• None. DHS/USCIS—
DHS/USCIS— • The collected fees will help increase the 9–
• None. 11 Response and Biometric Entry-Exit fee
account for biometric entry-exit screening,
deficit reduction, and other public purposes
funded by general Treasury revenues.
A full regulatory impact analysis addition to the impacts summarized statement as required by Circular A–
(RIA) of this final rule can be found in here, Table 8 presents the accounting 4.131
the docket at www.regulations.gov. In
TABLE 8—OMB A–4 ACCOUNTING STATEMENT ($, 2019), PERIOD OF THE ANALYSIS 2020–2029
Primary Minimum Maximum Source
Category estimate estimate estimate citation
Benefits:
Annualized Monetized Benefits over 10 years ................................................... N/A ................................ N/A ................................ N/A.
N/A ................................ N/A ................................ N/A.
Annualized quantified, but un-monetized, benefits. Unquantified Benefits ............... USCIS sets fees at levels sufficient to cover the full cost of the corresponding RIA.
services associated with fairly and efficiently adjudicating immigration benefit
requests and at a level sufficient to fund overall requirements and general
operations, including the full costs of processing immigration benefit re-
quests and associated support benefits; the full cost of providing similar
benefits to asylum and refugee applicants at no charge; and the full cost of
providing similar benefits to others at no or reduced charge.
This final rule will help reduce the administrative and adjudication process for
USCIS more efficient. Limiting fee waivers may reduce administrative costs
to USCIS of adjudicating fee waiver requests. It may also reduce the
amount of training or guidance necessary to adjudicate unique fee waiver
requests.
Removing the exemptions allows DHS to recover the costs of adjudicating
Form I–765 for these categories from those who benefit from the service in-
stead of other fee payers. Continuing to provide these fee exemptions would
result in the costs of those fee services being transferred to the fees for
other forms. This final rule will help reduce the administrative and adjudica-
tion process for USCIS more efficient.
Costs:
Annualized monetized costs over 10 years (discount rate in parenthesis) ........ N/A ................................ (3%) $7,664,090 ........... (3%) ¥$8,689,762 ........ RIA.
N/A ................................ (7%) $7,664,090 ........... (7%) ¥$8,689,762 ........
Annualized quantified, but un-monetized, costs ................................................. N/A
Qualitative (unquantified) costs .................................................................................. DHS is unable to quantify how many people will not apply because they do
not have access to fee waivers and we acknowledge that some individuals
will need to save, borrow, or use a credit card in order to pay fees because
they do not have recourse to a fee waiver. DHS does not know the price
elasticity of demand for immigration benefits, nor does DHS know the level
at which the fee increases become too high for applicants/petitioners to
apply.
While DHS acknowledges immigrants facing financial challenges encounter
added difficulty paying filing fees, any potential effects are expected to be
indirect reductions in consumption of other goods with relatively more elastic
demand. DHS is unable to quantify the extent to which the rule could result
in some immigrants choosing to live in less costly areas, seeking out higher
earnings opportunities, curtailing other purchases or rethinking their immi-
gration altogether.
DHS has not omitted data describing the price sensitivity to fees, rather, the
agency has no data describing the myriad complex and changing
unobservable factors that may affect each immigrant’s unique decision to
file for a particular immigration benefit. DHS notes that previous fee in-
creases in 2007, 2010 and 2016 have had no discernible effect on the num-
ber of filings that USCIS received, and, in response to public comments, ac-
knowledges that evidence presented indicating naturalization increases
when previous fees were waived entirely does not support the claim that im-
migration benefits are sensitive to the changes implemented by this rule.132
DHS does not know the individual financial circumstances of each applicant/
petitioner applying for a particular immigration benefit.
131 OMB Circular A–4 is available at: 132 See RIA, Section E: Removal Fee Waivers.
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/
omb/circulars/a004/a-4.pdf.
TABLE 8—OMB A–4 ACCOUNTING STATEMENT ($, 2019), PERIOD OF THE ANALYSIS 2020–2029—CONTINUED
Primary Minimum Maximum Source
Category estimate estimate estimate citation
DHS believes that immigration to the United States remains attractive to mil-
lions of individuals around the world and that its benefits continue to out-
weigh the costs associated. Therefore, DHS believes the price elasticity of
demand for immigration services is inelastic and increases in price will have
a minimal or no impact on the demand for these services. This is true for all
immigration services impacted by this rule.
USCIS will look at future rulemakings, to encourage other forms being made
available (either in phases by benefits requests or a certain number per
year), to file online as DHS shifts to a more electronic immigration system.
USCIS will still need to mail some records in cases where requestors who
cannot submit the forms electronically need to submit paper copies of both
forms with required filing fees, as a result of changes to Genealogy Search
and Records Requests.
Transfers:
Annualized monetized transfers:
From whom to whom?
Annual transfer payments from specific form populations to different groups of (3%) $832,239,426 ....... ....................................... ....................................... RIA.
fee-paying applicants/petitioners for a particular immigration benefit or re- (7%) $832,239,426.
quest.
Annualized monetized transfers:
From whom to whom?
Annual transfer payments to Government from Fee-Paying applicants/peti- (3%) $551,842,481 ....... ....................................... ....................................... RIA.
tions. (7%) $551,842,481.
Miscellaneous analyses/category Effects.
Effects on state, local, and/or tribal governments None. Preamble.
Effects on small businesses ............................................................................... The fees in this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substan- FRFA and Small Entity
tial number of small entities for entities filing Forms I–129, I–40, I–360, I–910. Analysis (SEA).
The impact of this final rule for those entities that file Forms I–129, I–140, I–
360, I–910, I–924, and G–1041/1041A that submit petitions on behalf of
nonimmigrant and immigrant workers will face an increase or decrease in fil-
ing fees.
DHS is unable to estimate the number of G–1041 index searches and G–
1041A records requests considered small; however, some will receive a re-
duced fee and savings, by filing online. Therefore, DHS does not currently
have sufficient data on the requestors for the genealogy forms to definitively
assess the estimate of small entities for these requests. DHS is unable to
estimate by how much because DHS does not know how many individuals
will have access to a computer and/or internet capability. The case manage-
ment tracking system used by DHS for genealogy requests does not allow
for requestor data to be readily pulled.
I–924/I–924A Regional centers are difficult to assess because there is a lack
of official data on employment, income, and industry classification for these
entities. It is difficult to determine the small entity status of regional centers
without such data. Due to the lack of regional center revenue data, DHS as-
sumes regional centers collect revenue primarily through the administrative
fees charged to investors.
Effects on wages ................................................................................................. None. None.

Effects on Growth ............................................................................................... None. None.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act rulemaking at http:// have a significant economic impact on

www.regulations.gov. a substantial number of small entities
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 that are filing Form I–129, Form I–140,
Individuals, rather than small entities,
(RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended by submit the majority of immigration and Form I–910 or Form I–360. DHS does
the Small Business Regulatory naturalization benefit applications and not have sufficient data on the revenue
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, petitions. This final rule will primarily collected through administrative fees by
Public Law 104–121 (March 29, 1996), affect entities that file and pay fees for regional centers to definitively
requires Federal agencies to consider certain immigration benefit requests. determine the economic impact on
the potential impact of regulations on Consequently, there are six categories of small entities that may file Form I–924.
small businesses, small governmental USCIS benefits that are subject to a
jurisdictions, and small organizations DHS also does not have sufficient data
small entity analysis for this final rule: on the requestors that file genealogy
during the development of their rules. Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker,
The term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises forms, Forms G–1041 and G–1041A, to
Form I–129; Immigrant Petition for an determine whether such filings were
small businesses, not-for-profit Alien Worker, Form I–140; Civil
organizations that are independently made by entities or individuals and thus
Surgeon Designation, Form I–910; is unable to determine if the fee increase
owned and operated and are not Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or
dominant in their fields, or for genealogy searches is likely to have
Special Immigrant, Form I–360;
governmental jurisdictions with a significant economic impact on a
Genealogy Forms G–1041 and G–1041A,
populations of less than 50,000.133 A substantial number of small entities.

Index Search and Records Requests; and
detailed Small Entity Analysis is DHS is publishing this Final Regulatory
the Application for Regional Center
available in the docket of this Designation Under the Immigrant Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) to respond
Investor Program, Form I–924. to public comments and provide further
133 A small business is defined as any information on the likely impact of this
Following the review of available
independently owned and operated business not rule on small entities.
dominant in its field that qualifies as a small data, DHS does not believe that the
business per the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632. increase in fees in this final rule will
1. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 10,000 genealogy requests each year, so for this final rule found in the docket of
(FRFA) the fees should not affect hundreds of this rulemaking.
thousands of people as the commenter Comment: A commenter said the
a. A Statement of Need for, and
mentions. majority of livestock producers are
Objectives of, the Rule
DHS took into consideration all of the family businesses that play a critical
DHS issues this final rule consistent comments pertaining to Form G–1041 role in the production of food and fiber
with INA section 286(m),134 which Genealogy Index Search Request and G– products in the United States and
authorizes DHS to charge fees for 1041A Genealogy Record Request fees require labor during several different
adjudication and naturalization services from the proposed and lowered the fees periods each year. The commenter
at a level to ‘‘ensure recovery of the full in this final rule. The fee for the stated these businesses must fill out
costs of providing all such services, Genealogy Index Search Request, Form named beneficiary petitions for
including the costs of similar services G–1041 is increasing from $65 to $160, extension of stay, and that with
provided without charge to asylum an increase of $95 (146 percent) for marginal cost increases between 44 and
applicants or other immigrants,’’ and those who use the electronic form. The 87 percent, small business employers
the CFO Act,135 which requires each fee for Form G–1041A will increase will ‘‘disproportionately bear the
agency’s CFO to review, on a biennial from $65 to $265, an increase of $200 burden’’ of the proposed fee increases.
basis, the fees imposed by the agency for (308 percent) for those who mail in this Response: This final rule in no way is
services it provides, and to recommend request. DHS is setting the fee $10 lower intended to reduce, limit, or prevent the
changes to the agency’s fees. DHS is for requesters who use the electronic filing of a request for any specific
adjusting the fee schedule for DHS version and file this request online. The immigration benefit by any population,
immigration and naturalization benefit fee for Form G–1041A is increasing from industry, or group. DHS agrees that
applications after conducting a $65 to $255, an increase of $190 (292 immigrants are an important source of
comprehensive fee review for the FY percent) for those who use the labor in the United States and
2019/2020 biennial period and electronic form. contribute to the economy. DHS
determining that current fees do not In this final rule, DHS adjusts the fees acknowledges that some employers will
recover the full costs of services for all categories of Form I–129 to reflect pay the increased Form I–129H–2A fee;
provided. DHS has determined that the estimated full cost of adjudication. however, they will only have to submit
adjusting the fee schedule is necessary The evidence provided in the stand- one petition based on the number of
to fully recover costs adjustments are along Small Entity Analysis available in named beneficiaries.
necessary to associated with the docket of this rulemaking suggests The SEA analyzed the impacts of this
administering the nation’s lawful that the additional fees in this rule do rule on entities that were considered
immigration system, safeguarding its not impose a significant economic small based on employee count or
integrity and promise by efficiently and impact on a substantial number of small revenue. Entities with missing revenue
fairly adjudicating requests for entities. As for the comment stating that data were excluded. Among the 346
immigration benefits, while protecting low-wage H–2A agricultural workers small entities with reported revenue
Americans, securing the homeland, and would have their fees increased, this data, all experienced an economic
honoring our values. rule imposes no fees on H–2A workers impact of considerably less than 2
because the petitioning entity is percent with the exception of 11
b. A Statement of the Significant Issues prohibited from passing any of the costs entities. Those 11 small entities with
Raised by the Public Comments in of the recruitment, hiring, petitioning, greater than a 2 percent impact filed
Response to the Initial Regulatory travel or housing to the H–2A worker. multiple petitions and had a low
Flexibility Analysis, a Statement of the DHS declines to make changes in this reported revenue. Therefore, these small
Assessment of the Agency of Such final rule in response to these entities may file fewer petitions as a
Issues, and a Statement of any Changes comments. result of this rule. Depending on the
Made in the Proposed Rule as a Result Comment: A commenter said the immigration benefit request, the average
of Such Comments proposed rule is contrary to the RFA impact on all 346 small entities with
because it fails to take into account the revenue data ranges from ¥0.12 to 0.63
Comment: Some commenters wrote
burdens of its regulatory actions on percent as shown in Table 7, of the SEA.
that the proposed rate increase would
small entities, including small In other words, no matter which version
certainly suppress the ability of
businesses and non-profits. Several of the newly separated Form I–129 is
hundreds of thousands of people to applicable, the absolute value of the
research their family history. These commenters stated that USCIS should
revise its RFA analysis to consider the average impact on the described 346
commenters stated this would have a small entities is less than 1 percent.
significant economic impact on a economic impact of the proposed rule
on small entities that file or pay for any DHS does not believe that the benefit
substantial number of small entities and request fees established by this final
prevent businesses from making profits immigration benefits applications.
Response: As required by the RFA, rule would make an individual forego
providing information to others. filling a vacant position rather than
DHS considered whether this rule will
Response: DHS acknowledges the submitting a petition for a foreign
have a significant economic impact on
scope of the increase in fees for Form G– worker with USCIS.
a substantial number of small entities.
1041 and G–1041A. DHS recognizes that The SEA outlines using the
DHS also considered all types of entities
some small entities may be impacted by subscription or public-use databases
as required by the RFA including small
these increased fees but cannot identified previously. DHS assembled
businesses, small not for profits, and

determine how many or the exact revenue and employment information
small governmental jurisdictions that
impact.136 USCIS receives fewer than on these entities and determined that
filed petitions with USCIS. The full
134 See analysis of these findings are found in 556, or 85.5 percent of these petitioners
8 U.S.C. 1356(m).
135 See the stand-alone Small Entity Analysis met the definition of small entities. Of
31 U.S.C. 901–03.
136 See economic analysis (RIA) Section M those that we determined could be
Changes to Genealogy Search and Records Requests information pertaining to the economic impact on classified as small entities, 71 percent
and Section E in the SEA for further detailed small entities. had annual revenues of less than a
million and approximately 9 percent of submitted (e.g., company size, gross and Forms I–129, I–140, I–910 and I–360 can
them had petitioned for five or more net income, number of employees be found in Appendix A, along with the
workers over that year. Thus, DHS does requested), all of which the commenter SBA threshold for each industry
not believe that the final rule will have said is readily available within USCIS. cluster.140 In order to determine an
a significant impact on a substantial Moreover, the commenter said the entity’s size, DHS first classified each
number of small entities in any one DOL’s Labor Condition Application and entity by its NAICS code, and then used
industry, including agriculture. Program Electronic Review Management the SBA size standards to compare the
Comment: A commenter wrote that (PERM) usage listing employers and requisite revenue or employee count
the Small Entity Analysis (SEA) numbers of employees sought shows the threshold for each entity. Based on the
presented in the NPRM was inaccurate top 10–20 users are major corporations, NAICS code, some entities are classified
because it failed to include the while small and midsize businesses hire as small based on their annual revenue
proposal’s impact on hundreds of non- between 1–10 people a year, most often and some based on the number of
profit service providers that support one-offs. The commenter said the fact employees. Comment: A commenter
LPRs’ pursuit of naturalization. The that these companies mostly hire just wrote these fees would
commenter stated that many of these one worker explains that the overall cost disproportionately affect small religious
organizations cover costs related to legal and bureaucracy is a barrier to employer organizations that serve a charitable
consultation and preparation with their participation. function in our society.
own resources, and that the agency Response: USCIS does not collect Response: DHS disagrees that these
should analyze how these organizations revenue and the number of employees fees would disproportionately affect
would be impacted by the proposal. for all categories of Forms I–129, as small religious organizations. USCIS
Response: Organizations that help stated in the stand-alone SEA. used internal data as indicated below in
applicants complete naturalization Therefore, USCIS relied on a third-party section (B)(1)(d), of the FRFA, including
applications are not the subject of the sources (Hoover’s, Cortera, Manta, and entities who petition on behalf of
regulations being revised in this rule, or Guidestar) to obtain this information foreign religious workers. DHS used the
the relevant statute, INA section 386(m), (see table 4 of the SEA). DHS obtained same databases mentioned previously to
8 U.S.C. 1356(m), which authorizes petitioner data filed for Forms I–129 search for information on revenue and
USCIS to set fees and provide from internal databases for fiscal year employee count. DHS used the same
discretionary fee waivers to applicants. 2017 (FY 2017), spanning from October method as with Forms I–129 and I–140
See 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(4) (requiring only ‘‘a 2016 to September 2017.137 This to conduct the SEA based on a
description of the projected reporting, petitioner data included the employer representative sample of the impacted
recordkeeping and other compliance firm name, city, state, ZIP code, population. As detailed in Section of D
requirements of the proposed rule, employer identification number of the SEA, DHS determined that, based
including an estimate of the classes of (EIN),138 number/type of filing, and on the standard statistical formula, 420
small entities which will be subject to petitioner or beneficiary name. Filing randomly selected entities from a
the requirement’’ (emphasis added)); see data did not include information needed population of 760 unique entities filed
5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3) (requiring only ‘‘a to classify the entity according to size Form I–360 petitions. Therefore, DHS
description of and, where feasible, an standards, such as revenue or number of was able to classify 388 of 420 entities
estimate of the number of small entities employees, so DHS used third party as small entities that filed Form I–360
to which the proposed rule will apply’’ sources to obtain this information. petitions, including combined non-
(emphasis added)); see also Mid-Tex Therefore, for the analysis of the effects matches (5), matches missing data (74),
Elec. Co-op., Inc. v. FERC, 773 F.2d 327,
on Forms I–129, DHS used several data and small entity matches (309). DHS
342 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (finding ‘‘Congress
sources to capture information on the also used the subscription-based, online
did not intend to require that every
characteristics of entities required to databases mentioned above (Hoover’s,
agency consider every indirect effect
pay these fees. Manta, Cortera, and Guidestar). The 74
that any regulation might have on small One of the databases used by USCS matches missing data that were found in
businesses in any stratum of the was Hoover’s online database of U.S. the databases lacked revenue or
national economy’’ and limiting the entities, a subscription service of Dun &
impact analysis requirement ‘‘to small employee count data.
Bradstreet. Hoover’s covers millions of DHS determined that 388 out of 420
entities subject to the proposed
companies and uses revenue from (92.4 percent) entities filing Form I–360
regulation’’). Therefore, any impacts on
several years and is one of the largest petitions were small entities.
such organizations are too indirect to
and most respected databases of Similar to other forms analyzed in
require inclusion in the SEA since the
company data. A majority of the entities this RFA, DHS calculated the economic
RFA only requires consideration of
in the SEA sample size were found in impact of this rule on entities that filed
direct impacts to small entities.
Hoovers. From these sources, DHS Form I–360 by estimating the total costs
Additionally, the naturalization
determined the North American associated with the final fee increase for
applicants themselves are individuals
Industry Classification System (NAICS) each entity. Among the 309 small
and therefore are not subjects for RFA
consideration. code,139 revenue, and employee count entities with reported revenue data,
Comment: Another commenter stated for each entity in the sample. A list of each would experience an economic
that one example of how the rule’s cost NAICS codes for each entity matched in impact considerably less than 1.0
analysis is unsupported by evidence is percent. The greatest economic impact
USCIS’ conclusion that only 1 percent
137 Source: DHS, USCIS, Office of Performance
imposed by this final fee change totaled
and Quality. 0.35 percent and the smallest totaled

of small businesses would be impacted. 138 An Employer Identification Number (EIN) is a
The commenter said the methodology nine-digit number that U.S. Internal Revenue
0.000002 percent. The average impact
used relies upon the lack of signups/ Service assigns in the following format: XX– on all 309 small entities with revenue
registrations on several website XXXXXXX. It is used to identify the tax accounts
of employers. Employer Identification Number, p 2. 140 SBA size standards effective October, 2017.
directories, but nowhere does the https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1635.pdf. Visited April, 2018. https://www.naics.com/wp-
agency use the data it actually collects 139 U.S. Census Bureau, NAICS code listing: content/uploads/2017/10/SBA_Size_Standards_
from businesses in every I–129 form http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/. Table.pdf.
data was 0.01 percent. DHS also c. The Response of the Agency to Any for Form I–140, most entities were small
analyzed the final costs of this rule on Comments Filed by the Chief Counsel businesses (402 or 73.1 percent) with 6
the petitioning entities relative to the for Advocacy of the Small Business small not-for-profit entities and 0 small
costs of the typical employee’s salary. Administration in Response to the Rule, governmental jurisdictions. The fee for
Guidelines suggested by the SBA Office and a Detailed Statement of Any Change the application for civil surgeon
of Advocacy indicate that the impact of Made to the Final Rule as a Result of the designation (Form I–910) will apply to
a rule could be significant if the cost of Comments physicians requesting such designation.
the regulation exceeds 5 percent of the No comments were filed by the Chief There were 300 small entities in the
labor costs of the entities in the Counsel for Advocacy of the Small sample for Form I–910, consisting of
Business Administration (SBA). 270 small governmental jurisdictions
sector.141 According to the Bureau of
and 270 (or 90 percent) small entities
Labor Statistics (BLS), the mean annual d. A Description of and an Estimate of that were either small businesses or
salary is $53,290 for clergy,142 $46,980 the Number of Small Entities to Which small not-for-profits. The fee for
for directors of religious activities and the Rule Will Apply or an Explanation Amerasian, widow(er), or special
education,143 and $35,860 for other of Why No Such Estimate Is Available immigrants will apply to any entity
religious workers.144 Based on an petitioning on behalf of a religious
Entities affected by this rule are those
average of 1.5 religious workers 145 that file and pay fees for certain worker. Finally, Form I–924 will impact
petitioned for per entity, the additional immigration benefit applications and any entity seeking designation as a
average annual cost would be $22 per petitions on behalf of a foreign national. regional center under the Immigrant
entity.146 The additional costs per entity These applications include Form I–129, Investor Program or filing an
in this final rule represent only 0.04 Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker; amendment to an approved regional
percent of the average annual salary for Form I–140, Immigrant Petition for an center application. Captured in the
clergy, 0.05 percent of the average Alien Worker; Form I–910, Civil dataset for Form I–924 is also Form I–
annual salary for directors of religious Surgeon Designation; Form I–360, 924A, which regional centers must file
activities and education, and 0.06 Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or annually to establish continued
percent of the average annual salary for Special Immigrant; Genealogy Forms G– eligibility for regional center
all other religious workers.147 Therefore, 1041 and G–1041A, Index Search and designation for each fiscal year.
using average annual labor cost Records Requests; and Form I–924, DHS does not have sufficient data on
guidelines, the additional regulatory Application for Regional Center the requestors for the genealogy forms,
Designation Under the Immigrant Forms G–1041 and G–1041A, to
compliance costs in this final rule are
Investor Program. Annual numeric determine if entities or individuals
not significant.
estimates of the small entities impacted submitted these requests. DHS has
by this fee increase total (in previously determined that requests for
parentheses): Form I–129 (77,571 historical records are usually made by
entities), Form I–140 (22,165 entities), individuals.150 If professional
Form I–910 (428 entities), and Form I– genealogists and researchers submitted
141 Office of Advocacy, Small Business
360 (698 entities).148 DHS was not able such requests in the past, they did not
Administration, ‘‘A Guide for Government identify themselves as commercial
Agencies, How to Comply with the Regulatory to determine the numbers of regional
centers or genealogy requestors that requestors and therefore could not be
Flexibility Act’’, page 19: https://www.sba.gov/sites/
would be considered small entities, segregated within the pool of data.
default/files/advocacy/How-to-Comply-with-the-
RFA-WEB.pdf. therefore does not provide numeric Genealogists typically advise clients on
142 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of
estimates for Form I–924 or Forms G– how to submit their own requests. For
Labor, ‘‘Occupational Employment Statistics, May 1041 and G–1041A.149 those that submit requests on behalf of
2018, ‘‘Clergy’’: https://www.bls.gov/oes/2018/may/ This rule applies to small entities, clients, DHS does not know the extent
oes212011.htm. including businesses, non-profit to which they can pass along the fee
143 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of
organizations, and governmental increases to their individual clients.
Labor, ‘‘Occupational Employment Statistics, May DHS assumes genealogists have access
2018, ‘‘Directors of Religious Activities and
jurisdictions filing for the above
benefits. Forms I–129 and I–140, will to a computer and the internet. DHS is
Education’’: https://www.bls.gov/oes/2018/may/
see a number of industry clusters unable to estimate the online number of
oes212099.htm.
144 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of impacted by this rule. See Appendix A index searches and records requests;
Labor, ‘‘Occupational Employment Statistics, May of the SEA for a list of impacted however, some will receive a reduced
2018, ‘‘Religious Workers, All Other’’: https:// industry codes for Forms I–129, I–140, fee and cost savings, by filing online.
www.bls.gov/oes/2018/may/oes212099.htm. I–910, and I–360. Of the total 650 small Therefore, DHS does not currently have
145 USCIS calculated the average filing per entity
entities in the sample for Form I–129, sufficient data on the requestors for the
of 1.5 petitions, from the Form I–360 Sample with
most entities were small businesses (556 genealogy forms to definitively assess
Petition Totals in Appendix E, of the SEA for the the estimate of small entities for these
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Fee
or 85.5 percent) with 41 small not-for-
profit entities and only 4 small requests. though DHS is unable to
Schedule NPRM. Calculation: (total number of
governmental jurisdictions. Similarly, of estimate by how much because DHS
petitions from each sample id)/(total number of
sample Form I–360 petitions) = 618/420 = 1.5 the total 550 small entities in the sample does not know how many individuals
average petitions filed per entity. will have access to a computer and/or
146 Calculation: 1.5 average petitions per entity * 148 Calculation: 90,726 Form I–129 * 85.5 percent internet capability.
$15 increase in petition fees = approximately $22 = 77,571 small entities; 30,321 Form I–140 * 73.1
percent = 22,165 small entities; 476 Form I–910 *
a. Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker,
additional total cost per entity.
147 Calculation: $22 per entity/$53,290 clergy 90.0 percent = 428 small entities; 760 Form I–360 Form I–129
* 91.9 percent = 698 small entities.
salary × 100 = .04 percent; 149 Small entity estimates are calculated by
DHS is separating Form I–129,
$22 per entity/$46,980 directors of religious multiplying the population (total annual receipts Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker,
activities and education × 100 = .05 percent; for the USCIS form) by the percentage of small
$22 per entity/$35,860 other religious workers × entities, which are presented in subsequent sections 150 See Genealogy Program, 73 FR 28026 (May 15,
100 = .06 percent. of this analysis. 2008) (final rule).
into several forms with different fees for new Forms I–129 (separated into Classifications; and I–129MISC,
corresponding fees, from the previous new forms by worker type): Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker:
$460. Currently, employers may use • Form I–129H1, Petition for H–3, P, Q, or R Classification—$695
Form I–129, to petition for CW, E, H– Nonimmigrant Worker: H–1 • Form I–129H2A, Petition for
1B, H–2A, H–2B, H–3, L–1, O–1, O–2, Classifications—$555 Nonimmigrant Work Classification:
P–1, P–1S, P–2, P–2S, P–3, P–3S, Q–1, • Form I–129H2A, Petition for H–2A Classification (Unnamed
or R–1 nonimmigrant workers. As Nonimmigrant Worker: H–2A Beneficiaries)—$415
applicable, employers also may use Classification (Named Beneficiaries)— • Form I–129H2B, Petition for
Form I–129 to apply for E–1, E–2, E–3, $850 Nonimmigrant Worker: H–2B
or TN nonimmigrant status for eligible • Form I–129H2B, Petition for Classification (Unnamed
workers. DHS is separating the Petition Nonimmigrant Worker: H–2B Beneficiaries)—$385.
for a Nonimmigrant Worker, Form I– Classification (Named Beneficiaries)—
129, into several forms. These forms $715 For petitioners filing Form I–129 for
will include information from the • Form I–129L, Petition for H–2A and H–2B workers with only
various supplemental forms for specific Nonimmigrant Worker: L unnamed beneficiaries, DHS will
types of workers. DHS will have Classifications—$805 impose a lower fee than the current
different fees for these new forms. The • Form I–129O, Petition for filing fee. DHS will increase the fee
final fees are calculated at a more Nonimmigrant Worker: O when filed for all other worker types.
detailed level than the current fees. Classifications—$705 The fee adjustments and percentage
The current fee for Form I–129 is • I–129E&TN, Application for increases or decreases are summarized
$460. DHS will impose the following Nonimmigrant Worker: E and TN in Table 9.
TABLE 9—USCIS FEES FOR SEPARATED FORMS I–129 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019/2020
Fee increase/ Percent
Immigration benefit request Current fee Final fee decrease change
Form I–129H1—Named Beneficiaries ............................................................. $460 $555 $95 $21

Form I–129H2A—Named Beneficiaries ........................................................... 460 850 390 85
Form I–129H2A—Unnamed Beneficiaries ....................................................... 460 415 ¥45 ¥10
Form I–129H2B—Named Beneficiaries ........................................................... 460 715 255 55
Form I–129H2B—Unnamed Beneficiaries ....................................................... 460 385 ¥75 ¥16
Form I–129O .................................................................................................... 460 705 245 53
Form I–129 L1A/L1B/LZ Blanket ..................................................................... 460 805 345 75
Forms I–129CW, I–129E&TN, and I–129MISC ............................................... 460 695 235 51
Source: USCIS FY 2019/2020 Final Fee Schedule (see preamble).
Using a 12-month period of data on respect to each form. To identify a entities not found in the online database
the number of Form I–129 petitions representative sample, DHS used a are likely to be small entities. As a
filed from October 1, 2016 to September standard statistical formula to determine result, in order to prevent
31, 2017, DHS collected internal data for a minimum sample size of 384 entities, underestimating the number of small
each filing organization including the which included using a 95 percent entities this rule would affect, DHS
name, Employer Identification Number confidence level and a 5 percent conservatively considers all of the non-
(EIN), city, state, zip code, and number/ confidence interval for a population of matched entities as small entities for the
type of filings. Each entity may make 90,726 unique entities filing Form I–129 purpose of this analysis. Among the 473
multiple filings. For instance, there petitions. Based on previous experience matches for Form I–129, DHS
were receipts for 530,442 Form I–129 conducting small entity analyses, DHS determined 346 to be small entities
petitions, but only 90,726 unique expects to find 40 to 50 percent of the based on revenue or employee count
entities that filed those petitions. Since filing organizations in the online and according to their assigned North
the filing statistics do not contain subscription and public databases. American Industry Classification
information such as the revenue of the Accordingly, DHS selected a sample System (NAICS) code. Therefore, DHS
business, DHS used third party sources size that was approximately 69 percent was able to classify 556 of 650 entities
of data to collect this information. DHS larger than the necessary minimum to as small entities that filed Form I–129
used a subscription-based, online allow for non-matches (filing entities petitions, including combined non-
database—Hoover’s—as well as three that could not be found in any of the matches (177), matches missing data
open-access databases—Manta, Cortera, four databases). Therefore, DHS (33), and small entity matches (346).
and Guidestar—to help determine an conducted searches on 650 randomly Using the subscription-based, online
organization’s small entity status and selected entities from a population of databases mentioned above (Hoover’s,
then applied Small Business 90,726 unique entities that filed Form I– Manta, Cortera, and Guidestar), the 33
Administration size standards to the 129 petitions. matches missing data found in the
entities under examination.151 databases lacked applicable revenue or
Of the 650 searches for small entities
The method DHS used to conduct the that filed Form I–129 petitions, 473 employee count data.
SEA was based on a representative
searches returned a successful match of DHS determined that 556 of 650 (85.5
sample of the impacted population with
a filing entity’s name in one of the percent) of the entities filing Form I–129
151 U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of
databases and 177 searches did not petitions were small entities.
Advocacy, Size Standards Table effective August
match a filing entity. Based on previous Furthermore, DHS determined that 346
19, 2019. Available at https://www.sba.gov/ experience conducting regulatory of the 650 entities searched were small
document/support--table-size-standards. flexibility analyses, DHS assumes filing entities based on sales revenue data,
which were needed to estimate the research. In order to calculate the final fee increases for Form I–129, DHS
economic impact of this final rule. Since economic impact of this rule, DHS calculated the average economic impact
these 346 small entities were a subset of estimated the total costs associated with on the 346 small entities with revenue
the random sample of 650 entity the final fee increase for each entity and data as summarized in Table 10.
searches, they were statistically divided that amount by the sales
significant in the context of this revenue of that entity.152 Based on the
TABLE 10—ECONOMIC IMPACTS ON SMALL ENTITIES WITH REVENUE DATA

Average
Fee increase/
Immigration benefit request impact
decrease percentage
Form I–129H1 .......................................................................................................................................................... $95 0.15

Form I–129H2A—Named Beneficiaries .................................................................................................................. 390 0.63
Form I–129H2A—Unnamed Beneficiaries .............................................................................................................. ¥45 ¥0.07
Form I–129H2B—Named Beneficiaries .................................................................................................................. 255 0.41
Form I–129H2B—Unnamed Beneficiaries .............................................................................................................. ¥75 ¥0.12
Form I–129L ............................................................................................................................................................ 345 0.56
Form I–129O ............................................................................................................................................................ 245 0.40
Forms I–129CW, I–129E&TN, and I–129MISC ...................................................................................................... 235 0.38
Source: USCIS calculation.
Among the 346 small entities with information on revenue and employee matched entities as small entities for the
reported revenue data, all experienced count. purpose of this analysis. Among the 480
an economic impact of considerably less DHS used the same method as with matches for Form I–140, DHS
than 2 percent with the exception of 11 Form I–129 to conduct the SEA based determined 324 to be small entities
entities. Those 11 small entities with on a representative sample of the based on revenue or employee count
greater than a 2 percent impact filed impacted population. To identify a and according to their NAICS code.
multiple petitions and had a low representative sample, DHS used a Therefore, DHS was able to classify 402
reported revenue, for any immigration standard statistical formula to determine of 550 entities as small entities that filed
benefit request made using separate a minimum sample size of 383 entities, Form I–140 petitions, including
Forms I–129. Therefore, these small which included using a 95 percent combined non-matches (70), matches
entities may file fewer petitions as a confidence level and a 5 percent missing data (8), and small entity
result of this rule. Depending on the confidence interval on a population of matches (324). Using the subscription-
type of immigration benefit request, the 30,321 unique entities for Form I–140 based, online databases mentioned
average impact on all 346 small entities petitions. Based on previous experience above (Hoover’s, Manta, Cortera, and
with revenue data ranges from –0.12 to conducting small entity analyses, DHS Guidestar), the 8 matches missing data
0.63 percent, as shown in the expected to find 40 to 50 percent of the that were found in the databases lacked
filing organizations in the online applicable revenue or employee count
supporting comprehensive SEA.
subscription and public databases. statistics.
Therefore, the average economic impact
on the described 346 small entities is Accordingly, DHS selected a sample DHS determined that 402 out of 550
less than 1 percent, regardless of which size that was approximately 44 percent (73.1 percent) entities filing Form I–140
larger than the necessary minimum to petitions were small entities.
newly separate Form I–129 petition is
allow for non-matches (filing entities Furthermore, DHS determined that 324
applicable. The evidence suggests that
that could not be found in any of the of the 550 searched were small entities
the changes in fees imposed by this rule
four databases). Therefore, DHS based on sales revenue data, which were
do not represent a significant economic
conducted searches on 550 randomly needed to estimate the economic impact
impact on these entities.
selected entities from a population of of the final rule. Since these 324 were
b. Immigrant Petition for an Alien 30,321 unique entities that filed Form I– a small entity subset of the random
Worker, Form I–140 140 petitions. sample of 550 entity searches, they were
Of the 550 searches for small entities considered statistically significant in the
USCIS is decreasing the fee to file that filed Form I–140 petitions, 480 context of this research. Similar to Form
Immigrant Petition for an Alien Worker, searches successfully matched the name I–129, DHS calculated the economic
Form I–140, from $700 to $555, a of the filing entity to names in the impact of this rule on entities that filed
decrease of $145 (21 percent). Using a databases and 70 searches did not match Form I–140 by estimating the total cost
12-month period of data on the number the name of a filing entity. Based on savings associated with the final fee
of Form I–140 petitions filed from previous experience conducting decrease for each entity and divided
October 1, 2016 to September 31, 2017, regulatory flexibility analyses, DHS that amount by sales revenue of that
DHS collected internal data similar to assumes filing entities not found in the entity.
that of Form I–129. The total number of online databases are likely to be small Among the 324 small entities with
Form I–140 petitions filed was 139,439, entities. As a result, in order to prevent reported revenue data, each would
with 30,321 unique entities that filed underestimating the number of small experience an economic impact of less
petitions. DHS used the same databases entities this rule would affect, DHS than ¥2 percent. Using the above
previously mentioned to search for conservatively considers all of the non- methodology, the greatest economic
152 Total Economic Impact to Entity = (Number of
Petitions Submitted per Entity * $X difference in

current fee from final fee)/Entity Sales Revenue.
impact by this fee change totaled ¥1.74 Using the same methodology as the greatest economic impact imposed by
percent and the smallest totaled Forms I–129 and I–140, USCIS this final fee change totaled ¥1.50
¥0.00000006 percent, resulting in a conducted the SEA based on a percent and the smallest totaled ¥0.001
cost savings as shown in the supporting representative sample of the impacted percent. The average impact on all 189
comprehensive SEA. The average population. To identify a representative small entities with revenue data was
impact on all 324 small entities with sample, DHS used a standard statistical ¥0.116 percent. The decreased fee will
revenue data was ¥0.06 percent. formula to determine a minimum create cost savings for the individual
Because of the fee decrease, these small sample size of 213 entities, which applicant of $150. The negative number
entities will see a cost savings per included using a 95 percent confidence represents cost savings to the applicant.
application in filing fees based on level and a 5 percent confidence Therefore, the larger it is, the greater the
petitions. The negative number interval on a population of 476 unique cost savings for the applicants. The
represents cost savings to the petitioner. entities for Form I–910. USCIS evidence suggests that the decreased fee
Therefore, the larger it is, the greater the conducted searches on 300 randomly by this final rule does not represent a
cost savings for the petitioners. The selected entities from a population of significant economic impact on these
average impact on all 324 small entities 476 unique entities for Form I–910 entities.
with revenue data was ¥0.06 percent. applications, a sample size
d. Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or
The evidence suggests that the approximately 40 percent larger than
Special Immigrant, Form I–360
decreased fee in this final rule does not the minimum necessary.
represent a significant economic impact Of the 300 searches for small entities DHS is increasing the fee for
on these entities. that filed Form I–910 applications, 266 applicants who file using Form I–360
searches successfully matched the name from $435 to $450, an increase of $15
In addition to the individual Form I–
of the filing entity to names in the (4 percent), including entities who
129 and Form I–140 analyses, USCIS
databases and 34 searches did not match petition on behalf of foreign religious
analyzed any cumulative impacts of
the name of a filing entity. DHS assumes workers. Using a 12-month period of
these form types to determine if there
filing entities not found in the online data on the number of Form I–360
were any impacts to small entities when
databases are likely to be small entities. petitions filed from October 1, 2016 to
analyzed together. USCIS isolated those
DHS also assumes all of the non- September 31, 2017, DHS collected
entities that overlapped in both samples
matched entities as small entities for the internal data on filings of Form I–360
of Forms I–129 and I–140 by EIN. Only petitioners who file for foreign religious
purpose of this analysis. Among the 266
1 entity had an EIN that overlapped in workers. The total number of Form I–
matches for Form I–910, DHS
both samples; this was a small entity 360 petitions was 2,446, with 760
determined 189 to be small entities
that submitted 3 Form I–129 petitions unique entities that filed petitions. DHS
based on their revenue or employee
and 1 Form I–140 petition. Due to little used the same databases mentioned
count and according to their NAICS
overlap in entities in the samples and previously to search for information on
code. Therefore, DHS was able to
the relatively minor impacts on revenue revenue and employee count.
classify 270 of 300 entities as small
of fee increases of Forms I–129 and I– DHS used the same method as with
entities that filed Form I–910
140, USCIS does not expect the Forms I–129 and I–140 to conduct the
applications, including combined non-
combined impact of these two forms to SEA based on a representative sample of
matches (34), matches missing data (47),
be an economically significant burden and small entity matches (189). DHS the impacted population. To identify a
on a substantial number of small also used the subscription-based, online representative sample, DHS used a
entities. databases mentioned above (Hoover’s, standard statistical formula to determine
c. Application for Civil Surgeon Manta, Cortera, and Guidestar), and the a minimum sample size of 332 entities,
Designation, Form I–910 8 matches missing data that were found which included using with a 95 percent
in the databases lacked revenue or confidence level and a 5 percent
By law, a civil surgeon is a physician employee count statistics. confidence interval on a population of
designated by USCIS to conduct DHS determined that 270 out of 300 760 unique entities for Form I–360
immigration medical examinations for (90 percent) entities filing Form I–910 petitions. To account for missing
individuals applying for an immigration applications were small entities. organizations in the online subscription
benefit in the United States. Form I–910 Furthermore, DHS determined that 189 and public databases, DHS selected a
is used by a physician to request that of the 300 entities searched were small sample size that was approximately 27
USCIS designate him or her as a civil entities based on sales revenue data, percent larger than the necessary
surgeon to perform immigration medical which were needed in order to estimate minimum to allow for non-matches
examinations in the United States and the economic impact of this final rule. (filing entities that could not be found
complete USCIS Form I–693, Report of Since the 189 entities were a small in any of the four databases). Therefore,
Medical Examination and Vaccination entity subset of the random sample of DHS conducted searches on 420
Record. 300 entity searches, they were randomly selected entities from a
DHS is decreasing the fee for Civil statistically significant in the context of population of 760 unique entities that
Surgeon Designations, Form I–910, from this research. filed Form I–360 petitions.
$785 to $635, a decrease of $150 (19 Similar to the Forms I–129 and I–140, Of the 420 searches for small entities
percent). Using a 12-month period of DHS calculated the economic impact of that filed Form I–360 petitions, 415
data from October 1, 2016 to September this rule on entities that filed Form I– searches successfully matched the name
31, 2017, DHS reviewed collected 910 by estimating estimated the total of the filing entity to names in the
internal data for Form I–910 filings. The savings associated with the final fee databases and 5 searches did not match
total number of Form I–910 applications decrease for each entity and divided the name of the filing entities in the
was 757, with 476 unique entities that that amount by sales revenue of that databases. DHS assumes that filing
filed applications. The third-party entity. Among the 189 small entities entities not found in the online
databases mentioned previously were with reported revenue data, all databases are likely to be small entities.
used again to search for revenue and experienced an economic impact As a result, in order to prevent
employee count information. considerably less than 1.0 percent. The underestimating the number of small
entities this rule would affect, DHS religious activities and education,155 genealogy records requests made using
conservatively assumes to consider all and $35,860 for other religious Form G–1041A. DHS does not have
of the non-matched entities as small workers.156 Based on an average of 1.5 sufficient data on the requestors for the
entities for the purpose of this analysis. religious workers 157 petitioned for per genealogy forms to determine if entities
Among the 415 matches for Form I–360, entity, the additional average annual or individuals submitted these requests.
DHS determined 309 to be small entities cost would be $22 per entity.158 The DHS has previously determined that
based on revenue or employee count additional costs per entity in this final individuals usually make requests for
and according to their NAICS code. rule represent only 0.04 percent of the historical records.160 If professional
Therefore, DHS was able to classify 388 average annual salary for clergy, 0.05 genealogists and researchers submitted
of 420 entities as small entities that filed percent of the average annual salary for such requests in the past, they did not
Form I–360 petitions, including directors of religious activities and identify themselves as commercial
combined non-matches (5), matches education, and 0.06 percent of the requestors and, therefore, DHS could
missing data (74), and small entity average annual salary for all other not separate these data from the dataset.
matches (309). DHS also used the religious workers.159 Therefore, using Genealogists typically advise clients on
subscription-based, online databases average annual labor cost guidelines, the how to submit their own requests. For
mentioned above (Hoover’s, Manta, additional regulatory compliance costs those that submit requests on behalf of
Cortera, and Guidestar), the 74 matches in this final rule are not significant. clients, DHS does not know the extent
missing data that were found in the e. Genealogy Requests. Genealogy Index to which they can pass along the fee
databases lacked revenue or employee Search Request Form G–1041 and increases to their individual clients.
count data. Genealogy Record Request, Form G– Therefore, DHS currently does not have
DHS determined that 388 out of 420 1041A sufficient data to definitively assess the
(92.4 percent) entities filing Form I–360 impact on small entities for these
petitions were small entities. DHS is increasing the fee to file both requests.
Furthermore, DHS determined that 309 types of genealogy requests: Form G–
1041, Genealogy Index Search Request, However, DHS must still recover the
of the 420 searched were small entities full costs of this program. As stated in
based on sales revenue data, which were and Form G–1041A, Genealogy Record
Request. The fee to file Form G–1041 the preamble to this rule, reducing the
needed to estimate the economic impact filing fee for any one benefit request
of this final rule. Since 309 small will increase from $65 to $170, an
increase of $105 (162 percent increase) submitted to DHS simply transfers the
entities were a subset of the random additional cost to process this request to
sample of 420 entity searches, they were for those who mail in this request on
paper. In this rule, increases the fee for other immigration and naturalization
statistically significant in the context of filing fees.
this research. requestors who use the online electronic
Form G–1041 version from the current For this rule, DHS is expanding the
Similar to other forms analyzed in
$65 to $160, an increase of $95 (146 use of electronic genealogy requests to
this RFA, DHS calculated the economic
percent). The fee for Form G–1041A will encourage requesters to use the
impact of this rule on entities that filed
increase from $65 to $265, an increase electronic versions of Form G–1041 and
Form I–360 by estimating the total costs
of $200 (308 percent) for those who mail Form G–1041A. DHS is changing the
associated with the final fee increase for
in this request on paper. The fee for search request process so that USCIS
each entity. Among the 309 small
Form G–1041A is increasing from $65 to may provide requesters with electronic
entities with reported revenue data,
$255, an increase of $190 (292 percent) records, if they exist, in response to the
each would experience an economic
for those who use the electronic form. initial index request. These final
impact considerably less than 1.0
Based on DHS records for calendar changes may reduce the time it takes to
percent. The greatest economic impact
years 2013 to 2017, there was an annual request and receive genealogy records,
imposed by this final fee change totaled
average of 3,840 genealogy index search and, in some cases, it will eliminate the
0.35 percent and the smallest totaled
requests made using Form G–1041 and need to make multiple search requests
0.000002 percent. The average impact
there was an annual average of 2,152 and submit separate fees. Moreover,
on all 309 small entities with revenue
DHS notes that providing digital records
data was 0.01 percent. 155 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of in response to a Form G–1041 request
DHS also analyzed the final costs of Labor, ‘‘Occupational Employment Statistics, May may reduce the number of Form G–
this rule on the petitioning entities 2018, ‘‘Directors of Religious Activities and 1041A requests that will be filed
relative to the costs of the typical Education’’: https://www.bls.gov/oes/2018/may/
oes212099.htm because there would already be a copy
employee’s salary. Guidelines suggested
156 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of of the record if it was previously
by the SBA Office of Advocacy indicate
Labor, ‘‘Occupational Employment Statistics, May digitized. As a result, the volume of
that the impact of a rule could be 2018, ‘‘Religious Workers, All Other’’: https:// Form G–1041A requests USCIS receives
significant if the cost of the regulation www.bls.gov/oes/2018/may/oes212099.htm.
may decrease, though DHS is unable to
exceeds 5 percent of the labor costs of 157 USCIS calculated the average filing per entity
of 1.5 petitions, from the Form I–360 Sample with estimate by how much. DHS recognizes
the entities in the sector.153 According
Petition Totals in Appendix E, of the SEA for the that some small entities may be
to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Fee impacted by these proposed increased
the mean annual salary is $53,290 for Schedule NPRM. Calculation: (total number of but cannot determine how many or the
clergy,154 $46,980 for directors of petitions from each sample id)/(total number of
sample Form I–360 petitions) = 618/420 = 1.5 exact impact.
153 Office of Advocacy, Small Business average petitions filed per entity. DHS recognizes that some small
158 Calculation: 1.5 average petitions per entity *

Administration, ‘‘A Guide for Government entities may be impacted by these
Agencies, How to Comply with the Regulatory $15 increase in petition fees = approximately $22
additional total cost per entity.
increased fees but cannot determine
Flexibility Act’’, page 19: https://www.sba.gov/sites/
default/files/advocacy/How-to-Comply-with-the- 159 Calculation: $22 per entity/$53,290 clergy how many or the exact impact.
RFA-WEB.pdf salary × 100 = .04 percent;
154 Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of $22 per entity/$46,980 directors of religious 160 See ‘‘Establishment of a Genealogy Program;
Labor, ‘‘Occupational Employment Statistics, May activities and education × 100 = .05 percent; Proposed Rule,’’ 71 FR 20357—20368 (April 20,
2018, ‘‘Clergy’’: https://www.bls.gov/oes/2018/may/ $22 per entity/$35,860 other religious workers × 2006). Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/
oes212011.htm 100 = .06 percent. document?D=USCIS-2006-0013-0001.
f. Regional Center Under the Immigrant projections of either direct or indirect or private databases. Furthermore, while
Investor Program, Form I–924 and I– job creation, rather than only on jobs regional centers are an integral
924A directly created by the new commercial component of the EB–5 program, DHS
As part of the Immigration Act of enterprise. See 8 CFR 204.6(j)(4)(iii), does not collect data on the
1990, Public Law 101–649, 104 Stat. (m)(3). As of August 12, 2019, there administrative fees the regional centers
4978 (Nov. 29, 1990), Congress were 826 USCIS-approved Regional charge to the foreign investors who are
established the EB–5 immigrant visa Centers.163 Requests for regional center investing in one of their projects. DHS
classification to incentivize employment designation must be filed with USCIS did not focus on the bundled capital
creation in the United States. Under the on Form I–924, Application for Regional investment amounts (either $900,000 for
EB–5 program, lawful permanent Center Designation Under the Immigrant TEA projects or $1.8 million for a non-
resident (LPR) status is available to Investor Program. See 8 CFR TEA projects per investor) 164 that get
foreign nationals who invest the 204.6(m)(3)–(4). Once designated, invested into an NCE. Such investments
required amount in a new commercial regional centers must provide USCIS amounts are not necessarily indicative
enterprise that will create at least 10 with updated information to of whether the regional center is
full-time jobs in the United States. See demonstrate continued eligibility for the appropriately characterized as a small
INA section 203(b)(5), 8 U.S.C. designation by submitting a Form I– entity for purposes of the RFA. Due to
1153(b)(5). A foreign national may also 924A, Annual Certification of Regional the lack of regional center revenue data,
invest a lower amount in a targeted Center, on an annual basis or as DHS assumes regional centers collect
employment area defined to include otherwise requested. See 8 CFR revenue primarily through the
rural areas and areas of high 204.6(m)(6)(i)(B). administrative fees charged to investors.
unemployment. Id.; 8 CFR 204.6(f). The DHS will not adjust the fee for Form The information provided by regional
INA allots 9,940 immigrant visas each I–924. The current fee to file Form I–924 centers as part of the Forms I–924 and
fiscal year for foreign nationals seeking is $17,795. However, DHS is increasing I–924A does not include adequate data
to enter the United States under the EB– the fee for Form I–924A from $3,035 to to allow DHS to reliably identify the
5 classification.161 See INA section $4,465 per filing, an increase of $1,430 small entity status of individual
201(d), 8 U.S.C. 1151(d); INA section (47 percent). Using a 12-month period of applicants. Although regional center
203(b)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5). Not fewer data on the number of Forms I–924 and applicants typically report the NAICS
than 3,000 of these visas must be I–924A from October 1, 2016 to codes associated with the sectors they
reserved for foreign nationals investing September 31, 2017, DHS collected plan to direct investor funds toward,
in targeted employment areas. See INA internal data on these forms. DHS these codes do not necessarily apply to
section 203(b)(5)(B), 8 U.S.C. received a total of 280 Form I–924 the regional centers themselves. In
1153(b)(5)(B). applications and 847 Form I–924A addition, information provided to DHS
Enacted in 1992, section 610 of the applications. concerning regional centers generally
Departments of Commerce, Justice, and Regional centers are difficult to assess does not include regional center
State, the Judiciary, and Related because there is a lack of official data on revenues or employment.
Agencies Appropriations Act of 1993, employment, income, and industry DHS was able to obtain some
Public Law 102–395, 106 Stat. 1828 classification for these entities. It is information under some specific
difficult to determine the small entity assumptions in an attempt to analyze
(Oct. 6, 1992), established a pilot
status of regional centers without such the small entity status of regional
program that requires the allocation of
data. Such a determination is also centers.165 In the DHS final rule ‘‘EB–5
a limited number of EB–5 immigrant
difficult because regional centers can be Immigrant Investor Program
visas to individuals who invest through
structured in a variety of different ways Modernization,’’ DHS analyzed the
DHS-designated regional centers.162
and can involve multiple business and estimated administrative fees and
Under the Regional Center Program,
financial activities, some of which may revenue amounts for regional centers.
foreign nationals base their EB–5
play a direct or indirect role in linking DHS found both the mean and median
petitions on investments in new
investor funds to new commercial for administrative fees to be $50,000 and
commercial enterprises located within
enterprises and job-creating projects or the median revenue amount to be
USCIS-designated ‘‘regional centers.’’ entities.
DHS regulations define a regional center $1,250,000 over the period fiscal years
Regional centers also pose a challenge 2014 to 2017. DHS does not know the
as an economic unit, public or private, for analysis as the structure is often
that promotes economic growth, extent to which these regional centers
complex and can involve many related can pass along the fee increases to the
including increased export sales, business and financial activities not
improved regional productivity, job individual investors. Passing along the
directly involved with EB–5 activities. costs from this rule can reduce or
creation, and increased domestic capital Regional centers can be made up of
investment. See 8 CFR 204.6(e). While eliminate the economic impacts to the
several layers of business and financial regional centers. While DHS cannot
all EB–5 petitioners go through the same activities that focus on matching foreign
petition process, those petitioners definitively claim there is no significant
investor funds to development projects economic impact to these small entities
participating in the Regional Center to capture above market return
Program may meet statutory job creation differentials. In the past, DHS has 164 U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
requirements based on economic attempted to treat the regional centers USCIS—EB–5 Immigrant Investor Program
similar to the other entities in this Modernization, Final Rule. See 84 FR 35750. Dated
161 An immigrant investor, his or her spouse, and July 24, 2019. Available at https://www.govinfo.gov/
analysis. DHS was not able to identify
children (if any) will each use a separate visa content/pkg/FR-2019-07-24/pdf/2019-15000.pdf.

number. most of the entities in any of the public This amount by investor is determined between a
162 Current law requires that DHS annually set designated Target Employment Area and non-Target
aside 3,000 EB–5 immigrant visas for regional 163 USCIS Immigrant Investor Regional Centers: Employment Area.
center investors. Public Law 105–119, sec. 116, 111 https://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/ 165 The methodology used to analyze the small
Stat. 2440 (Nov. 26, 1997). If this full annual permanent-workers/employment-based- entity status of regional centers is explained in
allocation is not used, remaining visas may be immigration-fifth-preference-eb-5/immigrant- further detail in Section D of the RFA section
allocated to foreign nationals who do not invest in investor-regional-centers (last reviewed/updated within DHS final rule ‘‘EB–5 Immigrant Investor
regional centers. Aug. 20, 2019). Program Modernization,’’ available at 84 FR 35750.
based on existing information, DHS collected for other immigration benefits. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
would assume existing regional centers Without an increase in fees, DHS will The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
with revenues equal to or less than not be able to maintain the level of of 1995 (UMRA) is intended, among
$446,500 per year (some of which DHS service for immigration and other things, to curb the practice of
assumes would be derived from naturalization benefits that it now imposing unfunded Federal mandates
administrative fees charged to provides. DHS has considered the on State, local, and tribal governments.
individual investors) could experience a alternative of maintaining fees at the Title II of UMRA requires each Federal
significant economic impact. If DHS current level with reduced services and agency to prepare a written statement
assumes a fee increase that represents 1 increased processing times but has assessing the effects of any Federal
percent of annual revenue is a determined that this will not be in the mandate in a proposed or final agency
‘‘significant’’ economic burden under interest of applicants and petitioners. rule that may result in a $100 million or
the RFA.166 Therefore, this alternative was rejected. more expenditure (adjusted annually for
While most immigration benefit fees inflation) in any one year by State, local,
e. A Description of the Projected
apply to individuals, as described and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
previously, some also apply to small
Compliance Requirements of the Rule, or by the private sector. The inflation-
entities. DHS seeks to minimize the
Including an Estimate of the Classes of adjusted value equivalent of $100
impact on all parties, but in particular
Small Entities That Will Be Subject to million in 1995 adjusted for inflation to
small entities.
the Requirement and the Type of Another alternative to the increased 2019 levels by the Consumer Price
Professional Skills Necessary for economic burden of the fee adjustment Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI–U)
Preparation of the Report or Record is to maintain fees at their current level is approximately $168 million based on
This final rule imposed lower or for small entities. The strength of this the Consumer Price Index for All Urban
higher fees for filers of Forms I–129. alternative is that it assures that no Consumers.167
DHS is changing the following fees for While this final rule may result in the
additional fee-burden is placed on small
new Forms I–129 (separated into new entities; however, small entities will expenditure of more than $100 million
forms by worker type). The new fee experience negative effects due to the by the private sector annually, the
structure as it applies to the small service reductions that will result in the rulemaking is not a ‘‘Federal mandate’’
entities outline above, resulting the absence of the fee adjustments in this as defined for UMRA purposes.168 The
following fees: I–129H1 ($555), I– final rule. Without the fee adjustments payment of immigration benefit fees by
129H2A (Named Beneficiaries, $850) I– provided in this final rule, significant individuals or other private sector
129H2A (Unnamed Beneficiaries, $415), operational changes to USCIS would be entities is, to the extent it could be
I–129H2B (Named, $715), I–129H2B necessary. Given current filing volume termed an enforceable duty, one that
(Unnamed, $385), I–129O ($705), I– considerations, DHS requires additional arises from participation in a voluntary
129L ($805), I–129CW ($695), I– revenue to prevent immediate and Federal program, applying for
129E&TN ($695), I–129MISC (Includes significant cuts in planned spending. immigration status in the United
H–3, P, Q, or R Classifications, $695), I– These spending cuts would include States.169 This final rule does not
140 ($555), I–910 ($635), I–924 reductions in areas such as Federal and contain such a mandate. The
($17,795), I–924A ($4,465), Form I–360 contract staff, infrastructure spending requirements of Title II of UMRA,
($450), G–1041 ($170 paper, $160 on information technology and therefore, do not apply, and DHS has
online) and G–1041A ($265 paper, $255 facilities, and training. Depending on not prepared a statement under UMRA.
online). This final rule does not require the actual level of workload received, E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
any new professional skills for these operational changes could result
This final rule does not have
reporting. in longer processing times, a
degradation in customer service, and federalism implications because it does
f. Description of the Steps the Agency reduced efficiency over time. These cuts not have substantial direct effects on the
Has Taken To Minimize the Significant would ultimately represent an increased States, on the relationship between the
Economic Impact on Small Entities cost to small entities by causing delays national government and the States, or
Consistent With the Stated Objectives of in benefit processing and reductions in on the distribution of power and
Applicable Statutes, Including a customer service. responsibilities among the various
Statement of Factual, Policy, and Legal For reasons explained more fully levels of government. Therefore, in
Reasons for Selecting the Alternative elsewhere in the preamble to the final
Adopted in the Final Rule and Why rule, DHS chose the approach contained
167 See U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Historical
Each One of the Other Significant Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers
in this final rule. (CPI–U): U.S. City Average, All Items, available at
Alternatives to the Rule Considered By https://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables/supplemental-files/
the Agency Which Affect the Impact on C. Congressional Review Act historical-cpi-u-202003.pdf (last visited June 2,
Small Entities Was Rejected DHS has sent this final rule to the 2020).
Congress and to the Comptroller General Calculation of inflation: (1) Calculate the average
The INA provides for the collection of monthly CPI–U for the reference year (1995) and the
fees at a level that will ensure recovery under the Congressional Review Act, 5 current year (2019); (2) Subtract reference year CPI–
of the full costs of providing U.S.C. 801 et seq. The Administrator of U from current year CPI–U; (3) Divide the difference
adjudication and naturalization the Office of Information and Regulatory of the reference year CPI–U and current year CPI–
Affairs has determined that this final U by the reference year CPI–U; (4) Multiply by 100
services, including services provided = [(Average monthly CPI–U for 2019 ¥ Average
rule is a ‘‘major rule’’ within the
without charge to asylum applicants monthly CPI–U for 1995)/(Average monthly CPI–U
and certain other applicants. In meaning of the Congressional Review for 1995)] * 100 = [(255.657 ¥ 152.383)/152.383]
addition, DHS must fund the costs of Act. This rule will would be effective at * 100 = (103.274/152.383) *100 = 0.6777 * 100 =
least 60 days after the date on which 67.77 percent = 68 percent (rounded)
providing services without charge by Calculation of inflation-adjusted value: $100
using a portion of the filing fees Congress receives a report submitted by million in 1995 dollars * 1.68 = $168 million in
DHS under the Congressional Review 2019 dollars.
166 Calculation: 1 percent of $446,500 = $4,465 Act, or 60 days after the final rule’s 168 See 2 U.S.C. 658(6).
(the new fee for Form I–924A). publication, whichever is later. 169 See 2 U.S.C. 658(7)(A)(ii).
accordance with section 6 of Executive concerning the relationship between the concurrence, categories of actions
Order 13132, it is determined that this behavior and personal responsibility of (‘‘categorical exclusions’’) which
final rule does not have sufficient youth and the norms of society. If the experience has shown do not
federalism implications to warrant the determination is affirmative, then the individually or cumulatively have a
preparation of a federalism summary Agency must prepare an impact significant effect on the human
impact statement. assessment to address criteria specified environment and, therefore, do not
F. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice in the law. DHS has no data that require an Environmental Assessment
Reform) indicates that the rule will have any (EA) or Environmental Impact
impacts on disposable income or the Statement (EIS). 40 CFR
This final rule was drafted and poverty of certain families and children, 1507.3(b)(1)(iii), 1508.4. DHS
reviewed in accordance with E.O. including U.S. citizen children. A Instruction 023–01–001 Rev. 01
12988, Civil Justice Reform. This final family may have to delay applying until establishes such Categorical Exclusions
rule was written to provide a clear legal they have saved funds for a fee set by that DHS has found to have no such
standard for affected conduct and was this final rule, or pay the fee using a effect. Inst. 023–01–001 Rev. 01
carefully reviewed to eliminate drafting credit card. Nevertheless, DHS believes Appendix A Table 1. For an action to be
errors and ambiguities, so as to that the benefits of the new fees justify categorically excluded, DHS Inst. 023–
minimize litigation and undue burden the financial impact on the family. DHS 01–001 Rev. 01 requires the action to
on the Federal court system. DHS has determined that this rulemaking’s satisfy each of the following three
determined that this final rule meets the impact is justified and no further conditions:
applicable standards provided in actions are required. DHS also (1) The entire action clearly fits
section 3 of E.O. 12988. determined that this final rule will not within one or more of the Categorical
G. Executive Order 13175 Consultation have any impact on the autonomy or Exclusions;
and Coordination With Indian Tribal integrity of the family as an institution. (2) the action is not a piece of a larger
Governments I. National Environmental Policy Act action; and
This final rule does not have ‘‘tribal (NEPA) (3) no extraordinary circumstances
implications’’ because it does not have exist that create the potential for a
substantial direct effects on one or more This final rule adjusts certain significant environmental effect. Inst.
Indian tribes, on the relationship immigration and naturalization benefit 023–01–001 Rev. 01 section V.B(1)–(3).
between the Federal Government and request fees charged by USCIS. It also DHS has analyzed this action and has
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of makes changes related to setting, concluded that NEPA does not apply
power and responsibilities between the collecting, and administering fees. Fee due to the excessively speculative
Federal Government and Indian tribes. schedule adjustments are necessary to nature of any effort to conduct an
Accordingly, E.O. 13175, Consultation recover the full operating costs impact analysis. This final rule fits
and Coordination with Indian Tribal associated with administering the within the Categorical Exclusion found
Governments, requires no further nation’s lawful immigration system, in DHS Inst. 023–01–001 Rev. 01,
agency action or analysis. safeguarding its integrity and promise Appendix A, Table 1, number A3(d):
by efficiently and fairly adjudicating ‘‘Promulgation of rules . . . that
H. Family Assessment requests for immigration benefits, while interpret or amend an existing
Section 654 of the Treasury and protecting Americans, securing the regulation without changing its
General Government Appropriations homeland, and honoring our values. environmental effect.’’ This final rule is
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires This final rule also makes certain not part of a larger action. This final rule
Federal agencies to issue a Family adjustments to fee waiver eligibility, presents no extraordinary circumstances
Policymaking Assessment for any rule filing requirements for nonimmigrant creating the potential for significant
that may affect family well-being. workers, premium processing service, environmental effects. Therefore, this
Agencies must assess whether the and other administrative requirements. final rule is categorically excluded from
regulatory action: (1) Impacts the DHS analyzes actions to determine further NEPA review.
stability or safety of the family, whether NEPA applies to them and if so
J. Paperwork Reduction Act
particularly in terms of marital what degree of analysis is required. DHS
commitment; (2) impacts the authority Directive (Dir) 023–01 Rev. 01 and Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of parents in the education, nurture, and Instruction Manual (Inst.) 023–01–001 of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501–12, DHS must
supervision of their children; (3) helps Rev. 01 establish the procedures that submit to OMB, for review and
the family perform its functions; (4) DHS and its components use to comply approval, any reporting requirements
affects disposable income or poverty of with NEPA and the Council on inherent in a rule, unless they are
families and children; (5) if the Environmental Quality (CEQ) exempt. See Public Law 104–13, 109
regulatory action financially impacts regulations for implementing NEPA, 40 Stat. 163 (May 22, 1995). The
families, are justified; (6) may be carried CFR parts 1500 through 1508. The CEQ Information Collection table 11 below
out by State or local government or by regulations allow Federal agencies to shows the summary of forms that are
the family; and (7) establishes a policy establish, with CEQ review and part of this rulemaking.
TABLE 11—INFORMATION COLLECTION

OMB No. Form No. Form name Type of information collection.
1615–0105 ................... G–28 ........................... Notice of Entry of Appearance as Attorney or No material or non-substantive change to a
Accredited Representative. currently approved collection.
1615–0096 ................... G–1041 ....................... Genealogy Index Search Request .................. No material or non-substantive change to a
currently approved collection.
G–1041A .................... Genealogy Records Request (For each
microfilm or hard copy file).
TABLE 11—INFORMATION COLLECTION—Continued

1615–0079 ................... I–102 .......................... Application for Replacement/Initial Non- No material or non-substantive change to a
immigrant Arrival-Departure Document. currently approved collection.
1615–0111 ................... I–129CW .................... Petition for a CNMI-Only Nonimmigrant Tran- No material or non-substantive change to a
sitional Worker. currently approved collection.
I–129CWR .................. Semiannual Report for CW–1 Employers.
1615–0146 ................... I–129E&TN ................. Application for Nonimmigrant Worker: E and New Collection.
TN Classifications.
1615–0001 ................... I–129F ........................ Petition for Alien Fiancé(e) ............................. No material or non-substantive change to a
1615–0009 ................... I–129H1 ...................... Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker: H–1 Clas- Revision of a Currently Approved Collection.
sifications.
1615–0150 ................... I–129H2A ................... Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker: H–2A New Collection.
Classification.
1615–0149 ................... I–129H2B ................... Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker: H–2B New Collection.
Classification.
1615–0147 ................... I–129L ........................ Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker: L Classi- New Collection.
fications.
1615–0145 ................... I–129MISC ................. Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker: H–3, P, Q, New Collection.
or R Classifications.
1615–0148 ................... I–129O ........................ Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker: O Classi- New Collection.
fications.
1615–0012 ................... I–130 .......................... Petition for Alien Relative ............................... No material or non-substantive change to a
I–130A ........................ Supplemental Information for Spouse Bene-
ficiary.
1615–0013 ................... I–131 .......................... Application for Travel Document .................... Revision of a Currently Approved Collection.
1615–0135 ................... I–131A ........................ Application for Travel Document (Carrier Doc- Revision of a Currently Approved Collection.
umentation).
1615–0015 ................... I–140 .......................... Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker ................ No material or non-substantive change to a
1615–0016 ................... I–191 .......................... Application for Relief Under Former Section No material or non-substantive change to a
212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality currently approved collection.
Act.
1615–0017 ................... I–192 .......................... Application for Advance Permission to Enter No material or non-substantive change to a
as Nonimmigrant. currently approved collection.
1615–0018 ................... I–212 .......................... Application for Permission to Reapply for Ad- No material or non-substantive change to a
mission Into the United States After Depor- currently approved collection.
tation or Removal.
1615–0095 ................... I–290B ........................ Notice of Appeal or Motion ............................. No material or non-substantive change to a
1615–0020 ................... I–360 .......................... Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special No material or non-substantive change to a
Immigrant. currently approved collection.
1615–0023 ................... I–485 .......................... Application to Register Permanent Residence No material or non-substantive change to a
or Adjust Status. currently approved collection.
I–485A ........................ Supplement A to Form I–485, Adjustment of
Status Under Section 245(i).
I–485J ......................... Confirmation of Bona Fide Job Offer or Re-
quest for Job Portability Under INA Section
204(j).
1615–0026 ................... I–526 .......................... Immigrant Petition by Alien ............................. No material or non-substantive change to a
1615–0003 ................... I–539 .......................... Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant No material or non-substantive change to a
Status. currently approved collection.
1615–0003 ................... I–539A ........................ Supplemental Information for Application to No material or non-substantive change to a
Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status. currently approved collection.
1615–0067 ................... I–589 .......................... Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Revision of a Currently Approved Collection.
Removal.
1615–0028 ................... I–600 .......................... Petition to Classify Orphan as an Immediate Revision of a Currently Approved Collection.
Relative.
I–600A ........................ Application for Advance Processing of an Or-
phan Petition.
I–600/A SUPP1 .......... Form I–600A/I–600 Supplement 1, Listing of
Adult Member of the Household.
I–600/A SUPP2 .......... Form I–600A/I–600 Supplement 2, Consent

to Disclose Information.
I–600/A SUPP3 .......... Form I–600A/I–600 Supplement 3, Request
for Action on Approved Form I–600A/I–600.
1615–0029 ................... I–601 .......................... Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmis- No material or non-substantive change to a
sibility. currently approved collection.
1615–0123 ................... I–601A ........................ Application for Provisional Unlawful Presence No material or non-substantive change to a
Waiver. currently approved collection.
TABLE 11—INFORMATION COLLECTION—Continued

1615–0030 ................... I–612 .......................... Application for Waiver of the Foreign Resi- No material or non-substantive change to a
dence Requirement (Under Section 212(e) currently approved collection.
of the INA, as Amended).
1615–0032 ................... I–690 .......................... Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmis- No material or non-substantive change to a
sibility. currently approved collection.
1615–0034 ................... I–694 .......................... Notice of Appeal of Decision Under Sections No material or non-substantive change to a
245A or 210 of the Immigration and Nation- currently approved collection.
ality Act.
1615–0035 ................... I–698 .......................... Application to Adjust Status From Temporary No material or non-substantive change to a
to Permanent Resident (Under Section currently approved collection.
245A of the INA).
1615–0038 ................... I–751 .......................... Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence No material or non-substantive change to a
1615–0040 ................... I–765 .......................... Application for Employment Authorization ...... Revision of a Currently Approved Collection.
1615–0005 ................... I–817 .......................... Application for Benefits Under the Family No material or non-substantive change to a
Unity Program. currently approved collection.
1615–0043 ................... I–821 .......................... Application for Temporary Protected Status ... No material or non-substantive change to a
1615–0044 ................... I–824 .......................... Application for Action on an Approved Appli- No material or non-substantive change to a
cation or Petition. currently approved collection.
1615–0045 ................... I–829 .......................... Petition by Investor to Remove Conditions on No material or non-substantive change to a
Permanent Resident Status. currently approved collection.
1615–0072 ................... I–881 .......................... Application for Suspension of Deportation or No material or non-substantive change to a
Special Rule Cancellation of Removal (Pur- currently approved collection.
suant to Sec. 203 of Pub. L. 105–100).
1615–0082 ................... I–90 ............................ Application to Replace Permanent Resident No material or non-substantive change to a
Card. currently approved collection.
1615–0048 ................... I–907 .......................... Request for Premium Processing Service ...... No material or non-substantive change to a
1615–0114 ................... I–910 .......................... Application for Civil Surgeon Designation ...... No material or non-substantive change to a
1615–0116 ................... I–912 .......................... Request for Fee Waiver .................................. Revision of a Currently Approved Collection.
1615–0099 ................... I–914 .......................... Application for T nonimmigrant status ............ No material or non-substantive change to a
1615–0104 ................... I–918 .......................... Petition for U nonimmigrant status ................. No material or non-substantive change to a
1615–0061 ................... I–924 .......................... Application for Regional Designation Center No material or non-substantive change to a
Under the Immigrant Investor Program. currently approved collection.
I–924A ........................ Annual Certification of Regional Center.
1615–0106 ................... I–929 .......................... Petition for Qualifying Family Member of a U– No material or non-substantive change to a
1 Nonimmigrant. currently approved collection.
1615–0136 ................... I–941 .......................... Application for Entrepreneur Parole ............... No material or non-substantive change to a
1615–0133 ................... I–942 .......................... Application for Reduced Fee .......................... Discontinuation
1615–0122 ................... Immigrant Fee ............ Fee paid for immigrant visa processing .......... No material or non-substantive change to a
1615–0050 ................... N–336 ......................... Request for a Hearing on a Decision in Natu- No material or non-substantive change to a
ralization Proceedings Under Section 336. currently approved collection.
1615–0052 ................... N–400 ......................... Application for Naturalization .......................... No material or non-substantive change to a
1615–0056 ................... N–470 ......................... Application to Preserve Residence for Natu- No material or non-substantive change to a
ralization Purposes. currently approved collection.
1615–0091 ................... N–565 ......................... Application for Replacement of Naturalization/ No material or non-substantive change to a
Citizenship Document. currently approved collection.
1615–0057 ................... N–600 ......................... Application for Certification of Citizenship ...... No material or non-substantive change to a
1615–0087 ................... N–600K ...................... Application for Citizenship and Issuance of No material or non-substantive change to a
Certificate under Section 322. currently approved collection.
Various USCIS Forms biometric services fees; modification of check fee; text clarifying that a second
various form instructions to conform presentment is limited to NSF checks,
This final rule will require non-
with changes to USCIS Form I–912; addition of language regarding delivery

substantive edits to the forms listed modification to USCIS Form N–400 to requirements of certain secured
above where the Type of Information conform with the discontinuation of documents; general language
Collection column states, ‘‘No material/ USCIS Form I–942; modification to modification of fee activities within
non-substantive change to a currently various form instructions to conform various USCIS forms. Accordingly,
approved collection.’’ These edits with changes to the conditions for fee USCIS has submitted a Paperwork
include: Updates to the fees collected,
exemptions; removal of the returned Reduction Act Change Worksheet, Form
including changes to the collection of
OMB 83–C, and amended information cost burden associated with this USCIS Form I–129H2B
collection instruments to OMB for collection of information is Overview of information collection:
review and approval in accordance with $207,047,510. (1) Type of Information Collection:
the PRA.170 New Collection.
USCIS Form I–129H2A
USCIS Form I–129H1 (2) Title of the Form/Collection:
Overview of information collection: Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker: H–
Overview of information collection: (1) Type of Information Collection: 2B Classification.
(1) Type of Information Collection: New Collection. (3) Agency form number, if any, and
Revision of a Currently Approved (2) Title of the Form/Collection: the applicable component of the DHS
Collection. Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker: H– sponsoring the collection: I–129H2B;
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: 2A Classifications. USCIS.
Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker: H– (3) Agency form number, if any, and (4) Affected public who will be asked
1B Classifications. the applicable component of the DHS or required to respond, as well as a brief
(3) Agency form number, if any, and sponsoring the collection: I–129H2A; abstract: Primary: Business or other for-
the applicable component of the DHS USCIS. profit; Not-for-profit institutions. USCIS
sponsoring the collection: I–129H1; (4) Affected public who will be asked uses the data collected on this form to
USCIS. or required to respond, as well as a brief determine eligibility for the requested
(4) Affected public who will be asked abstract: Primary: Business or other for- H–2B nonimmigrant petition and/or
or required to respond, as well as a brief profit; Not-for-profit institutions. USCIS requests to extend or change
abstract: Primary: Business or other for- uses the data collected on this form to nonimmigrant status. An employer or
profit; Not-for-profit institutions. USCIS determine eligibility for the requested agent uses this form to petition USCIS
uses the data collected on this form to H–2A nonimmigrant petition and/or for classification of an alien as an H–2B
determine eligibility for the requested requests to extend or change nonimmigrant. An employer or agent
nonimmigrant classification and/or nonimmigrant status. An employer or also uses this form to request an
requests to extend or change agent uses this form to petition USCIS extension of stay or change of status on
nonimmigrant status. An employer (or for classification of an alien as an H–2A behalf of the alien worker. The form
agent, where applicable) uses this form nonimmigrant. An employer or agent serves the purpose of standardizing
to petition USCIS for classification of an also uses this form to request an requests for nonimmigrant workers and
alien as an H–1B nonimmigrant. An extension of stay or change of status on ensuring that basic information required
employer (or agent, where applicable) behalf of the alien worker. The form for assessing eligibility is provided by
also uses this form to request an serves the purpose of standardizing the petitioner. It also assists USCIS in
extension of stay of an H–1B or H–1B1 requests for H–2A nonimmigrant compiling information required by
nonimmigrant worker or to change the workers and ensuring that basic Congress annually to assess
status of an alien currently in the United information required for assessing effectiveness and utilization of certain
States as a nonimmigrant to H–1B or H– eligibility is provided by the petitioner. nonimmigrant classifications.
1B1. The form serves the purpose of It also assists USCIS in compiling (5) An estimate of the total number of
standardizing requests for H–1B and H– information required by Congress respondents and the amount of time
1B1 nonimmigrant workers and annually to assess effectiveness and estimated for an average respondent to
ensuring that basic information required utilization of certain nonimmigrant respond: The estimated total number of
for assessing eligibility is provided by classifications. respondents for the information
the petitioner while requesting that (5) An estimate of the total number of collection Form I–129H2B is 6,340 and
beneficiaries be classified under the H– respondents and the amount of time the estimated hour burden per response
1B or H–1B1 nonimmigrant estimated for an average respondent to is 3 hours; the estimated total number
employment categories. It also assists respond: The estimated total number of of respondents for the information
USCIS in compiling information respondents for the information collection Named Worker Attachment
required by Congress annually to assess collection Form I–129H2A is 12,008 and for Form I–129H2B is 58,104 and the
effectiveness and utilization of certain the estimated hour burden per response estimated hour burden per response is
nonimmigrant classifications. is 3 hours; the estimated total number 0.5 hours.
(5) An estimate of the total number of of respondents for the information (6) An estimate of the total public
respondents and the amount of time collection Named Worker Attachment burden (in hours) associated with the
estimated for an average respondent to for Form I–129H2A is 65,760 and the collection: The total estimated annual
respond: The estimated total number of estimated hour burden per response is hour burden associated with this
respondents for the information 0.5 hours; the estimated total number of collection is 48,072 hours.
collection Form I–129H1 is 402,034 and respondents for the information (7) An estimate of the total public
the estimated hour burden per response collection Joint Employer Supplement burden (in cost) associated with the
is 4 hours. for Form I–129H2A is 5,000 and the collection: The estimated total annual
(6) An estimate of the total public estimated hour burden per response is cost burden associated with this
burden (in hours) associated with the 0.167 hours. collection of information is $3,265,100.
collection: The total estimated annual (6) An estimate of the total public
hour burden associated with this burden (in hours) associated with the USCIS Form I–129L
collection is 1,608,136 hours. collection: The total estimated annual Overview of information collection:
(7) An estimate of the total public hour burden associated with this (1) Type of Information Collection:
burden (in cost) associated with the collection is 69,739 hours. New Collection.
collection: The estimated total annual (7) An estimate of the total public (2) Title of the Form/Collection:
170 As stated earlier DHS is removing the $30 fee
burden (in cost) associated with the Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker: I–
for dishonored fee payment instruments. EOIR will
collection: The estimated total annual 129L Classification.
make conforming changes to its affected forms cost burden associated with this (3) Agency form number, if any, and
separately. . . collection of information is $6,184,120. the applicable component of the DHS
sponsoring the collection: I–129L; this form to request an extension of stay purpose of standardizing requests for H–
USCIS. or change of status on behalf of the alien 3, P, Q, or R nonimmigrant workers, and
(4) Affected public who will be asked worker. The form serves the purpose of ensuring that basic information required
or required to respond, as well as a brief standardizing requests for for assessing eligibility is provided by
abstract: Primary: Business or other for- nonimmigrant workers and ensuring the petitioner while requesting that
profit; Not-for-profit institutions. USCIS that basic information required for beneficiaries be classified under the H–
uses the data collected on Form I–129L assessing eligibility is provided by the 3, P, Q, or R nonimmigrant employment
to determine a petitioner and petitioner while requesting that categories. It also assists USCIS in
beneficiary’s eligibility for L–1A and L– beneficiaries be classified under certain compiling information required by
1B classification. The form is also used nonimmigrant employment categories. It Congress annually to assess
to determine eligibility for an LZ also assists USCIS in compiling effectiveness and utilization of certain
Blanket petition. An employer uses this information required by Congress nonimmigrant classification.
form to petition USCIS for classification annually to assess effectiveness and (5) An estimate of the total number of
of the beneficiary as an L–1 utilization of certain nonimmigrant respondents and the amount of time
nonimmigrant. An employer also uses classifications. estimated for an average respondent to
this form to request an extension of stay (5) An estimate of the total number of respond: The estimated total number of
or change of status on behalf of the respondents and the amount of time respondents for the information
beneficiary. The form standardizes these estimated for an average respondent to collection Form I–129MISC is 28,799
types of petitioners and ensures that the respond: The estimated total number of and the estimated hour burden per
information required for assessing respondents for the information response is 3 hours; the estimated total
eligibility is provided by the petitioner collection Form I–129O is 25,516 and number of respondents for the
about themselves and the beneficiary. the estimated hour burden per response information collection H–3
The form also enables USCIS to compile is 3 hours; the estimated total number Classification Supplement to Form I–
data required for an annual report to of respondents for the information 129MISC, Petition for Nonimmigrant
Congress assessing the effectiveness and collection Attachment 1—Additional Worker: H–3, P, Q, or R Classification is
utilization of certain nonimmigrant Beneficiary for Form I–129O is 1,189 1,449 and the estimated hour burden
classifications. and the estimated hour burden per per response is 0.25 hours; the
(5) An estimate of the total number of response is 0.5 hours. estimated total number of respondents
respondents and the amount of time (6) An estimate of the total public for the information collection P
estimated for an average respondent to burden (in hours) associated with the Classification Supplement to Form I–
respond: The estimated total number of collection: The total estimated annual 129MISC is 18,524 and the estimated
respondents for the information hour burden associated with this hour burden per response is 0.5 hours;
collection Form I–129L is 42,871 and collection is 77,143 hours. the estimated total number of
the estimated hour burden per response (7) An estimate of the total public respondents for the information
is 3 hours. burden (in cost) associated with the collection Q–1 International Cultural
(6) An estimate of the total public collection: The estimated total annual Exchange Alien Supplement to Form I–
burden (in hours) associated with the cost burden associated with this 129MISC is 295 and the estimated hour
collection: The total estimated annual collection of information is $13,140,740. burden per response is 0.167 hours; the
hour burden associated with this USCIS Form I–129MISC estimated total number of respondents
collection is 128,613 hours. for the information collection R–1
(7) An estimate of the total public Overview of information collection: Classification Supplement to Form I–
burden (in cost) associated with the (1) Type of Information Collection: 129MISC is 1 and the estimated hour
collection: The estimated total annual New Collection. burden per response is 1 hours; the
cost burden associated with this (2) Title of the Form/Collection: estimated total number of respondents
collection of information is $22,078,565. Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker: H–3, for the information collection
P, Q, or R Classification. Attachment 1-Additional Beneficiary for
USCIS Form I–129O (3) Agency form number, if any, and
Form I–129MISC is 8,531 and the
Overview of information collection: the applicable component of the DHS
estimated hour burden per response is
(1) Type of Information Collection: sponsoring the collection: I–129MISC;
0.5 hours.
New Collection. USCIS. (6) An estimate of the total public
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: (4) Affected public who will be asked
burden (in hours) associated with the
Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker: O or required to respond, as well as a brief
collection: The total estimated annual
Classification. abstract: Primary: Business or other for-
hour burden associated with this
(3) Agency form number, if any, and profit; Not-for-profit institutions. USCIS
collection is 107,847 hours.
the applicable component of the DHS uses the data collected on this form to (7) An estimate of the total public
sponsoring the collection: I–129O; determine eligibility for the requested burden (in cost) associated with the
USCIS. nonimmigrant classification and/or collection: The estimated total annual
(4) Affected public who will be asked requests to extend or change cost burden associated with this
or required to respond, as well as a brief nonimmigrant status. An employer (or collection of information is $14,831,485.
abstract: Primary: Business or other for- agent, where applicable) uses this form
profit; Not-for-profit institutions. USCIS to petition USCIS for classification of an USCIS Form I–129E&TN
uses the data collected on this form to alien as an H–3, P, Q, or R
Overview of information collection:

determine eligibility for the requested nonimmigrant. An employer (or agent, (1) Type of Information Collection:
nonimmigrant petition and/or requests where applicable) also uses this form to New Collection.
to extend or change nonimmigrant request an extension of stay of an H–3, (2) Title of the Form/Collection:
status. An employer or agent uses this P, Q, or R nonimmigrant worker or to Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker: E
form to petition USCIS for classification change the status of an alien currently and TN Classification.
of an alien as an O nonimmigrant in the United States as a nonimmigrant (3) Agency form number, if any, and
worker. An employer or agent also uses to H–3, P, Q, or R. The form serves the the applicable component of the DHS
sponsoring the collection: I–129E&TN; USCIS Form I–131 households. USCIS uses the information
USCIS. Overview of information collection: provided on Form I–131A to verify the
(4) Affected public who will be asked (1) Type of Information Collection: status of permanent or conditional
or required to respond, as well as a brief Revision of a Currently Approved residents, and aliens traveling abroad on
abstract: Primary: Business or other for- Collection. an Advance Parole Document (Form I–
profit; Not-for-profit institutions. USCIS (2) Title of the Form/Collection: 512 or I–512L) or Employment
uses the data collected on this form to Application for Travel Document, Form Authorization Documents (EAD) with
determine eligibility for the requested I–131; Extension, Without Change, of a travel endorsement (Form I–766) and to
nonimmigrant classification and/or Currently Approved Collection. determine whether the applicant is
requests to extend or change (3) Agency form number, if any, and eligible for the requested travel
nonimmigrant status. An employer the applicable component of the DHS document.
agent, or applicant uses this form to sponsoring the collection: I–131; USCIS. (5) An estimate of the total number of
apply to USCIS for classification of an (4) Affected public who will be asked respondents and the amount of time
alien as an E–1, E–2, E–3, or TN or required to respond, as well as a brief estimated for an average respondent to
nonimmigrant. An employer, agent, abstract: Primary: Individuals or respond: The estimated total number of
applicant, or CNMI investor also uses households. Certain aliens, principally respondents for the information
this form to request an extension of stay permanent or conditional residents, collection Form I–131A is 5,100 and the
in one of these classifications for an refugees or asylees, applicants for estimated hour burden per response is
alien or for themselves, or to change the adjustment of status, aliens in .92 hours; biometrics processing is 5,100
status of an alien currently in the United Temporary Protected Status (TPS), and and the estimated hour burden per
States as a nonimmigrant or their own aliens abroad seeking humanitarian response is 1.17 hours.
status if they are currently in the United (6) An estimate of the total public
parole who need to apply for a travel
States as a nonimmigrant to E–1, E–2, burden (in hours) associated with the
document to lawfully enter or reenter
E–3, or TN. The form serves the purpose collection: The total estimated annual
the United States. Lawful permanent
of standardizing requests for hour burden associated with this
residents may now file requests for
nonimmigrant workers in these collection is 10,659 hours.
travel permits (transportation letter or (7) An estimate of the total public
classifications and ensuring that basic boarding foil).
information required for assessing burden (in cost) associated with the
(5) An estimate of the total number of collection: The estimated total annual
eligibility is provided by the applicant. respondents and the amount of time
It also assists USCIS in compiling cost burden associated with this
estimated for an average respondent to collection of information is $919,275.
information required by Congress respond: The estimated total number of
annually to assess effectiveness and respondents for the information USCIS Form I–589
utilization of certain nonimmigrant collection I–131 is 464,900 and the Overview of information collection:
classification. estimated hour burden per response is (1) Type of Information Collection:
(5) An estimate of the total number of 1.9 hours; the estimated total number of Revision of a Currently Approved
respondents and the amount of time respondents for biometrics processing is Collection.
estimated for an average respondent to 86,000 and the estimated hour burden (2) Title of the Form/Collection:
respond: The estimated total number of per response is 1.17 hours, the Application for Asylum and for
respondents for the information estimated total number of respondents Withholding of Removal.
collection Form I–129E&TN is 12,709 for passport-style photos is 360,000 and (3) Agency form number, if any, and
and the estimated hour burden per the estimated hour burden per response the applicable component of the DHS
response is 3 hours; the estimated total is 0.5 hours. sponsoring the collection: I–589; USCIS.
number of respondents for the (6) An estimate of the total public (4) Affected public who will be asked
information collection E–1/E–2 burden (in hours) associated with the or required to respond, as well as a brief
Classification Supplement to Form I– collection: The total estimated annual abstract: Primary: Individuals or
129E&TN is 4,236 and the estimated hour burden associated with this households. Form I–589 is necessary to
hour burden per response is 1.45 hours; collection is 1,163,930 hours. determine whether an alien applying for
the estimated total number of (7) An estimate of the total public asylum and/or withholding of removal
respondents for the information burden (in cost) associated with the in the United States is classified as a
collection E–3 Classification collection: The estimated total annual refugee and is eligible to remain in the
Supplement to Form I–129E&TN is cost burden associated with this United States.
2,824 and the estimated hour burden collection of information is (5) An estimate of the total number of
per response is 1 hours; the estimated $143,654,100. respondents and the amount of time
total number of respondents for the estimated for an average respondent to
information collection NAFTA USCIS Form I–131A respond: The estimated total number of
Supplement to Form I–129E&TN is Overview of information collection: USCIS respondents for the information
7,349 and the estimated hour burden (1) Type of Information Collection: collection in Form I–589 is
per response is 0.5 hours. Revision of a Currently Approved approximately 114,000, and the
(6) An estimate of the total public Collection. estimated annual respondents for Form
burden (in hours) associated with the (2) Title of the Form/Collection: I–589 filed with DOJ is approximately
collection: The total estimated annual Application for Carrier Documentation. 150,000. The estimated hour burden per
hour burden associated with this (3) Agency form number, if any, and response is 13 hours per response; and
collection is 50,768 hours. the applicable component of the DHS the estimated number of respondents
(7) An estimate of the total public sponsoring the collection: I–131A; providing biometrics to USCIS is
burden (in cost) associated with the USCIS. 110,000, and to DOJ (collected on their
collection: The estimated total annual (4) Affected public who will be asked behalf by USCIS) is 150,000. The
cost burden associated with this or required to respond, as well as a brief estimated hour burden per response for
collection of information is $6,545,135. abstract: Primary: Individuals or biometrics submissions is 1.17 hours.
(6) An estimate of the total public Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, to adoption cost burden associated with this
burden (in hours) associated with the service providers or other individuals. collection of information is $7,759,232.
collection: The total estimated annual Form I–600A/I–600 authorize d
USCIS Form I–765
hour burden associated with this disclosures will assist USCIS in the
collection for USCIS is 1,610,700 hours, adjudication of Forms I–600A and I– Overview of information collection:
and for DOJ is 2,125,500. 600. USCIS has created a new Form I– (1) Type of Information Collection:
(7) An estimate of the total public 600A/I–600 Supplement 3, Request for Revision of a Currently Approved
burden (in cost) associated with the Action on Approved Form I–600A/I– Collection.
collection: The estimated total annual 600, for this information collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection:
cost burden associated with this Form I–600A/I–600 Supplement 3 is a Application for Employment
collection of information for USCIS is form that prospective/adoptive parents Authorization.
estimated to be $46,968,000 and for DOJ must use if they need to request action (3) Agency form number, if any, and
is $61,800,000. such as an extended or updated the applicable component of the DHS
suitability determination based upon a sponsoring the collection: I–765; USCIS.
USCIS Form I–600, I–600A, Supplement (4) Affected public who will be asked
1, Supplement 2, Supplement 3 significant change in their
circumstances or change in the number or required to respond, as well as a brief
Overview of information collection: or characteristics of the children they abstract: Primary: Individuals or
(1) Type of Information Collection: households. USCIS uses Form I–765 to
intend to adopt, a change in their
Revision of a Currently Approved collect information needed to determine
intended country of adoption, or a
Collection. if an alien is eligible for an initial EAD,
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: request for a duplicate notice of their
approved Form I–600A suitability a new replacement EAD, or a
Petition to Classify Orphan as an subsequent EAD upon the expiration of
Immediate Relative; Application for determination.
(5) An estimate of the total number of a previous EAD under the same
Advance Processing of an Orphan eligibility category. Aliens in many
Petition; Supplement 1, Listing of an respondents and the amount of time
estimated for an average respondent to immigration statuses are required to
Adult Member of the Household; possess an EAD as evidence of work
Supplement 2, Consent to Disclose respond: The estimated total number of
respondents for the information authorization.
Information; Supplement 3, Request for (5) An estimate of the total number of
Action on Approved Form I–600A/I– collection Form I–600 is 1,200 and the
respondents and the amount of time
600. estimated hour burden per response is
estimated for an average respondent to
(3) Agency form number, if any, and 1 hour; the estimated total number of
respond: The estimated total number of
the applicable component of the DHS respondents for the information
respondents for the information
sponsoring the collection: Form I–600, collection Form I–600A is 2,000 and the
collection I–765 is 2,286,000 and the
Form I–600A, Form I–600A/I–600 estimated hour burden per response is
Supplement 1, Form I–600A/I–600 1 hour; the estimated total number of
4.5 hours; the estimated total number of
Supplement 2, Form I–600A/I–600 respondents for the information
Supplement 3; USCIS. collection Form I–600/I–600A
collection I–765WS is 302,000 and the
(4) Affected public who will be asked Supplement 1 is 301 and the estimated
or required to respond, as well as a brief hour burden per response is 1 hour; the
0.5 hours; the estimated total number of
abstract: Primary: Individuals or estimated total number of respondents
households. A U.S. citizen prospective/ for the information collection Form I–
collection biometrics is 302,535 and the
adoptive parent may file a petition to 600/I–600A Supplement 2 is 1,260 and
classify an orphan as an immediate the estimated hour burden per response
1.17 hours; the estimated total number
relative under section 201(b)(2)(A) of is 0.25 hours; the estimated total
of respondents for the information
the INA. A U.S. citizen adoptive parent number of respondents for the
collection passport photos is 2,286,000
may file a petition to classify an orphan information collection Form I–600/I–
and the estimated hour burden per
as an immediate relative through Form 600A Supplement 3 is 1,286 and the
response is 0.5 hours.
I–600 under section 101(b)(1)(F) of the estimated hour burden per response is
(6) An estimate of the total public
INA. A U.S. citizen prospective 1 hours; the estimated total number of
burden (in hours) associated with the
adoptive parent may file Form I–600A respondents for the Home Study
collection: The total estimated annual
in advance of the Form I–600 filing and information collection is 2,500 and the
hour burden associated with this
USCIS will make a determination estimated hour burden per response is
collection is 11,934,966 hours.
regarding the prospective adoptive 25 hours; the estimated total number of (7) An estimate of the total public
parent’s eligibility to file Form I–600A respondents for the Biometrics burden (in cost) associated with the
and his or her suitability and eligibility information collection is 2,520 and the collection: The estimated total annual
to properly parent an orphan. If there estimated hour burden per response is cost burden associated with this
are other adult members of the U.S. 1.17 hours; the estimated total number collection of information is
citizen prospective/adoptive parent’s of respondents for the Biometrics—DNA $400,895,820.
household, as defined at 8 CFR 204.301, information collection is 2 and the
the prospective/adoptive parent must estimated hour burden per response is USCIS Form I–912
include Form I–600A/I–600 Supplement 6 hours. Overview of information collection:
1 when filing both Form I–600A and (6) An estimate of the total public (1) Type of Information Collection:
Form I–600. A Form I–600A/I–600 burden (in hours) associated with the Revision of a Currently Approved
Supplement 2, Consent to Disclose collection: The total estimated annual Collection.
Information, is an optional form that a hour burden associated with this (2) Title of the Form/Collection:
U.S. citizen prospective/adoptive parent collection is 70,562.40 hours. Request for Fee Waiver.
may file to authorize USCIS to disclose (7) An estimate of the total public (3) Agency form number, if any, and
case-related information that would burden (in cost) associated with the the applicable component of the DHS
otherwise be protected under the collection: The estimated total annual sponsoring the collection: I–912; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked collection instruments to OMB for List of Subjects
or required to respond, as well as a brief review and approval in accordance with
8 CFR Part 103
abstract: Primary: Individuals or the PRA.
households. USCIS uses the data Differences in information collection Administrative practice and
collected on this form to verify that the request respondent volume and fee procedures, Authority delegations
applicant is unable to pay for the model filing volume projections. (government agencies), Freedom of
immigration benefit being requested. DHS acknowledges that the estimates Information, Privacy, Reporting and
USCIS will consider waiving a fee for an of annual filing volume in the PRA recordkeeping requirements, and Surety
application or petition when the section of this preamble are not the bonds.
applicant or petitioner clearly same as those used in the ABC model 8 CFR Part 106
demonstrates he or she is eligible based used to calculate the fee amounts in this
on 8 CFR 106.3. Form I–912 rule. For example, the fee calculation Immigration, User fees.
standardizes the collection and analysis model estimates 163,000 annual Form I– 8 CFR Part 204
of statements and supporting 589 filings while the PRA section
documentation provided by the estimates the average annual number of Administrative practice and
applicant with the fee waiver request. respondents will be 114,000. The model procedure, Immigration, Reporting and
Form I–912 also streamlines and projects 2,455,000 Form I–765 filings recordkeeping requirements.
expedites USCIS’ approval, or rejection while the estimated total number of 8 CFR Part 211
of the fee waiver request by clearly respondents for the information
laying out the most salient data and Immigration, Passports and visas,
collection I–765 is 2,096,000. As stated
evidence necessary for the Reporting and recordkeeping
in the NPRM and section III.L.1 of this
determination of inability to pay. requirements.
preamble, the VPC forecasts USCIS
Officers evaluate all information and
workload volume based on short- and 8 CFR Part 212
evidence supplied in support of a fee
long-term volume trends and time series
waiver request when making a final Administrative practice and
models, historical receipts data, patterns
determination. Each case is unique and procedure, Aliens, Immigration,
(such as level, trend, and seasonality) or
is considered on its own merits. If the Passports and visas, Reporting and
correlations with historical events to
fee waiver is granted, the application recordkeeping requirements.
forecast receipts. Workload volume is
will be processed. If the fee waiver is
used to determine the USCIS resources 8 CFR Part 214
not granted, USCIS will notify the
applicant and instruct him or her to file needed to process benefit requests and Administrative practice and
a new application with the appropriate is the primary cost driver for assigning procedure, Aliens, Cultural exchange
fee. activity costs to immigration benefits program, Employment, Foreign officials,
(5) An estimate of the total number of and biometric services in the USCIS Health professions, Reporting and
respondents and the amount of time ABC model. DHS uses a different recordkeeping, requirements, Students.
estimated for an average respondent to method for estimating the average
respond: The estimated total number of annual number of respondents for the 8 CFR Part 216
respondents for the information information collection over the three- Administrative practice and
collection I–912 is 116,832 and the year OMB approval of the control procedure, Aliens.
estimated hour burden per response is number, generally basing the estimate
2.33 hours; the estimated total number on the average filing volumes in the 8 CFR Part 217
of respondents for the information previous 3 or 5 year period, with less Air carriers, Aliens, Maritime carriers,
collection DACA Exemptions is 108 and consideration of the volume effects of Passports and visas.
the estimated hour burden per response planned or past policy changes.
Nevertheless, when the information 8 CFR Part 223
is 1.17 hours; the estimated total
number of respondents for the collection request is nearing expiration, Aliens, Refugees, Reporting and
information collection Director’s USCIS will update the estimates of recordkeeping requirements.
Exemption Provision in new 8 CFR annual respondents based on actual
filing volumes that occur after this final 8 CFR Part 235
106.3(e) is 20 and the estimated hour
burden per response is 1.17 hours. rule takes effect in the submission to Administrative practice and
(6) An estimate of the total public OMB. The PRA burden estimates are procedure, Aliens, Immigration,
burden (in hours) associated with the generally updated at least every three Reporting and recordkeeping
collection: The total estimated annual years. Thus, DHS expects that the PRA requirement.
hour burden associated with this estimated annual respondents will be
updated to reflect the actual effects of 8 CFR Part 236
collection is 272,368 hours.
(7) An estimate of the total public this proposed rule within a relatively Administrative practice and
burden (in cost) associated with the short period after a final rule takes procedure, Aliens, Immigration.
collection: The estimated total annual effect.
8 CFR Part 240
cost burden associated with this K. Signature
collection of information is $438,600. Administrative practice and
The Acting Secretary of Homeland procedure, Aliens.
USCIS Form I–942 Security, Chad F. Wolf, having reviewed
This final rule discontinues the use of and approved this document, is 8 CFR Part 244
Form I–942, Request for Reduced Fee, delegating the authority to electronically Administrative practice and
because DHS is eliminating the option sign this document to Chad R. Mizelle, procedure; Immigration.
to request a reduced fee. Accordingly, who is the Senior Official Performing
USCIS has submitted a Paperwork the Duties of the General Counsel for 8 CFR Parts 245 and 245a
Reduction Act Change Worksheet, Form DHS, for purposes of publication in the Aliens, Immigration, Reporting and
OMB 83–D, and amended information Federal Register. recordkeeping requirements.
8 CFR Parts 248 and 264 ‘‘8 CFR 106.2’’ in the second sentence; ■ 6. Section 103.7 is revised to read as
Aliens, Reporting and recordkeeping and follows:
■ d. By revising paragraph (b)(19)(iii).
requirements. § 103.7 Fees.
The revisions read as follows:
8 CFR Part 274a (a) DOJ fees. Fees for proceedings
§ 103.2 Submission and adjudication of before immigration judges and the
Administrative practice and benefit requests. Board of Immigration Appeals are
procedure, Aliens, Employment,
(a) * * * described in 8 CFR 1003.8, 1003.24, and
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping (1) * * * All USCIS fees are generally 1103.7.
requirements. are non-refundable regardless of if the (1) USCIS may accept DOJ fees.
8 CFR Part 286 benefit request or other service is Except as provided in 8 CFR 1003.8, or
Air carriers, Immigration, Maritime approved, denied, or selected, or how as the Attorney General otherwise may
carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping much time the adjudication or provide by regulation, any fee relating to
requirements. processing requires. Except as otherwise any EOIR proceeding may be paid to
provided in this chapter I, fees must be USCIS. Payment of a fee under this
8 CFR Parts 301 and 319 paid when the request is filed or section does not constitute filing of the
Citizenship and naturalization, submitted. document with the Board or with the
Reporting and recordkeeping * * * * * immigration court. DHS will provide the
requirements. (7) * * * payer with a receipt for a fee and return
(ii) * * * any documents submitted with the fee
8 CFR Parts 320 and 322 (D) Submitted with the correct fee(s). relating to any immigration court
Citizenship and naturalization, If a check or other financial instrument proceeding.
Infants and children, Reporting and used to pay a fee is returned as (2) DHS–EOIR biometric services fee.
recordkeeping requirements. unpayable because of insufficient funds, Fees paid to and accepted by DHS
USCIS will resubmit the payment to the relating to any immigration proceeding
8 CFR Part 324 as provided in 8 CFR 1103.7(a)(3) must
remitter institution one time. If the
Citizenship and naturalization, instrument used to pay a fee is returned include an additional $30 for DHS to
Reporting and recordkeeping as unpayable a second time, the filing collect, store, and use biometric
requirements, Women. may be rejected. Financial instruments information.
returned as unpayable for a reason other (3) Waiver of Immigration Court fees.
8 CFR Part 334
than insufficient funds will not be An immigration judge or the Board may
Administrative practice and redeposited. If a check or other financial waive any fees prescribed under this
procedure, Citizenship and instrument used to pay a fee is dated chapter for cases under their
naturalization, Courts, Reporting and more than one year before the request is jurisdiction to the extent provided in 8
recordkeeping requirements. received, the payment and request may CFR 1003.8 and 1003.24.
8 CFR Parts 341, 343a, 343b, and 392 be rejected. (b) USCIS fees. USCIS fees will be
* * * * * required as provided in 8 CFR part 106.
Citizenship and naturalization, (c) Remittances. Remittances to the
Reporting and recordkeeping (b) * * *
(19) * * * Board of Immigration Appeals must be
requirements. made payable to the ‘‘United States
(iii) Secure identity documents. (A)
Accordingly, DHS proposes to amend Department of Justice,’’ in accordance
USCIS may send secure identification
chapter I of title 8 of the Code of Federal with 8 CFR 1003.8.
documents, such as a Permanent
Regulations as follows: (d) Non-USCIS DHS immigration fees.
Resident Card or Employment
The following fees are applicable to one
PART 103—IMMIGRATION BENEFIT Authorization Document, only to the
or more of the immigration components
REQUESTS; USCIS FILING applicant or self-petitioner unless the
of DHS:
REQUIREMENTS; BIOMETRIC applicant or self-petitioner specifically
(1) DCL System Costs Fee. For use of
REQUIREMENTS; AVAILABILITY OF consents to having his or her secure
a Dedicated Commuter Lane (DCL)
RECORDS identification document sent to a
located at specific U.S. ports-of-entry by
designated agent, their attorney or
an approved participant in a designated
■ 1. The authority citation for part 103 accredited representative or record, as
vehicle:
continues to read as follows: specified on the form instructions. (i) $80.00, or
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a; 8
(B) The designated agent, or attorney (ii) $160.00 for a family (applicant,
U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1304, 1356, 31 U.S.C. or accredited representative, will be spouse and minor children); plus,
9701; 48 U.S.C. 1806; Pub. L.107–296, 116 required to provide identification and (iii) $42 for each additional vehicle
Stat. 2135 (6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.); E.O. 12356, sign for receipt of the secure document. enrolled.
47 FR 14874, 15557, 3 CFR, 1982 Comp., p. * * * * * (iv) The fee is due after approval of
166; 8 CFR part 2; Pub. L. 112–54, 125 Stat
the application but before use of the
550. Pub. L. 115–218. § 103.3 [Amended]
DCL.
■ 2. The heading for part 103 is revised ■ 4. Section 103.3 is amended in (v) This fee is non-refundable, but
to read as set forth above. paragraph (a)(2)(i) by removing ‘‘§ 103.7 may be waived by DHS.
■ 3. Section 103.2 amended: of this part’’ and adding in its place ‘‘8 (2) Petition for Approval of School for
■ a. By revising the last sentence of CFR 106.2’’. Attendance by Nonimmigrant Student

paragraph (a)(1) and adding a new last (Form I–17). (i) For filing a petition for
§ 103.5 [Amended]
sentence; school certification: $3,000 plus, a site
■ b. By revising paragraph (a)(7)(ii)(D); ■ 5. Section 103.5 is amended in visit fee of $655 for each location
■ c. In paragraph (b)(9) introductory paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(B) by removing required to be listed on the form;
text, by removing ‘‘8 CFR ‘‘§ 103.7’’ and adding in its place ‘‘8 (ii) For filing a petition for school
103.7(b)(1)(i)(C)’’ and adding in its place CFR 106.2’’. recertification: $1,250 plus a site visit
fee of $655 for each new location professional business activities pursuant Genealogical Research Request may
required to be listed on the form. to section 214(e) of the Act (Chapter 16 include each individual’s:
(3) Form I–68. For application for of the North American Free Trade (1) Date of arrival in the United States.
issuance of the Canadian Border Boat Agreement): $50.00. (2) Residence address at time of
Landing Permit under section 235 of the (12) Request for authorization for naturalization.
Act: parole of an alien into the United States: (3) Names of parents, spouse, and
(i) $16.00, or $65.00. children if applicable and available.
(ii) $32 for a family (applicant, spouse (13) Global Entry. Application for (e) Additional information required to
and unmarried children under 21 years Global Entry: $100. retrieve records. For a Genealogy
of age, and parents of either spouse). (14) U.S. Asia-Pacific Economic Records Request, requests for copies of
(4) Form I–94. For issuance of Arrival/ Cooperation (APEC) Business Travel historical records or files must:
Departure Record at a land border port- Card. Application fee: $70. (1) Identify the record by number or
of-entry: $6.00. (15) Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form other specific data used by the
(5) Form I–94W. For issuance of I–290B) filed with ICE SEVP. For a Form Genealogy Program Office to retrieve the
Nonimmigrant Visa Waiver Arrival/ I–290B filed with the Student and record as follows:
Departure Form at a land border port-of- Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP): $675. (i) C-Files must be identified by a
entry under section 217 of the Act: ■ 7. Section 103.17 is revised to read as naturalization certificate number.
$6.00. follows: (ii) Forms AR–2 and A-Files
(6) Form I–246. For filing application numbered below 8 million must be
for stay of deportation under 8 CFR part § 103.17 Biometric services fee. identified by Alien Registration
243: $155.00. DHS may charge a fee to collect Number.
(7) Form I–823. For application to a biometric information, to provide (iii) Visa Files must be identified by
PORTPASS program under section 286 biometric collection services, to conduct the Visa File Number. Registry Files
of the Act: required national security and criminal must be identified by the Registry File
(i) $25.00, or history background checks, to verify an Number (for example, R–12345).
(ii) $50.00 for a family (applicant, individual’s identity, and to store and (2) [Reserved]
spouse, and minor children). maintain this biometric information for (f) Information required for release of
(iii) The application fee may be records. (1) Documentary evidence must
reuse to support other benefit requests.
waived by DHS. be attached to a Genealogy Records
(iv) If biometrics, such as fingerprints, If a benefit request as defined in 8 CFR
1.2 must be submitted with a biometric Request or submitted in accordance
are required, the inspector will inform with the instructions on the Genealogy
the applicant of the current Federal services fee, 8 CFR part 106 will contain
the requirement. When a biometric Records Request form.
Bureau of Investigation fee for (2) Search subjects will be presumed
conducting background checks prior to services fee is required, a benefit request
submitted without the correct biometric deceased if their birth dates are more
accepting the application fee. than 100 years before the date of the
(v) The application fee (if not waived) services fee may be rejected.
■ 8. Section 103.40 is revised to read as
request. In other cases, the subject is
and fingerprint fee must be paid to CBP presumed to be living until the
before the application will be processed. follows:
requestor establishes to the satisfaction
The fingerprint fee may not be waived. § 103.40 Genealogical research requests. of USCIS that the subject is deceased.
(vi) For replacement of PORTPASS (3) Documentary evidence of the
documentation during the participation (a) Nature of requests. Genealogy
requests are requests for searches and/ subject’s death is required (including
period: $25.00. but not limited to death records,
(8) Fee Remittance for F, J, and M or copies of historical records relating to
a deceased person, usually for genealogy published obituaries or eulogies,
Nonimmigrants (Form I–901). The fee
and family history research purposes. published death notices, church or bible
for Form I–901 is:
(b) Forms. USCIS provides on its records, photographs of gravestones,
(i) For F and M students: $350.
(ii) For J–1 au pairs, camp counselors, website at https://www.uscis.gov/ and/or copies of official documents
and participants in a summer work or genealogy the required forms in relating to payment of death benefits).
travel program: $35. electronic versions: Genealogy Index (g) Index search. Requestors who are
(iii) For all other J exchange visitors Search Request, or Genealogy Records unsure whether USCIS has any record of
(except those participating in a program Request. their ancestor, or who suspect a record
sponsored by the Federal Government): (c) Required information. exists but cannot identify that record by
$220. Genealogical Research Requests may be number, may submit a request for index
(iv) There is no Form I–901 fee for J submitted to request one or more search. An index search will determine
exchange visitors in federally funded separate records relating to an the existence of responsive historical
programs with a program identifier individual. A separate request must be records. If no record is found, USCIS
designation prefix that begins with G–1, submitted for each individual searched. will notify the requestor accordingly. If
G–2, G–3, or G–7. All requests for records or index records are found, USCIS will give the
(9) Special statistical tabulations: The searches must include the individual’s: requestor electronic copies of records
DHS cost of the work involved. (1) Full name (including variant stored in digital format for no additional
(10) Monthly, semiannual, or annual spellings of the name and/or aliases, if fee. For records found that are stored in
‘‘Passenger Travel Reports via Sea and any). paper format, USCIS will give the
(2) Date of birth, at least as specific as requestor the search results, including
Air’’ tables. (i) For the years 1975 and

before: $7.00. a year. the type of record found and the file
(ii) For after 1975: Contact: U.S. (3) Place of birth, at least as specific number or other information identifying
Department of Transportation, as a country and preferably the country the record. The requestor can use index
Transportation Systems Center, Kendall name at the time of the individual’s search results to submit a Genealogy
Square, Cambridge, MA 02142. immigration or naturalization. Records Request.
(11) Request for Classification of a (d) Optional information. To better (h) Processing of paper record copy
citizen of Canada to engage in ensure a successful search, a requests. This service is designed for
requestors who can identify a specific § 106.2 Fees. Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI–U)
record or file to be retrieved, copied, (a) I Forms—(1) Application to for the U.S. City Average published by
reviewed, and released. Requestors may Replace Permanent Resident Card, Form the Bureau of Labor Statistics since the
identify one or more files in a single I–90. For filing an application for a fee was set on June 18, 2020.
request. Permanent Resident Card, Form I–551, (ii) A fraud prevention and detection
to replace an obsolete card or to replace fee: $50 per employer filing a petition.
§ 103.41 [Removed and Reserved] (iii) For filing Form I–129CWR,
one lost, mutilated, or destroyed, or for
■ 9. Section 103.41 is removed and a change in name: $415. Semiannual Report for CW–1
reserved. (2) Application for Replacement/ Employers: No fee.
■ 10. Part 106 is added to read as Initial Nonimmigrant Arrival-Departure (5) Petition for Alien Fiancé(e), Form
follows: Document, Form I–102. For filing an I–129F. (i) For filing a petition to
application for Arrival/Departure classify a nonimmigrant as a fiancée or
PART 106—USCIS FEE SCHEDULE Record, Form I–94, or Crewman’s fiancé under section 214(d) of the Act:
Landing Permit, Form I–95, to replace $510.
Sec. (ii) For a K–3 spouse as designated in
106.1 Fee requirements. one lost, mutilated, or destroyed: $485.
106.2 Fees. (i) For nonimmigrant member of the 8 CFR 214.1(a)(2) who is the beneficiary
106.3 Fee waivers and exemptions. U.S. armed forces: No fee for initial of an immigrant petition filed by a U.S.
106.4 Premium processing service. filing; citizen on a Petition for Alien Relative,
106.5 Authority to certify records. (ii) For a nonimmigrant member of the Form I–130: No fee.
106.6 DHS severability. North Atlantic Treaty Organization (6) Petition for Alien Relative, Form I–
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1254a, (NATO) armed forces or civil 130. For filing a petition to classify
1254b, 1304, 1356; Pub. L. 107–609; 48 component: No fee for initial filing; status of a foreign national relative for
U.S.C. 1806; Pub. L. 115–218. (iii) For nonimmigrant member of the issuance of an immigrant visa under
Partnership for Peace military program section 204(a) of the Act: $560.
§ 106.1 Fee requirements. (7) Application for Travel Document,
under the Status of Forces Agreement
(a) Fees must be submitted with any (SOFA): No fee for initial filing. Form I–131. For filing an application for
USCIS benefit request or other request (3) Petition or Application for a travel document:
in the amount and subject to the Nonimmigrant Worker, Form I–129. For (i) $145 for a Refugee Travel
conditions provided in this part and filing a petition or application for a Document for someone 16 or older.
remitted in the manner prescribed in the nonimmigrant worker: (ii) $115 for a Refugee Travel
relevant form instructions, on the USCIS (i) Petition for H–1B Nonimmigrant Document for a child under 16.
website, or in a Federal Register Worker or H–1B1 Free Trade (iii) $590 for advance parole and any
document. The fees established in this Nonimmigrant Worker, Form I–129H1: other travel document except Form I–
part are associated with the benefit, the $555. 131A.
adjudication, or the type of request and (ii) Petition for H–2A Nonimmigrant (iv) There is no fee for applicants who
not solely determined by the form Worker, Form I–129H2A, with 1 to 25 filed USCIS Form I–485 on or after July
number listed in 8 CFR 106.2. named beneficiaries: $850. 30, 2007, and before October 2, 2020,
(b) Fees must be remitted from a bank (iii) Petition for H–2A Nonimmigrant and paid the Form I–485 fee, or for
or other institution located in the Worker, Form I–129H2A, with only applicants for Special Immigrant Status
United States and payable in U.S. unnamed beneficiaries: $415. based on an approved Form I–360 as an
currency. The fee must be paid using (iv) Petition for H–2B Nonimmigrant Afghan or Iraqi Interpreter, or Iraqi
the method that USCIS prescribes for Worker, Form I–129H2B, with 1 to 25 National employed by or on behalf of
the request, office, filing method, or named beneficiaries: $715. the U.S. Government or Afghan National
filing location, as provided in the form (v) Petition for H–2B Nonimmigrant employed by the U.S. Government or
instructions or by individual notice. Worker, Form I–129H2B, with only the International Security Assistance
(c) If a remittance in payment of a fee unnamed beneficiaries: $385. Forces (‘‘ISAF’’).
or any other matter is not honored by (vi) Petition for L Nonimmigrant (8) Application for Travel Document
the bank or financial institution on Worker, Form I–129L: $805. (Carrier Documentation), Form I–131A.
which it is drawn: (vii) Petition for O Nonimmigrant For filing an application to allow a
(1) The provisions of 8 CFR Worker, Form I–129O, with 1 to 25 lawful permanent resident, conditional
103.2(a)(7)(ii) apply, no receipt will be named beneficiaries: $705. permanent resident or other alien
issued, and if a receipt was issued, it is (viii) Petition or Application for E, H– traveling abroad on an Advance Parole
void and the benefit request loses its 3, P, Q, R, or TN Nonimmigrant Worker, Document (Form I–512 or I–512L) or
receipt date; and Forms I–129E or I–129MISC, with 1 to Employment Authorization Documents
(2) If the benefit request was 25 named beneficiaries: $695. (EAD) with travel endorsement (Form I–
approved, the approval may be revoked (4) Petition for a CNMI-Only 766), to apply for carrier documentation
upon notice. If the approved benefit Nonimmigrant Transitional Worker, to board an airline or other
request requires multiple fees, this Form I–129CW. For an employer to transportation carrier to return to the
provision will apply if any fee petition on behalf of beneficiaries in the United States: $1,010.
submitted is not honored. Other fees Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana (9) Immigrant Petition for Alien
that were paid for a benefit request that Islands (CNMI): $695, plus the following Workers, Form I–140. For filing a
is revoked under this provision will be petition to classify preference status of
fees:
retained and not refunded. A revocation (i) CNMI education funding fee: an alien on the basis of profession or
of an approval because the fee (A) $200 per beneficiary per year. occupation under section 204(a) of the
submitted is not honored may be (B) DHS may adjust this fee once per Act: $555.
appealed to the USCIS Administrative year by notice in the Federal Register (10) Application for Relief Under
Appeals Office, in accordance with 8 based on the amount of inflation Former Section 212(c) of the
CFR 103.3 and the applicable form according to the change in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA),
instructions. unadjusted All Items Consumer Price Form I–191. For filing an application for
discretionary relief under section 212(c) the International Security Assistance I–600A, during the Form I–600A
of the Act: $790. Forces (‘‘ISAF’’). approval or extended approval period.
(11) Application for Advance (17) Application to Register (ii) Except as specified in paragraph
Permission to Enter as Nonimmigrant, Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, (a)(21)(iii) of this section, if more than
Form I–192. For filing an application for Form I–485—(i) Most permanent one Form I–600 is filed during the Form
discretionary relief under section residence applications. For filing an I–600A approval period, the fee is $805
212(d)(3), (d)(13), or (d)(14) of the Act, application for permanent resident for the second and each subsequent
except in an emergency case or where status or creation of a record of lawful Form I–600 petition submitted.
the approval of the application is in the permanent residence: $1,130. (iii) If more than one Form I–600 is
interest of the U.S. Government: $1,400. (ii) Asylees. For the first Form I–485, filed during the Form I–600A approval
(12) Application for Waiver of Application to Register Permanent period on behalf of beneficiary birth
Passport and/or Visa, Form I–193. For Residence or Adjust Status, filed by siblings, no additional fee is required.
filing an application for waiver of individuals who have paid the $50 fee (22) Application for Advance
passport and/or visa: $2,790. for Form I–589 and are subsequently Processing of an Orphan Petition, Form
(13) Application for Permission to granted asylum based on that Form I– I–600A. For filing an application for
Reapply for Admission into the United 589: $1,080. determination of suitability and
States After Deportation or Removal, (iii) Refugees and Special Immigrants. eligibility to adopt an orphan: $805.
Form I–212. For filing an application for There is no fee if an applicant is filing (23) Request for Action on Approved
permission to reapply for admission by as a refugee under section 209(a) of the Form I–600A/I–600, Form I–600A/I–600
an excluded, deported or removed alien, Act or for applicants for Special Supplement 3: $400.
an alien who has fallen into distress, an Immigrant Status based on an approved (i) This filing fee:
alien who has been removed as an alien Form I–360 as an Afghan or Iraqi (A) Is not charged if Form I–600A/I–
enemy, or an alien who has been Interpreter, or Iraqi National employed 600 Supplement 3 is filed in order to
removed at government expense: by or on behalf of the U.S. Government obtain a first extension of the approval
$1,050. or Afghan National employed by the of the Form I–600A or to obtain a first
(14) Notice of Appeal or Motion, Form U.S. Government or the International time change of non-Hague Adoption
I–290B. For appealing a decision under Security Assistance Forces (‘‘ISAF’’). Convention country during the Form I–
the immigration laws in any type of (iv) Adjustment of Status Under 600A approval period.
proceeding over which the Board of Section 245(i), Form I–485 Supplement (B) Is charged if Form I–600A/I–600
Immigration Appeals does not have A. Persons seeking to adjust status Supplement 3 is filed in order to request
appellate jurisdiction: $700. In addition: under the provisions of section 245(i) of a new approval notice based on a
(i) The fee will be the same for appeal the Act must submit a sum of $1,000 in significant change and updated home
or a motion to reopen a denial of a addition to the fee for filing the Form I– study, unless a first extension of the
benefit request with one or multiple 485, unless payment of the additional Form I–600A approval or first time
beneficiaries. sum is not required under section 245(i) change of non-Hague Adoption
(ii) There is no fee for an appeal or of the Act. The additional sum is not Convention country is also being
motion associated with a denial of a required when the applicant is an requested on the same Supplement 3.
petition for a special immigrant visa unmarried child less than 17 years of (C) Is $400 for second or subsequent
filed by or on behalf of an individual age, when the applicant is the spouse, extensions of the approval of the Form
seeking special immigrant status as an or the unmarried child less than 21 I–600A, second or subsequent changes
Afghan or Iraqi Interpreter, or Iraqi years of age of a legalized alien and who of non-Hague Adoption Convention
National employed by or on behalf of is qualified for and has properly filed an country, requests for a new approval
the U.S. Government or Afghan National application for voluntary departure notice based on a significant change and
employed by the U.S. Government or under the family unity program. updated home study, and requests for a
the International Security Assistance (18) Immigrant Petition by Alien duplicate approval notice permitted
Forces (‘‘ISAF’’). Investor, Form I–526. For filing a with Form I–600A/I–600 Supplement 3
(15) Request for Cancellation of Public petition for an alien investor: $4,010. with the filing fee.
Charge Bond, Form I–356. $25. (19) Application To Extend/Change (ii) Form I–600A/I–600 Supplement 3
(16) Petition for Amerasian, Nonimmigrant Status, Form I–539. For cannot be used to:
Widow(er), or Special Immigrant, Form filing an application to extend or change (A) Extend eligibility to proceed as a
I–360. For filing a petition for an nonimmigrant status: $400. For Hague Adoption Convention transition
Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special nonimmigrant A, G, and NATO: No fee. case beyond the first extension once the
Immigrant: $450. The following requests (20) Application for Asylum and for Convention enters into force for the new
are exempt from this fee: Withholding of Removal, Form I–589. Convention country.
(i) A petition seeking classification as For filing an application for asylum (B) Request a change of country to a
an Amerasian; status: $50. There is no fee for Hague Adoption Convention transition
(ii) A self-petition for immigrant applications filed by unaccompanied country for purposes of becoming a
classification as an abused spouse or alien children who are in removal transition case if another country was
child of a U.S. citizen or lawful proceedings. already designated on the Form I–600A
permanent resident or an abused parent (21) Petition to Classify Orphan as an or prior change of country request.
of a U.S. citizen son or daughter; or Immediate Relative, Form I–600. For (iii) Form I–600A/I–600 Supplement 3
(iii) A petition for special immigrant filing a petition to classify an orphan as may only be used to request an increase
juvenile classification; or an immediate relative for issuance of an the number of children the applicant/
(iv) A petition seeking special immigrant visa under section 204(a) of petitioner is approved to adopt from a
immigrant visa or status an Afghan or the Act. transition country if the additional child
Iraqi Interpreter, or Iraqi National (i) There is no fee for the first Form is a birth sibling of a child who the
employed by or on behalf of the U.S. I–600 filed for a child on the basis of an applicant/petitioner has adopted or is in
Government or Afghan National approved Application for Advance the process of adopting, as a transition
employed by the U.S. Government or Processing of an Orphan Petition, Form case, and is identified and petitioned for
while the Form I–600A approval is and before October 2, 2020, and paid the Form I–800. (i) There is no fee for the
valid, unless the new Convention Form I–485 fee; first Form I–800 filed for a child on the
country prohibits such birth sibling (B) Refugees and aliens paroled as a basis of an approved Application for
cases from proceeding as transition refugee; Determination of Suitability to Adopt a
cases. (C) Aliens granted asylee status; Child from a Convention Country, Form
(24) Application for Waiver of (D) Victims of Severe Forms of I–800A, during the Form I–800A
Grounds of Inadmissibility, Form I–601. Trafficking (T–1); approval period.
For filing an application for waiver of (E) Nonimmigrant Victim of Criminal (ii) Except as specified in paragraph
grounds of inadmissibility: $1,010. Activity (U–1); (a)(33)(iii) of this section, if more than
(25) Application for Provisional (F) Dependents of certain government one Form I–800 is filed during the Form
Unlawful Presence Waiver, Form I– and internal organizations or NATO I–800A approval period, the fee is $805
601A. For filing an application for personnel; for the second and each subsequent
provisional unlawful presence waiver: (G) N–8 (Parent of alien classed as Form I–800 petition submitted.
$960. SK3) and N–9 (Child of N–8) (iii) If more than one Form I–800 is
(26) Application for Waiver of the nonimmigrants; filed during the Form I–800A approval
Foreign Residence Requirement (under (H) Principal VAWA Self-Petitioners period on behalf of beneficiary birth
Section 212(e) of the Immigration and who have approved petitions pursuant siblings, no additional fee is required.
Nationality Act, as Amended), Form I– to section 204(a) of the Act; (34) Application for Determination of
612. For filing an application for waiver (I) VAWA Self-Petitioners as defined Suitability to Adopt a Child from a
of the foreign-residence requirement in section 101(a)(51)(D), (E), and (F) of Convention Country, Form I–800A. For
under section 212(e) of the Act: $515. the Act; filing an application for determination
(27) Application for Status as a (J) Applicants for Special Immigrant of suitability and eligibility to adopt a
Temporary Resident under Section Status based on an approved Form I– child from a Hague Adoption
245A of the Immigration and 360 as an Afghan or Iraqi Interpreter, or Convention country: $805.
Nationality Act, Form I–687. For filing Iraqi National employed by or on behalf (35) Request for Action on Approved
an application for status as a temporary of the U.S. Government or Afghan Application for Determination of
resident under section 245A(a) of the National employed by the U.S. Suitability to Adopt a Child from a
Act: $1,130. Government or the International Convention Country, Form I–800A
(28) Application for Waiver of Security Assistance Forces (‘‘ISAF’’); Supplement 3: $400.
Grounds of Inadmissibility, Form I–690. and (i) This filing fee:
For filing an application for waiver of a (iii) Request for replacement (A) Is not charged if Form I–800A
ground of inadmissibility under section Employment Authorization Document Supplement 3 is filed in order to obtain
212(a) of the Act as amended, in based on USCIS error: No fee. a first extension of the approval of the
conjunction with the application under (iv) There is no fee for a renewal or Form I–800A or to obtain a first time
sections 210 or 245A of the Act, or a replacement Employment Authorization change of Hague Adoption Convention
petition under section 210A of the Act: Document for: country during the Form I–800A
$765. (A) Any current Adjustment of Status approval period.
(29) Notice of Appeal of Decision or Registry applicant who filed for (B) Is charged if Form I–800A
under Sections 245A or 210 of the adjustment of status on or after July 30, Supplement 3 is filed in order to request
Immigration and Nationality Act (or a 2007, and before October 2, 2020, and a new approval notice based on a
petition under section 210A of the Act), paid the appropriate Form I–485 filing significant change and updated home
Form I–694. For appealing the denial of fee. study, unless a first extension of the
an application under sections 210 or (B) Applicants for Special Immigrant Form I–800A approval or first time
245A of the Act, or a petition under Status based on an approved Form I– change of Hague Adoption Convention
section 210A of the Act: $715. 360 as an Afghan or Iraqi Translator or country is also being requested on the
(30) Application to Adjust Status from Interpreter, Iraqi National employed by same Supplement 3.
Temporary to Permanent Resident or on behalf of the U.S. Government, or (ii) Is $400 for second or subsequent
(Under Section 245A of the INA), Form Afghan National employed by or on extensions of the Form I–800A
I–698. For filing an application to adjust behalf of the U.S. government or approval, second or subsequent changes
status from temporary to permanent employed by the International Security of Hague Adoption Convention country,
resident (Pub. L. 99–603): $1,615. Assistance Forces: And requests for a new approval notice based
(31) Petition to Remove Conditions on (C) Dependent of certain foreign on a significant change and updated
Residence, Form I–751. For filing a government, international organization, home study, and requests for a duplicate
petition to remove the conditions on or NATO personnel. approval notice, permitted with the
residence based on marriage: $760. (v) An Application for Employment filing of a Form I–800A, Supplement 3
(32) Application for Employment Authorization for Abused and the required filing fee: $400.
Authorization, Form I–765: $550. Nonimmigrant Spouse, Form I–765V: (36) Application for Family Unity
(i) A $30 biometric services must be No fee. Benefits, Form I–817. For filing an
included with a Form I–765 filed by: (vi) The Form I–765 fee for initial and application for voluntary departure
(A) An asylum applicant with a renewal requestors of Consideration of under the Family Unity Program: $590.
pending Form I–589. Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (37) Application for Temporary
(B) An applicant for status as a long- is $410. Requestors of Consideration of Protected Status, Form I–821. (i) For
term resident of the Commonwealth of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals first time applicants: $50 or the
the Northern Mariana Islands. must also pay a biometric services fee of maximum permitted by section
(ii) There is no fee for an initial $85 for an initial, renewal of, or to 244(c)(1)(B) of the Act.
Employment Authorization Document replace their employment authorization (ii) There is no fee for re-registration.
for: document. (iii) A Temporary Protected Status
(A) An applicant who filed USCIS (33) Petition to Classify Convention (TPS) applicant or re-registrant must
Form I–485 on or after July 30, 2007, Adoptee as an Immediate Relative, pay $30 for biometric services unless
exempted in the applicable form For filing an application for declaration locate any file previously identified in
instructions. of intention to become a U.S. citizen: response to the index search request.
(38) Application for Deferred Action $1,305. (3) USCIS Immigrant Fee. For DHS
for Childhood Arrivals, Form I–821D. (2) Request for a Hearing on a domestic processing and issuance of
No fee. Decision in Naturalization Proceedings required documents after an immigrant
(39) Application for Action on an (under section 336 of the Act), Form N– visa is issued by the U.S. Department of
Approved Application, Form I–824: 336. For filing a request for hearing on State: $190.
$495. a decision in naturalization proceedings (4) American Competitiveness and
(40) Petition by Investor to Remove under section 336 of the Act: $1,735. Workforce Improvement Act (ACWIA)
Conditions, Form I–829. For filing a There is no fee for an applicant who has fee. For filing certain H–1B petitions as
petition by an investor to remove filed an Application for Naturalization described in 8 CFR 214.2(h)(19) and
conditions: $3,900. under sections 328 or 329 of the Act USCIS form instructions: $1,500 or
(41) Application for Suspension of with respect to military service and $750.
Deportation or Special Rule whose application has been denied. (5) Fraud detection and prevention
Cancellation of Removal (Pursuant to (3) Application for Naturalization, fee. (i) For filing certain H–1B and L
Section 203 of Pub. L. 105–100), Form Form N–400. For filing an application petitions as described in 8 U.S.C.
I–881. for naturalization: $1,170. No fee is
(i) $1,810 for adjudication by DHS. 1184(c) and USCIS form instructions:
charged an applicant who meets the $500.
(ii) $165 for adjudication by EOIR. If requirements of sections 328 or 329 of
the Form I–881 is referred to the (ii) For filing certain H–2B petitions
the Act with respect to military service. as described in 8 U.S.C. 1184(c) and
immigration court by DHS, the $1,810 (4) Application to Preserve Residence
fee is required. USCIS form instructions: $150.
for Naturalization Purposes, Form N–
(42) Application for Authorization to (6) Fraud detection and prevention fee
470. For filing an application for
Issue Certification for Health Care for CNMI. For employer petitions in
benefits under section 316(b) or 317 of
Workers, Form I–905: $230. CNMI as described in Public Law 115–
the Act: $1,585.
(43) Request for Premium Processing 218 and USCIS form instructions: $50.
(5) Application for Replacement
Service, Form I–907. The Request for Naturalization/Citizenship Document, (7) 9–11 Response and Biometric
Premium Processing Service fee will be Form N–565: $545. Entry-Exit Fee for H–1B Visa. For all
as provided in 8 CFR 106.4. petitioners filing an H–1B petition who
(i) This fee is for filing an application
(44) Application for Civil Surgeon employ 50 or more employees in the
for:
Designation, Form I–910: $635. There is United States if more than 50 percent of
(A) A certificate of naturalization or
no filing fee for: the petitioner’s employees in the
(i) A medical officer in the U.S. certificate of citizenship;
aggregate are in H–1B, L–1A or L–1B
Armed Forces or (B) A declaration of intention in place
nonimmigrant status, except for
(ii) A civilian physician employed by of a certificate or declaration alleged to
petitioners filing an amended petition
the U.S. Government who examines have been lost, mutilated, or destroyed;
without an extension of stay request:
members and veterans of the U.S. (C) A changed name under section
$4,000. This fee will apply to petitions
Armed Forces and their dependents at 343(c) of the Act; or
filed on or before September 30, 2027.
a military, Department of Veterans (D) A special certificate of
naturalization to obtain recognition as a (8) 9–11 Response and Biometric
Affairs, or U.S. Government facility in Entry-Exit Fee for L–1 Visa. For all
the United States. citizen of the United States by a foreign
state under section 343(b) of the Act; petitioners filing an L–1 petition who
(45) Application for T Nonimmigrant employ 50 or more employees in the
Status, Form I–914: No fee. (ii) There is no fee when this
application is submitted under 8 CFR United States, if more than 50 percent
(46) Petition for U Nonimmigrant of the petitioner’s employees in the
Status, Form I–918: No fee. 338.5(a) or 343a.1 to request correction
of a certificate of naturalization or aggregate are in H–1B, L–1A or L–1B
(47) Application for Regional Center nonimmigrant status, except for
Designation under the Immigrant certificate of citizenship that contains
an error. petitioners filing an amended petition
Investor Program, Form I–924: $17,795. without an extension of stay request:
(48) Annual Certification of Regional (6) Application for Certificate of
Citizenship, Form N–600. For filing an $4,500. This fee will apply to petitions
Center, Form I–924A. To provide filed on or before September 30, 2027.
updated information and certify that a application for a certificate of
citizenship under section 309(c) or (9) Claimant under section 289 of the
Regional Center under the Immigrant
section 341 of the Act: $1,000. There is Act: No fee.
Investor Program has maintained its
eligibility: $4,465. no fee for any application filed by a (10) Registration requirement for
(49) Petition for Qualifying Family member or veteran of any branch of the petitioners seeking to file H–1B petitions
Member of a U–1 Nonimmigrant, Form U.S. Armed Forces. on behalf of cap-subject aliens. For each
I–929. For a principal U–1 (7) Application for Citizenship and registration submitted to register for the
nonimmigrant to request immigration Issuance of Certificate Under Section H–1B cap or advanced degree
benefits on behalf of a qualifying family 322, Form N–600K. For filing an exemption selection process: $10. This
member who has never held U application for citizenship and issuance fee will not be refunded if the
nonimmigrant status: $1,485. of certificate under section 322 of the registration is not selected or is
(50) Application for Entrepreneur Act: $945. withdrawn.
Parole, Form I–941. For filing an (c) G Forms, Statutory Fees, and Non- (d) Online forms. The fee for the
application for parole for an Form Fees—(1) Genealogy Index Search following forms is $10.00 lower than the
entrepreneur: $1,200. Request, Form G–1041: $170. The fee is fee established in paragraphs (a), (b),
(51) Public Charge Bond, Form I–945: due regardless of the search results. and (c) of this section when submitted
$25. (2) Genealogy Records Request, Form to USCIS online and not in paper form:
(b) N Forms—(1) Application to File G–1041A: $265. USCIS will refund the (1) I–90, Application to Replace
Declaration of Intention, Form N–300. records request fee when it is unable to Permanent Resident Card;
(2) N–336, Request for a Hearing on a or on behalf of the U.S. Government, or (1) Asylees;
Decision in Naturalization Proceedings Afghan National employed by or on (2) Refugees;
(Under Section 336 of the INA); behalf of the U.S. government or (3) National security;
(3) N–400, Application for employed by the International Security (4) Emergencies or major disasters
Naturalization; Assistance Forces. declared in accordance with 44 CFR
(4) N–565, Application for (3) Requestors who have been part 206, subpart B;
Replacement Naturalization/Citizenship approved for the immigration benefits in
(5) An agreement between the U.S.
Document; paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section
government and another nation or
(5) I–130/130A, Petition for Alien may apply for a waiver of any fees for
nations; or
Relative; Form N–400, Application for
(6) N–600, Application for Certificate Naturalization, Form N–600 Application (6) USCIS error.
of Citizenship; for Certificate of Citizenship, or Form (f) Documentation of gross household
(7) N–600K, Application for N–600K, Application for Citizenship income. A person submitting a request
Citizenship and Issuance of Certificate and Issuance of Certificate Under for a fee waiver must submit the
Under Section 322; Section 322, as applicable. following documents as evidence of
(8) I–539/539A, Application To (b) Director’s exception. The Director annual gross household income:
Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status; of USCIS may authorize the waiver, in (1) A transcript(s) from the United
(9) G–1041, Genealogy Index Search whole or in part, of a form fee required States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) of
Request; and by 8 CFR 106.2 that is not otherwise the person’s IRS Form 1040, U.S.
(10) G–1041A, Genealogy Records waivable under this section, if the Individual Income Tax Return;
Request. Director determines that such action is (2) If the person was not required to
an emergent circumstance, or if a major file a Federal income tax return, he or
§ 106.3 Fee waivers and exemptions. natural disaster has been declared in she must submit their most recent IRS
(a) Fee waiver. No fee relating to any accordance with 44 CFR part 206, Form W–2, Wage and Tax Statement,
benefit request submitted to USCIS may subpart B. This discretionary authority Form 1099G, Certain Government
be waived unless otherwise provided in may be delegated only to the USCIS Payments, or Social Security Benefit
this paragraph. Deputy Director. The Director may not Form SSA–1099, if applicable;
(1) An alien may apply for a fee waive the requirements of paragraph (c) (3) If the person filed a Federal
waiver if there is a statutory or or (d) of this section. An applicant, income tax return, and has recently
regulatory provision allowing for fee petitioner, or requestor may not directly changed employment or had a change in
waivers including as provided by submit a request to the Director. In salary, the person must also submit
section 245(l)(7) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. addition, a waiver of fees as provided in copies of consecutive pay statements
1255(l)(7). Specifically, the following this paragraph may not be provided to (stubs) for the most recent month or
categories of requestors may apply for a a requestor who is seeking an longer;
waiver of any fees for an immigration immigration benefit for which he or she: (4) If the person does not have income
benefit and any associated filing up to (1) Is subject to the affidavit of and has not filed income tax returns, he
and including an application for support requirements under section or she must submit documentation from
adjustment of status: 213A of the Act or is already a the IRS that indicates that no Federal
(i) Violence Against Women Act sponsored immigrant as defined in 8 income tax transcripts and no IRS Form
(VAWA) self-petitioners and derivatives CFR 213a.1 unless the applicant is W–2s were found;
as defined under section 101(a)(51) and seeking a waiver of the joint filing (5) An alien who is applying for or
anyone otherwise self-petitioning due to requirement to remove conditions on has been granted benefits or status as a
battery or extreme cruelty pursuant to his or her residence based on abuse; or VAWA self-petitioner or derivative or a
the procedures in section 204(a) of the (2) Is subject to the public charge
T or U nonimmigrant, who does not
Act; inadmissibility ground under section
have any income or cannot provide
(ii) T nonimmigrants; 212(a)(4) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4).
(iii) U nonimmigrants; (c) Eligibility for fee waiver. A waiver proof of income may:
(iv) Battered spouses of A, G, E–3, or of fees is limited to an alien with an (i) Describe the situation in sufficient
H nonimmigrants; annual gross household income at or detail as provided in the form and form
(v) Battered spouses or children of a below 125 percent of the Federal instructions prescribed by DHS to
lawful permanent resident or U.S. Poverty Guidelines as updated substantiate that he or she has income
citizen and derivatives as provided periodically in the Federal Register by at or below 125 percent of the Federal
under section 240A(b)(2) of the Act; and the U.S. Department of Health and Poverty Guidelines as well as the
(vi) Applicants for Temporary Human Services under the authority of inability to obtain the required
Protected Status, including both initial 42 U.S.C. 9902(2). documentation; and
applicants and re-registering TPS (d) Form required. A person must (ii) Provide pay statements (stubs) or
beneficiaries. submit a request for a fee waiver on the affidavits from religious institutions,
(2) The following categories of form prescribed by USCIS in accordance non-profits, or other community-based
requestors may apply for a waiver of any with the instructions on the form. organizations verifying that he or she is
fees for an immigration benefit and any (e) Exemptions. The Director of USCIS currently receiving some benefit or
associated filing up to and including an may provide an exemption for any fee support from that entity and attesting to
application for adjustment of status: required by 8 CFR 106.2. This his or her financial situation as
(i) Special Immigrant Juveniles (SIJs) discretionary authority may only be documentation of income, if available;
who have been placed in out-of-home delegated to the USCIS Deputy Director. and
care under the supervision of a juvenile The Director must determine that such (6) For applications related to Special
court or a state child welfare agency at action would be in the public interest, Immigrant Juvenile classification, the
the time of filing; and the action is consistent with the applicant must provide the following in
(ii) Afghan or Iraqi Translator or applicable law, and the exemption is lieu of documentation of gross
Interpreter, Iraqi National employed by related to one of the following: household income:
(i) Evidence that the applicant is (e) Requests eligible for premium orphan petition after the approval
approved for or filed for Special processing. (1) USCIS will designate the period of the advanced processing
Immigrant Juvenile classification, and categories of employment-based benefit application has expired, the petition
(ii) Evidence that the applicant requests that are eligible for premium will be denied pursuant to paragraph
remains in out-of-home care such as processing. (h)(13) of this section. * * *
foster care. (2) USCIS will announce by its official * * * * *
internet website, currently http:// (h) * * *
§ 106.4 Premium processing service. www.uscis.gov, those requests for which (3) * * *
(a) General. A person submitting a premium processing may be requested, (i) If the advanced processing
request to USCIS may request 15 the dates upon which such availability application is approved:
business-day processing of certain commences and ends, and any (A) The prospective adoptive parents
employment-based immigration benefit conditions that may apply. will be advised in writing. A notice of
requests. approval expires 15 months after the
(b) Submitting a request. A request § 106.5 Authority to certify records.
date on which USCIS received the FBI
must be submitted on the form The Director of USCIS, or such response on the applicant’s, and any
prescribed by USCIS and prepared and officials as he or she may designate, may additional adult member of the
submitted in accordance with the form certify records when authorized under 5 household’s, biometrics, unless
instructions. If the request for premium U.S.C. 552 or any other law to provide approval is revoked. If USCIS received
processing is submitted together with such records. the responses on different days, the 15-
the underlying benefit request, all § 106.6 DHS severability. month period begins on the earliest
required fees in the correct amount must response date. The notice of approval
be paid. Each provision of this part is separate
and severable from one another. If any will specify the expiration date.
(c) Fee amount. The fee amount will (B) USCIS may extend the validity
be prescribed in the form instructions provision is stayed or determined to be
invalid, the remaining provisions will period for the approval of a Form I–
and: 600A as provided in paragraph (h)(3)(ii)
continue in effect.
(1) Must be paid in addition to, and of this section or if requested in
in a separate remittance from, other PART 204—IMMIGRANT PETITIONS accordance with 8 CFR 106.2(a)(23).
filing fees. During this time, the prospective
(2) May be adjusted once per year by ■ 11. The authority citation for part 204 adoptive parents may file an orphan
notice in the Federal Register based on continues to read as follows: petition for one orphan without fee.
the amount of inflation according to the Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1151, 1153, (C) If the Form I–600A approval is for
Consumer Price Index (CPI) since the 1154, 1182, 1184, 1186a, 1255, 1641; 8 CFR more than one orphan, the prospective
fee was set by law at $1,000 on June 1, part 2. adoptive parents may file a petition for
2001. each of the additional children, to the
■ 12. Section 204.3 is amended:
(d) 15-day limitation. USCIS will maximum number approved.
■ a. By revising the section heading;
refund the premium processing service (D) If the orphans are birth siblings,
■ b. In paragraph (b), in the definition
fee, but continue to process the case if: no additional fee is required. If the
of ‘‘Orphan petition’’, by revising the
(1) USCIS does not issue a notice of orphans are not birth siblings, an
second sentence;
any adjudicative action by the end of ■ c. By revising the fourth and fifth
additional fee is required for each
the 15th business day from the date sentences of paragraph (d) introductory orphan beyond the first orphan.
USCIS accepted a properly filed request (E) It does not guarantee that the
text; and
for premium processing for an eligible ■ d. By revising paragraphs (h)(3)(i) and
orphan petition will be approved.
employment-based immigration benefit (ii) In the case of an outbreak affecting
(ii) and (h)(7) and (13).
request, including all required fees. The The revisions read as follows: a public health or other emergency:
adjudicative action is evidenced by the (A) The USCIS Director or his or her
notification of, but not necessarily § 204.3 Orphan cases under section designee, may extend the validity
receipt of, an approval, denial, request 101(b)(1)(F) of the Act (non-Hague Adoption period of the approval of the advance
for evidence (RFE) or notice of intent to Convention cases). processing application, either in an
deny (NOID); or * * * * * individual case or for a class of cases if
(2) USCIS does not issue a notice of (b) * * * the Director or designee determines that
a subsequent adjudicative action by the Orphan petition means * * * The the ability of a prospective adoptive
end of the 15th business-day from the petition must be completed in parent to timely file a petition has been
date USCIS received the response to an accordance with the form’s instructions adversely affected.
RFE or NOID. In premium processing and submitted with the required (B) An extension of the validity of the
cases where USCIS issues an RFE or supporting documentation and, if there approval of the advance processing
NOID within 15 business days from the is not a pending, or currently valid and application may be subject to such
initial date of acceptance, a new 15-day approved advanced processing conditions as the USCIS Director, or
period begins on the date that USCIS application, the fee as required in 8 CFR officer designated by the USCIS
receives the response to the RFE or 106.2. * * * Director, may establish.
NOID. * * * * * * * * * *
(3) USCIS may retain the premium (d) * * * If the prospective adoptive (7) Advanced processing application
processing fee and not reach a parents fail to file the orphan petition deemed abandoned for failure to file
conclusion on the request within 15 within the approval validity period of orphan petition within the approval
business days, and not notify the person the advanced processing application, validity period of the advanced
who filed the request, if USCIS opens an the advanced processing application processing application. If an orphan
investigation for fraud or will be deemed abandoned pursuant to petition is not properly filed within 15
misrepresentation relating to the benefit paragraph (h)(7) of this section. If the months of the approval date of the
request. prospective adoptive parents file the advanced processing application:
(i) The application will be deemed 103.7(b)(1)’’ and adding in its place ‘‘8 are received on different dates, the new
abandoned; CFR 106.2’’ and by removing and 15-month period begins on the earliest
(ii) Supporting documentation will be reserving paragraph (a)(3)(ii). response date. The new notice of
returned to the prospective adoptive approval will specify the new expiration
parents, except for documentation § 204.311 [Amended] date.
submitted by a third party which will be ■ 16. Section 204.311 is amended in (iv) There is no limit to the number
returned to the third party, and paragraph (u)(4) by removing ‘‘8 CFR of extensions that may be requested and
documentation relating to the 103.7(b)(1)’’ and adding in its place ‘‘8 granted under this section, so long as
biometrics checks; CFR 106.2’’. each request is supported by an updated
(iii) The director will dispose of ■ 17. Section 204.312 is amended by or amended home study that continues
documentation relating to biometrics revising paragraph (e)(3) to read as to recommend approval of the applicant
checks in accordance with current follows: for intercountry adoption and USCIS
policy; and continues to find that the applicant
(iv) Such abandonment will be § 204.312 Adjudication of the Form I–800A. remain suitable as the adoptive parent(s)
without prejudice to a new filing at any * * * * * of a Convention adoptee.
time with fee. (e) * * * * * * * *
* * * * * (3)(i) If the 15-month validity period
(13) Orphan petition denied: for a Form I–800A approval is about to § 204.313 [Amended]
petitioner files orphan petition after the expire, the applicant: ■ 18. Section 204.313 is amended in the
approval of the advanced processing (A) May file Form I–800A last sentence of paragraph (a) by
application has expired. If the petitioner Supplement 3, with the filing fee under removing ‘‘8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)’’ and
files the orphan petition after the 8 CFR 106.2, if required. adding in its place ‘‘8 CFR 106.2’’ and
(B) May not file a Form I–800A by adding the word ‘‘birth’’ before
advanced processing application has
Supplement 3 seeking extension of an ‘‘siblings’’.
expired, the petition will be denied.
approval notice more than 90 days
This action will be without prejudice to * * * * *
before the expiration of the validity
a new filing at any time with fee.
period for the Form I–800A approval, PART 211—DOCUMENTARY
* * * * * but must do so on or before the date on
REQUIREMENTS: IMMIGRANTS;
which the validity period expires. WAIVERS
■ a. In paragraph (m)(5), in the (C) Is not required to pay the Form I–
definition of ‘‘Petition’’, by removing ‘‘8 800A Supplement 3 filing fee for the ■ 19. The authority citation for part 211
CFR 103.7(b)(1)’’ and adding in its place first request to extend the approval of a continues to read as follows:
‘‘8 CFR 106.2’’; and Form I–800A, or to obtain a first time
■ b. By revising paragraph (p)(4).
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1181,
change of Hague Convention country 1182, 1203, 1225, 1257; 8 CFR part 2.
The revision reads as follows: during the Form I–800A approval
period. § 211.1 [Amended]
§ 204.5 Petitions for employment-based
immigrants.
(D) Must pay the Form I–800A ■ 20. Section 211.1 is amended in the
Supplement 3 filing fee, as specified in second sentence in paragraph (b)(3) by
* * * * * 8 CFR 106.2, for the second, or any
(p) * * * removing ‘‘8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)’’ and
subsequent, Form I–800A Supplement 3 adding in its place ‘‘8 CFR 106.2’’.
(4) Application for employment that is filed, if the applicant files a
authorization. (i) To request second or subsequent Form I–800A § 211.2 [Amended]
employment authorization, an eligible Supplement 3 to obtain a second or
applicant described in paragraph (p)(1), ■ 21. Section 211.2 is amended in the
subsequent extension or a second or second sentence in paragraph (b) by
(2), or (3) of this section must: subsequent change of Hague Convention
(A) File an application for removing ‘‘8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)’’ and
country. adding in its place ‘‘8 CFR 106.2’’.
employment authorization (Form I– (ii) Any Form I–800A Supplement 3
765), with USCIS, in accordance with 8 that is filed to obtain an extension of the
CFR 274a.13(a) and the form PART 212—DOCUMENTARY
approval of a Form I–800A or a change REQUIREMENTS: NONIMMIGRANTS;
instructions. of Hague Convention country must be
(B) Submit biometric information as WAIVERS; ADMISSION OF CERTAIN
accompanied by: INADMISSIBLE ALIENS; PAROLE
may be provided in the applicable form (A) A statement, signed by the
instructions. applicant under penalty of perjury, ■ 22. The authority citation for part 212
(ii) Employment authorization under detailing any changes to the answers continues to read as follows:
this paragraph may be granted solely in given to the questions on the original
1-year increments, but not to exceed the Authority: 6 U.S.C. 111, 202(4) and 271; 8
Form I–800A; U.S.C. 1101 and note, 1102, 1103, 1182 and
period of the alien’s authorized (B) An updated or amended home note, 1184, 1185 note (section 7209 of Pub.
admission. study as required under 8 CFR L. 108–458), 1187, 1223, 1225, 1226, 1227,
* * * * * 204.311(u); and 1255, 1359; 8 CFR part 2.
(C) A photocopy of the Form I–800A
§ 204.6 [Amended] § 212.2 [Amended]
approval notice.
■ 14. Section 204.6 is amended in (iii) If USCIS continues to be satisfied 23. Section 212.2 is amended in
■
paragraph (m)(6)(i)(C) by removing ‘‘8 that the applicant remains suitable as paragraphs (b)(1), (c)(1)(ii), (d), and
CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(XX)’’ and adding in the adoptive parent of a Convention (g)(1) by removing ‘‘8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)’’
its place ‘‘8 CFR 106.2’’. adoptee, USCIS will extend the and adding in its place ‘‘8 CFR 106.2’’.
approval of the Form I–800A to a date
§ 204.310 [Amended] not more than 15 months after the date § 212.3 [Amended]
■ 15. Section 204.310 is amended in on which USCIS received the new ■ 24. Section 212.3 is amended in
paragraph (a)(3)(i) by removing ‘‘8 CFR biometric responses. If new responses paragraph (a) by removing ‘‘8 CFR
103.7(b)(1)’’ and adding in its place ‘‘8 grant of parole or re-parole before ■ i. ‘‘a Form I–129’’ and adding in its
CFR 106.2’’. October 2, 2020 will be required to place ‘‘an application or petition’’ in the
submit biometric information. An alien first sentence; and
§ 212.4 [Amended] seeking an initial grant of parole or re- ■ ii. ‘‘Form I–129’’ and adding in its
■ 25. Section 212.4 is amended in the parole may be required to submit place ‘‘application or petition’’ in the
first sentence in paragraph (b) by biometric information. second and third sentences.
removing ‘‘8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)’’ and * * * * * The revision reads as follows:
adding in its place ‘‘8 CFR 106.2’’. (h) * * * § 214.1 Requirements for admission,
§ 212.7 [Amended] (1) The entrepreneur’s spouse and extension, and maintenance of status.
children who are seeking parole as * * * * *
■ a. In paragraph (a)(1), by removing ‘‘8 derivatives of such entrepreneur must (c) * * *
CFR 103.7(b)(1)’’ and adding in its place individually file Form I–131, (5) Decision on application for
‘‘8 CFR 106.2’’ in paragraph (a)(1); and Application for Travel Document. Such extension or change of status. Where an
■ b. In paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(5)(i), by
application must also include evidence applicant or petitioner demonstrates
removing ‘‘8 CFR 103.7(b)’’ and adding that the derivative has a qualifying eligibility for a requested extension, it
in its place ‘‘8 CFR 106.2’’. relationship to the entrepreneur and may be granted at the discretion of
otherwise merits a grant of parole in the USCIS. The denial of an application for
§ 212.15 [Amended] exercise of discretion. Such spouse or extension of stay may not be appealed.
■ 27. Section 212.15 is amended in child will be required to appear for * * * * *
paragraph (j)(2)(ii) by removing ‘‘8 CFR collection of biometrics in accordance ■ 32. Section 214.2 is amended:
103.7(b)(1)’’ and adding in its place ‘‘8 with the form instructions or upon ■ a. By revising paragraph (e)(8)(iii), the
CFR 106.2’’. request. first sentence of paragraph (e)(8)(iv)
* * * * * introductory text, and paragraphs
§ 212.18 [Amended] (j) Reporting of material changes. An (e)(8)(iv)(B) and (e)(8)(v);
■ 28. Section 212.18 is amended in alien granted parole under this section ■ b. In paragraph (e)(20) introductory
paragraph (a)(2) by removing ‘‘8 CFR must immediately report any material text and in two places in paragraph
103.7(b)(1)’’ and adding in its place ‘‘8 change(s) to USCIS. If the entrepreneur (e)(21)(i), by removing ‘‘Form I–129 and
CFR 106.2’’. will continue to be employed by the E Supplement’’ and adding in its place
■ 29. Section 212.19 is amended by start-up entity and maintain a qualifying ‘‘the form prescribed by USCIS’’;
revising paragraphs (b)(1), (c)(1), (e), ownership interest in the start-up entity, ■ c. By revising paragraph (e)(23)(viii);
(h)(1), and (j) to read as follows: the entrepreneur must submit a form ■ d. By removing and reserving
prescribed by USCIS, with any paragraph (e)(23)(xv);
§ 212.19 Parole for entrepreneurs. applicable fee in accordance with the ■ e. In paragraph (f)(9)(ii)(F)(1), by
* * * * * form instructions to notify USCIS of the removing ‘‘8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)’’ and
(b) * * * material change(s). The entrepreneur adding in its place ‘‘8 CFR 106.2’’;
(1) Filing of initial parole request parolee must immediately notify USCIS ■ f. By revising paragraph (h)(2)(i)(A);
form. An alien seeking an initial grant in writing if he or she will no longer be ■ g. In paragraph (h)(2)(i)(B), by
of parole as an entrepreneur of a start- employed by the start-up entity or removing ‘‘Form I–129’’ and adding in
up entity must file Form I–941, ceases to possess a qualifying ownership its place ‘‘application or petition’’
Application for Entrepreneur Parole, stake in the start-up entity. wherever it appears;
with USCIS, with the required fee, and ■ h. In paragraph (h)(2)(i)(D), by
* * * * *
supporting documentary evidence in removing ‘‘Form I–129’’ and adding in
accordance with this section and the PART 214—NONIMMIGRANT CLASSES its place ‘‘the form prescribed by
form instructions, demonstrating USCIS’’;
eligibility as provided in paragraph ■ 30. The authority citation for part 214 ■ i. By revising paragraph (h)(2)(ii);
(b)(2) of this section. continues to read as follows: ■ j. In paragraph (h)(5)(i)(A), by
removing ‘‘Form I–129’’ and adding in
* * * * * Authority: 6 U.S.C. 202, 236; 8 U.S.C. its place ‘‘the form prescribed by
(c) * * * 1101, 1102, 1103, 1182, 1184, 1186a, 1187,
1221, 1281, 1282, 1301–1305, 1356, and
USCIS’’;
(1) Filing of re-parole request form. ■ k. By revising paragraph (h)(5)(i)(B);
Before expiration of the initial period of 1372; sec. 643, Pub. L. 104–208, 110 Stat.
3009–708; Public Law 106–386, 114 Stat. ■ l. In paragraph (h)(6)(iii)(E), by
parole, an entrepreneur parolee may removing ‘‘I–129’’ and adding in its
1477–1480; section 141 of the Compacts of
request an additional period of parole place ‘‘the form prescribed by USCIS’’;
Free Association with the Federated States of
based on the same start-up entity that Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall ■ m. In paragraph (h)(6)(vii), by
formed the basis for his or her initial Islands, and with the Government of Palau, removing ‘‘Form I–129’’ and adding in
period of parole granted under this 48 U.S.C. 1901 note, and 1931 note, its place ‘‘application or petition’’
section. To request such parole, an respectively; 48 U.S.C. 1806; 8 CFR part 2. wherever it appears;
entrepreneur parolee must timely file ■ n. In paragraphs (h)(11)(i)(A), (h)(14),
Form I–941, Application for ■ 31. Section 214.1 is amended:
and (h)(15)(i), by removing ‘‘Form I–
Entrepreneur Parole, with USCIS, with ■ a. In paragraph (c)(1), by removing ‘‘8
129’’ and adding in its place ‘‘the form
the required fee and supporting CFR 103.7(b)(1)’’ and adding in its place
prescribed by USCIS’’;
documentation in accordance with the ‘‘8 CFR 106.2’’;

■ o. By revising paragraph (h)(19)(i);
form instructions, demonstrating ■ b. In paragraph (c)(2), by removing ■ p. In paragraph (h)(19)(vi)(A), by
eligibility as provided in paragraph ‘‘§ 103.7 of this chapter’’ and adding in removing ‘‘Petition for Nonimmigrant
(c)(2) of this section. its place ‘‘8 CFR 106.2’’; Worker (Form I–129)’’ and adding in its
* * * * * ■ c. By revising paragraph (c)(5); and place ‘‘the form prescribed by USCIS’’;
(e) Collection of biometric ■ d. In paragraph (j) introductory text, ■ q. In paragraph (l)(2)(i), by removing
information. An alien seeking an initial by removing: ‘‘Form I–129, Petition for Nonimmigrant
Worker’’ and adding in its place ‘‘the ■ jj. In paragraph (q)(4)(iii), by removing substantive, an alien may file an
form prescribed by USCIS’’ in its place; ‘‘Form I–129’’ and adding in its place application with a complete description
■ r. In paragraphs (l)(2)(ii), (l)(3) ‘‘the form prescribed by USCIS’’; of the change. In cases involving
introductory text, and (l)(4)(iv) ■ kk. In the first sentence of paragraph multiple employees, an alien may
introductory text by removing ‘‘Form I– (q)(5)(i), by removing ‘‘Form I–129, request that USCIS determine if a
129’’ and adding in its place ‘‘the form Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker’’ and merger or other corporate restructuring
prescribed by USCIS’’; adding in its place ‘‘the form prescribed requires the filing of separate
■ s. In paragraph (l)(5)(ii)(F), by by USCIS’’; applications by filing a single
removing ‘‘Form I–129, Petition for ■ ll. In the second sentence of paragraph application and attaching a list of the
Nonimmigrant Worker’’ and adding in (q)(5)(i), by removing ‘‘Form I–129’’ and related receipt numbers for the
its place ‘‘the form prescribed by adding in its place ‘‘the form prescribed employees involved and an explanation
USCIS’’ in its place; by USCIS’’; of the change or changes.
■ t. In paragraph (l)(14)(ii) introductory ■ mm. In paragraph (q)(6), by removing
* * * * *
text, by removing ‘‘Form I–129’’ and ‘‘Form I–129’’ and adding in its place (23) * * *
adding in its place ‘‘application or ‘‘application or petition’’; (viii) Information for background
petition’’ wherever it appears; ■ nn. By revising paragraph (r)(3) checks. USCIS may require an applicant
■ u. In paragraph (l)(17)(i), by removing introductory text and the definition of for E–2 CNMI Investor status, including
‘‘Form I–129’’ and adding in its place ‘‘Petition’’ in paragraph (r)(3); but not limited to any applicant for
‘‘the form prescribed by USCIS’’ ■ oo. By revising paragraph (r)(5);
derivative status as a spouse or child, to
wherever it occurs; ■ pp. In paragraph (r)(13), by removing
submit biometrics as required under 8
■ v. By revising paragraph (m)(14)(ii) ‘‘8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)’’ and adding in its CFR 103.16.
introductory text; place ‘‘8 CFR 106.2’’; and
■ w. In paragraph (o)(2)(i), by removing ■ qq. By revising paragraphs (w)(5), * * * * *
(w)(15)(iii), and (w)(16). (h) * * *
‘‘Form I–129, Petition for Nonimmigrant (2) * * *
Worker’’ and adding in its place ‘‘the The revisions read as follows:
(i) * * *
form prescribed by USCIS’’ in its place; § 214.2 Special requirements for (A) General. A United States
■ x. In paragraph (o)(2)(iv)(D), by employer seeking to classify an alien as
admission, extension, and maintenance of
removing ‘‘Form I–129’’ and adding in status. an H–1B, H–2A, H–2B, or H–3
its place ‘‘the form prescribed by temporary employee must file a petition
* * * * *
USCIS’’; (e) * * * on the form prescribed by USCIS in
■ y. By revising paragraph (o)(2)(iv)(F);
(8) * * * accordance with the form instructions.
■ z. In paragraph (o)(2)(iv)(G), by
(iii) Substantive changes. Approval of * * * * *
removing ‘‘Form I–129’’ and adding in USCIS must be obtained where there (ii) Multiple beneficiaries. Up to 25
its place ‘‘application or petition’’ will be a substantive change in the named beneficiaries may be included in
wherever it appears; terms or conditions of E status. The
■ aa. In paragraph (o)(11), by removing
an H–1C, H–2A, H–2B, or H–3 petition
treaty alien must file a new application if the beneficiaries will be performing
‘‘Form I–129, Petition for Nonimmigrant in accordance with the instructions on
Worker’’ and adding in its place ‘‘the the same service, or receiving the same
the form prescribed by USCIS training, for the same period, and in the
form prescribed by USCIS’’ in its place; requesting extension of stay in the
■ bb. In paragraph (o)(12(i), by removing
same location. If more than 25 named
United States, plus evidence of beneficiaries are being petitioned for, an
‘‘Form I–129’’ and adding in its place
continued eligibility for E classification additional petition is required. Petitions
‘‘an application or petition’’ in the first
in the new capacity. Or the alien may for H–2A and H–2B workers from
sentence;
obtain a visa reflecting the new terms countries not designated in accordance
■ cc. In paragraph (p)(2)(i), by removing
and conditions and subsequently apply with paragraph (h)(6)(i)(E) of this
‘‘Form I–129, Petition for Nonimmigrant
for admission at a port-of-entry. USCIS section must be filed separately.
Worker’’ and adding in its place ‘‘the
will deem there to have been a * * * * *
form prescribed by USCIS’’ in its place;
substantive change necessitating the (5) * * *
■ dd. In paragraph (p)(2)(iv)(C)(2), by
filing of a new application where there (i) * * *
removing ‘‘Form I–129’’ and adding in
has been a fundamental change in the (B) Multiple beneficiaries. The total
its place ‘‘application or petition’’
employing entity’s basic characteristics, number of beneficiaries of a petition or
wherever it appears;
■ ee. By revising paragraph (p)(2)(iv)(F);
such as a merger, acquisition, or sale of series of petitions based on the same
■ ff. In paragraph (p)(2)(iv)(H), by
the division where the alien is temporary labor certification may not
removing ‘‘Form I–129 petition’’ and employed. exceed the number of workers indicated
adding in its place ‘‘application or (iv) * * * Neither prior approval nor on that document. A single petition can
petition’’; a new application is required if there is include more than one named
■ gg. In paragraphs (p)(13) and
no substantive, or fundamental, change beneficiary if the total number is 25 or
(p)(14)(i), by removing ‘‘Form I–129’’ in the terms or conditions of the alien’s less and does not exceed the number of
and adding in its place ‘‘the form employment which would affect the positions indicated on the relating
prescribed by USCIS’’; alien’s eligibility for E classification. temporary labor certification.
■ hh. In paragraph (q)(3)(i), by removing * * * * * * * *
‘‘Form I–129, Petition for Nonimmigrant * * * * * (19) * * *
Worker’’ and adding in its place ‘‘the (B) Request a new approval notice (i) A United States employer (other
form prescribed by USCIS’’; reflecting the non-substantive change by than an exempt employer defined in
■ ii. In the second sentence of paragraph filing an application with a description paragraph (h)(19)(iii) of this section, or
(q)(3)(i) wherever it appears and in of the change, or; an employer filing a petition described
paragraph (q)(4)(i), by removing ‘‘Form * * * * * in paragraph (h)(19)(v) of this section)
I–129’’ and adding in its place (v) Advice. To request advice from who files a petition or application must
‘‘application or petition’’; USCIS as to whether a change is include the additional American
Competitiveness and Workforce exceed a maximum of five years. A § 214.14 Alien victims of certain qualifying
Improvement Act (ACWIA) fee Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker to criminal activity.
referenced in 8 CFR 106.2, if the request an extension of R–1 status must * * * * *
petition is filed for any of the following be filed by the employer with a (c) * * *
purposes: supplement prescribed by USCIS (1) Filing a petition. USCIS has sole
* * * * * containing attestations required by this jurisdiction over all petitions for U
(m) * * * section, the fee specified in 8 CFR part nonimmigrant status. An alien seeking
(14) * * * 106, and the supporting evidence, in U–1 nonimmigrant status must submit,
(ii) Application. A M–1 student must accordance with the applicable form Form I–918, Petition for U
apply for permission to accept instructions. Nonimmigrant Status, and initial
employment for practical training on * * * * * evidence to USCIS in accordance with
Form I–765, with fee as contained in 8 (w) * * * this paragraph and the instructions to
CFR part 106, accompanied by a (5) Petition requirements. An Form I–918. A petitioner who received
properly endorsed Form I–20 by the employer who seeks to classify an alien interim relief is not required to submit
designated school official for practical as a CW–1 worker must file a petition initial evidence with Form I–918 if he
training. The application must be with USCIS and pay the requisite or she wishes to rely on the law
submitted before the program end date petition fee plus the CNMI education enforcement certification and other
listed on the student’s Form I–20 but funding fee and the fraud prevention evidence that was submitted with the
not more than 90 days before the and detection fee as prescribed in the request for interim relief.
program end date. The designated form instructions and 8 CFR part 106. If * * * * *
school official must certify on Form I– the beneficiary will perform services for
538 that— more than one employer, each employer PART 216—CONDITIONAL BASIS OF
must file a separate petition with fees LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE
* * * * *
with USCIS. STATUS
(o) * * *
(2) * * * * * * * * ■ 37. The authority citation for part 216
(iv) * * * (15) * * * continues to read as follows:
(F) Multiple beneficiaries. More than (iii) If the eligible spouse and/or
minor child(ren) are present in the Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1154,
one O–2 accompanying alien may be
CNMI, the spouse or child(ren) may 1184, 1186a, 1186b, and 8 CFR part 2.
included on a petition if they are
assisting the same O–1 alien for the apply for CW–2 dependent status on § 216.4 [Amended]
same events or performances, during the Form I–539 (or such alternative form as
USCIS may designate) in accordance ■ 38. Section 216.4 is amended in
same period, and in the same location. paragraph (a)(1) by removing ‘‘§ 103.7(b)
Up to 25 named beneficiaries may be with the form instructions. The CW–2
status may not be approved until of this chapter’’ and adding in its place
included per petition. ‘‘8 CFR 106.2’’.
* * * * * approval of the CW–1 petition.
(16) Biometrics and other information. § 216.5 [Amended]
(p) * * *
The beneficiary of a CW–1 petition or
(2) * * * ■ 39. Section 216.5 is amended in
the spouse or child applying for a grant
(iv) * * * paragraph (b) by removing ‘‘§ 103.7(b) of
or, extension of CW–2 status, or a
(F) Multiple beneficiaries. More than this Chapter’’ and adding in its place ‘‘8
change of status to CW–2 status, must
one beneficiary may be included in a P CFR 106.2’’.
submit biometric information as
petition if they are members of a team
requested by USCIS. § 216.6 [Amended]
or group, or if they will provide
essential support to P–1, P–2, or P–3 * * * * * ■ 40. Section 216.6 is amended in
beneficiaries performing in the same § 214.3 [Amended] paragraph (a)(1)(i) by removing ‘‘8 CFR
location and in the same occupation. Up 103.7(b)(1)’’ and adding in its place ‘‘8
to 25 named beneficiaries may be ■ 33. Section 214.3 is amended:
CFR 106.2’’.
included per petition. ■ a. In paragraph (h)(1)(i), by removing
‘‘8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)’’ and adding in its PART 217—VISA WAIVER PROGRAM
* * * * * place ‘‘8 CFR 106.2’’; and
(r) * * * ■ b. In paragraph (h)(2) introductory ■ 41. The authority citation for part 217
(3) Definitions. As used in this text, by removing ‘‘8 CFR continues to read as follows:
section, the term: 103.7(b)(1)(ii)(B)’’ and adding in its Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1187; 8 CFR part
* * * * * place ‘‘8 CFR 103.7(d)(2)’’. 2.
Petition means the form or as may be
prescribed by USCIS, a supplement § 214.6 [Amended] § 217.2 [Amended]
containing attestations required by this ■ 34. Section 214.6 is amended in ■ 42. Section 217.2 is amended in
section, and the supporting evidence paragraphs (g)(1), (h)(1)(i), (h)(2), and paragraph (c)(2) by removing
required by this part. (i)(2) by removing ‘‘8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)’’ ‘‘§ 103.7(b)(1) of this chapter’’ and
* * * * * and adding in its place ‘‘8 CFR 106.2’’. adding in its place ‘‘8 CFR 103.7(d)(4)’’.
(5) Extension of stay or readmission.
§ 214.11 [Amended]
An R–1 alien who is maintaining status PART 223—REENTRY PERMITS,
or is seeking readmission and who ■ 35. Section 214.11 is amended in REFUGEE TRAVEL DOCUMENTS, AND
satisfies the eligibility requirements of paragraphs (d)(2)(iii) and (k)(1) by ADVANCE PAROLE DOCUMENTS
this section may be granted an extension removing ‘‘8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)’’ and
of R–1 stay or readmission in R–1 status adding in its place ‘‘8 CFR 106.2’’. ■ 43. The authority citation for part 223
for the validity period of the petition, up ■ 36. Section 214.14 is amended by continues to read as follows:
to 30 months, provided the total period revising paragraph (c)(1) introductory Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1181, 1182,
of time spent in R–1 status does not text to read as follows: 1186a, 1203, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1251; Protocol
Relating to the Status of Refugees, November of this chapter’’ and adding in its place ■ 57. Section 244.17 is amended by
1, 1968, 19 U.S.T. 6223 (TIAS) 6577; 8 CFR ‘‘8 CFR 106.2’’. revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
part 2.
PART 240—VOLUNTARY DEPARTURE, § 244.17 Periodic registration.
§ 223.2 [Amended]
SUSPENSION OF DEPORTATION AND (a) Aliens granted Temporary
■ 44. Section 223.2 is amended in SPECIAL RULE CANCELLATION OF Protected Status must re-register
paragraph (a) by removing ‘‘8 CFR REMOVAL periodically in accordance with USCIS
103.7(b)(1)’’ and adding in its place ‘‘8 instructions. Such registration applies to
CFR 106.2’’. ■ 53. The authority citation for part 240 nationals of those foreign states
continues to read as follows: designated for more than one year by
PART 235—INSPECTION OF PERSONS Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103; 1182, 1186a, DHS or where a designation has been
APPLYING FOR ADMISSION 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1251, 1252 note, extended for a year or more. Applicants
1252a, 1252b, 1362; secs. 202 and 203, Pub. for re-registration must apply during the
■ 45. The authority citation for part 235 L. 105–100 (111 Stat. 2160, 2193); sec. 902,
continues to read as follows: period provided by USCIS. Re-
Pub. L. 105–277 (112 Stat. 2681); 8 CFR part registration applicants do not need to
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101 and note, 1103, 2. pay the fee that was required for initial
1183, 1185 (pursuant to E.O. 13323, 69 FR ■ 54. Section 240.63 is amended by registration except the biometric
241, 3 CFR, 2004 Comp., p.278), 1201, 1224,
revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: services fee, unless that fee is waived in
1225, 1226, 1228, 1365a note, 1365b, 1379,
1731–32; Title VII of Public Law 110–229; 8 the applicable form instructions, and if
§ 240.63 Application process.
U.S.C. 1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. requesting an employment authorization
108–458); Pub. L. 112–54. (a) Form and fees. Except as provided document, the application fee for an
in paragraph (b) of this section, the Application for Employment
§ 235.1 [Amended] application must be made on the form Authorization. By completing the
■ 46. Section 235.1 is amended in prescribed by USCIS for this program application, applicants attest to their
paragraphs (g)(1)(iii) and (g)(2) by and filed in accordance with the continuing eligibility. Such applicants
removing ‘‘§ 103.7(b)(1) of this chapter’’ instructions for that form. An applicant do not need to submit additional
and adding in its place ‘‘8 CFR who submitted to EOIR a completed supporting documents unless USCIS
103.7(d)(3)’’. Form EOIR–40, Application for requests that they do so.
Suspension of Deportation, before the
* * * * *
§ 235.7 [Amended] effective date of the form prescribed by
■ 47. Section 235.7 is amended in USCIS may apply with the Service by PART 245—ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS
paragraph (a)(4)(v) by removing submitting the completed Form EOIR– TO THAT OF PERSON ADMITTED FOR
‘‘§ 103.7(b)(1) of this chapter’’ and 40 attached to a completed first page of PERMANENT RESIDENCE
‘‘§ 103.7(b)(1)’’ and adding in their place the application. Each application must
‘‘8 CFR 103.7(d)(7)’’. be filed with the required fees as ■ 58. The authority citation for part 204
provided in 8 CFR 106.2. continues to read as follows:
§ 235.12 [Amended] * * * * * Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1182,
■ 48. Section 235.12 is amended in 1255; Pub. L. 105–100, section 202, 111 Stat.
paragraph (d)(2) by removing ‘‘8 CFR PART 244—TEMPORARY PROTECTED 2160, 2193; Pub. L. 105–277, section 902, 112
103.7(b)(1)(ii)(M)’’ and adding in its STATUS FOR NATIONALS OF Stat. 2681; Pub. L. 110–229, tit. VII, 122 Stat.
place ‘‘8 CFR 103.7(d)(13)’’. DESIGNATED STATES 754; 8 CFR part 2.
§ 235.13 [Amended] ■ 55. The authority citation for part 244 § 245.7 [Amended]
■ 49. Section 235.13 is amended in continues to read as follows: ■ 59. Section 245.7 is amended in
paragraph (c)(5) by removing ‘‘8 CFR Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1254, 1254a paragraph (a) by removing ‘‘8 CFR
103.7(b)(1)(ii)(N)’’ and adding in its note, 8 CFR part 2. 103.7(b)(1)’’ and adding in its place ‘‘8
place ‘‘8 CFR 103.7(d)(14)’’. CFR 106.2’’.
§ 244.6 [Amended]
§ 245.10 [Amended]
PART 236—APPREHENSION AND ■ 56. Section 244.6 is revised to read as
DETENTION OF INADMISSIBLE AND follows: ■ 60. Section 245.10 is amended in
DEPORTABLE ALIENS; REMOVAL OF paragraph (c) introductory text by
§ 244.6 Application. removing ‘‘§ 103.7(b)(1) of this chapter’’
ALIENS ORDERED REMOVED
(a) An application for Temporary and adding in its place ‘‘8 CFR 106.2’’.
■ 50. The authority citation for part 236 Protected Status must be submitted in
continues to read as follows: accordance with the form instructions, § 245.15 [Amended]
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a; 8 the applicable country-specific Federal ■ 61. Section 245.15 is amended:
U.S.C. 1103, 1182, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, Register notice that announces the ■ a. In paragraph (c)(2)(iv)(A), by
1231, 1362; 18 U.S.C. 4002, 4013(c)(4); 8 CFR procedures for TPS registration or re- removing ‘‘§ 103.7(b)(1) of this chapter’’
part 2. registration and, except as otherwise and adding in its place ‘‘8 CFR 106.2’’;
provided in this section, with the ■ b. By removing and reserving
§ 236.14 [Amended] appropriate fees as described in 8 CFR paragraph (c)(2)(iv)(B);
■ 51. Section 236.14 is amended in part 106. ■ c. In paragraph (g)(1), by removing ‘‘8
paragraph (a) by removing ‘‘§ 103.7(b)(1) (b) An applicant for TPS may also CFR 103.7(b)(1)’’ and adding in its place
of this chapter’’ and adding in its place request an employment authorization ‘‘8 CFR 106.2’’;
‘‘8 CFR 106.2’’. document pursuant to 8 CFR 274a by ■ d. In paragraph (h)(1), by removing
filing an Application for Employment ‘‘§ 103.7(b)(1) of this chapter’’ and
§ 236.15 [Amended] Authorization in accordance with the adding in its place ‘‘8 CFR 106.2’’;
■ 52. Section 236.15 is amended in form instructions and in accordance ■ e. By removing and reserving
paragraph (e) by removing ‘‘§ 103.7(b)(1) with 8 CFR 106.2 and 106.3. paragraph (h)(2); and
■ f. In paragraphs (n)(1), (t)(1), and § 245a.3 Application for adjustment from Service Center’’ and adding in its place
(t)(2)(i), by removing ‘‘8 CFR temporary to permanent resident status. ‘‘National Benefit Center’’.
103.7(b)(1)’’ and adding in its place ‘‘8 * * * * *
CFR 106.2’’. (d) * * * § 245a.20 [Amended]
(3) A separate application must be ■ 74. Section 245a.20 is amended in
§ 245.18 [Amended] filed by each applicant with the fees paragraph (a)(2) by removing ‘‘8 CFR
■ 62. Section 245.18 is amended in required by 8 CFR 106.2. 103.7(b)(1)’’ and adding in its place ‘‘8
paragraphs (d)(1) and (k) by removing * * * * * CFR 106.2’’.
‘‘8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)’’ and adding in its ■ 69. Section 245a.4 is amended by
§ 245a.33 [Amended]
place ‘‘8 CFR 106.2’’. revising paragraph (b)(5)(iii) to read as
follows: ■ 75. Section 245a.33 is amended in
§ 245.21 [Amended] paragraph (a) by removing ‘‘§ 103.7(b)(1)
§ 245a.4 Adjustment to lawful resident of this chapter’’ and adding in its place
■ 63. Section 245.21 is amended: status of certain nationals of countries for ‘‘8 CFR 106.2’’ and in paragraphs (a) and
■ a. In paragraph (b), by removing ‘‘8 which extended voluntary departure has (b) by removing ‘‘Missouri Service
CFR 103.7(b)(1)’’ and adding in its place been made available.
Center’’ and adding in its place
‘‘8 CFR 106.2’’ in the first sentence and * * * * * ‘‘National Benefit Center’’.
removing the second sentence; and (b) * * *
■ b. In paragraphs (f), (h), and (i), by (5) * * * PART 248—CHANGE OF
removing ‘‘8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)’’ and (iii) A separate application must be NONIMMIGRANT CLASSIFICATION
adding in its place ‘‘8 CFR 106.2’’. filed by each applicant with the fees
required by 8 CFR 106.2. ■ 76. The authority citation for part 248
§ 245.23 [Amended] continues to read as follows:
* * * * *
■ 64. Section 245.23 is amended in ■ 70. Section 245a.12 is amended: Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1184,
paragraph (e)(1)(ii) by removing ‘‘8 CFR ■ a. In paragraphs (b) introductory text 1258; 8 CFR part 2.
103.7(b)(1)’’ and adding in its place ‘‘8 and (c), by removing ‘‘Missouri Service
§ 248.3 [Amended]
CFR 106.2’’ and by removing and Center’’ and adding in its place
reserving paragraph (e)(1)(iii). ‘‘National Benefit Center’’; ■ 77. Section 248.3 is amended in the
■ b. By revising paragraph (d) introductory text by removing ‘‘8 CFR
§ 245.24 [Amended] introductory text; 103.7(b)’’ and adding in its place ‘‘8 CFR
■ 65. Section 245.24 is amended: ■ c. In paragraph (d)(1), by removing ‘‘8 106.2’’ in its place and in paragraph (h)
■ a. In paragraph (d)(2), by removing ‘‘8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)’’ and adding in its place introductory text by removing ‘‘8 CFR
CFR 103.7(b)(1)’’ and adding in its place ‘‘8 CFR 106.2’’; and 103.7(b)(1)’’ and adding in its place ‘‘8
■ d. By removing and reserving CFR 106.2’’.
‘‘8 CFR 106.2’’ and by removing and
reserving paragraph (d)(3); and paragraphs (d)(2), (4), and (6).
The revision reads as follows: PART 264—REGISTRATION AND
■ b. In paragraphs (h)(1)(ii) and FINGERPRINTING OF ALIENS IN THE
(i)(1)(iii), by removing ‘‘8 CFR § 245a.12 Filing and applications. UNITED STATES
103.7(b)(1)’’ and adding in its place ‘‘8 * * * * *
CFR 106.2’’ and by removing paragraph (d) Application and supporting ■ 78. The authority citation for part 248
(i)(1)(iv). documentation. Each applicant for LIFE continues to read as follows:
Legalization adjustment of status must Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1201, 1303–1305;
PART 245a—ADJUSTMENT OF submit the form prescribed by USCIS 8 CFR part 2.
STATUS TO THAT OF PERSONS completed in accordance with the form
ADMITTED FOR TEMPORARY OR instructions accompanied by the § 264.2 [Amended]
PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS required evidence. ■ 79. Section 264.2 is amended in
UNDER SECTION 245A OF THE
* * * * * paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (c)(2)(i) by
IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT
removing ‘‘8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)’’ and
§ 245a.13 [Amended] adding in its place ‘‘8 CFR 106.2’’.
■ 66. The authority citation for part
■ 71. Section 245a.13 is amended:
245a continues to read as follows: ■ a. In paragraphs (d)(1) and (e)(1), by § 264.5 [Amended]
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1255a and removing ‘‘§ 103.7(b)(1) of this chapter’’ ■ 80. Section 264.5 is amended in
1255a note. and adding in its place ‘‘8 CFR 106.2’’; paragraph (a) by removing ‘‘8 CFR
■ 67. Section 245a.2 is amended by and 103.7(b)(1)’’ and adding in its place ‘‘8
■ b. In paragraph (e) introductory text CFR 106.2’’.
revising paragraph (e)(3) to read as
follows: and (e)(1), by removing ‘‘Missouri
Service Center’’ and adding in its place § 264.6 [Amended]
§ 245a.2 Application for temporary ‘‘National Benefit Center’’; and ■ 81. Section 264.6 is amended in
residence. paragraph (b) by removing ‘‘8 CFR
§ 245a.18 [Amended]
* * * * * 103.7(b)(1)’’ and adding in its place ‘‘8
(e) * * * ■ 72. Section 245a.18 is amended in CFR 106.2’’.
paragraph (c)(1) by removing ‘‘Missouri
(3) A separate application must be

filed by each applicant with the fees Service Center’’ and adding in its place PART 274a—CONTROL OF
required by 8 CFR 106.2. ‘‘National Benefit Center’’ in paragraph EMPLOYMENT OF ALIENS
(c)(1).
* * * * * ■ 82. The authority citation for part
■ 68. Section 245a.3 is amended by § 245a.19 [Amended] 274a continues to read as follows:
revising paragraph (d)(3) to read as ■ 73. Section 245a.19 is amended in Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1324a; 48
follows: paragraph (a) by removing ‘‘Missouri U.S.C. 1806; 8 CFR part 2; Pub. L. 101–410,
104 Stat. 890, as amended by Pub. L. 114– petition is denied, employment PART 320—CHILD BORN OUTSIDE
74, 129 Stat. 599. authorization will cease. THE UNITED STATES AND RESIDING
■ 83. Section 274a.12 is amended by (14) An athlete, artist, or entertainer PERMANENTLY IN THE UNITED
revising paragraphs (b)(9), (13), and (14) (P–1, P–2, or P–3), pursuant to 8 CFR STATES; REQUIREMENTS FOR
to read as follows: 214.2(p). An alien in this status may be AUTOMATIC ACQUISITION OF
employed only by the petitioner through CITIZENSHIP
§ 274a.12 Classes of aliens authorized to whom the status was obtained. In the
accept employment. case of a professional P–1 athlete who ■ 90. The authority citation for part 320
* * * * * is traded from one organization to continues to read as follows:
(b) * * * another organization, employment Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1443; 8 CFR part
(9) A temporary worker or trainee (H– authorization for the player will 2.
1, H–2A, H–2B, or H–3), pursuant to 8 automatically continue for a period of
CFR 214.2(h), or a nonimmigrant 30 days after the acquisition by the new § 320.5 [Amended]
specialty occupation worker pursuant to organization, within which time the ■ 91. Section 320.5 is amended in
sections 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b)(1), new organization is expected to file a paragraphs (b) and (c) by removing ‘‘8
101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a), 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) new petition for P–1 nonimmigrant CFR 103.7(b)(1)’’ and adding in its place
and INA 101(a)(15)(H)(iii) of the Act. An classification. If a new petition is not ‘‘8 CFR 106.2’’.
alien in this status may be employed filed within 30 days, employment
only by the petitioner through whom authorization will cease. If a new PART 322—CHILD BORN OUTSIDE
the status was obtained. In the case of petition is filed within 30 days, the THE UNITED STATES;
a professional H–2B athlete who is professional athlete’s employment REQUIREMENTS FOR APPLICATION
traded from one organization to another FOR CERTIFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP
authorization will continue until the
organization, employment authorization
petition is adjudicated. If the new
for the player will automatically ■ 92. The authority citation for part 322
petition is denied, employment
continue for a period of 30 days after continues to read as follows:
authorization will cease;
acquisition by the new organization,
* * * * * Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1443; 8 CFR part
within which time the new organization 2.
must file a new petition for H–2B
PART 286—IMMIGRATION USER FEE
classification. If a new petition is not § 322.3 [Amended]
filed within 30 days, employment ■ 84. The authority citation for part 286 ■ 93. Section 322.3 is amended in
authorization will cease. If a new continues to read as follows: paragraph (a) by removing ‘‘8 CFR
petition is filed within 30 days, the 103.7(b)(1)’’ and adding in its place ‘‘8
professional athlete’s employment Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1356; Title
VII of Public Law 110–229; 8 CFR part 2. CFR 106.2’’ and in paragraph (b)(1)
authorization will continue until the introductory text by removing
petition is adjudicated. If the new § 286.9 [Amended] ‘‘§ 103.7(b)(1) of this chapter’’ and
petition is denied, employment adding in its place ‘‘8 CFR 106.2’’.
■ 85. Section 286.9 is amended in
authorization will cease. In the case of
paragraph (a) by removing
a nonimmigrant with H–1B status, § 322.5 [Amended]
‘‘§ 103.7(b)(1)’’ and adding in its place
employment authorization will 94. Section 322.5 is amended in
‘‘8 CFR 103.7(d)’’. ■
automatically continue upon the filing paragraphs (b) and (c) by removing ‘‘8
of a qualifying petition under 8 CFR PART 301—NATIONALS AND CFR 103.7(b)(1)’’ and adding in its place
214.2(h)(2)(i)(H) until such petition is CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT ‘‘8 CFR 106.2’’.
adjudicated, in accordance with section BIRTH
214(n) of the Act and 8 CFR PART 324—SPECIAL CLASSES OF
214.2(h)(2)(i)(H); ■ 86. The authority citation for part 301 PERSONS WHO MAY BE
* * * * * continues to read as follows: NATURALIZED: WOMEN WHO HAVE
(13) An alien having extraordinary Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1401; 8 CFR part LOST UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP
ability in the sciences, arts, education, 2. BY MARRIAGE AND FORMER
business, or athletics (O–1), and an CITIZENS WHOSE NATURALIZATION
accompanying alien (O–2), pursuant to § 301.1 [Amended] IS AUTHORIZED BY PRIVATE LAW
8 CFR 214.2(o). An alien in this status ■ 87. Section 301.1 is amended in
may be employed only by the petitioner paragraph (a)(1) by removing ‘‘8 CFR ■ 95. The authority citation for part 324
through whom the status was obtained. 103.7(b)(1)’’ and adding in its place ‘‘8 continues to read as follows:
In the case of a professional O–1 athlete CFR 106.2’’. Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1435, 1443, 1448,
who is traded from one organization to 1101 note.
another organization, employment PART 319—SPECIAL CLASSES OF
authorization for the player will PERSONS WHO MAY BE § 324.2 [Amended]
automatically continue for a period of NATURALIZED: SPOUSES OF UNITED ■ 96. Section 324.2 is amended in
30 days after the acquisition by the new STATES CITIZENS paragraph (b) by removing ‘‘8 CFR
organization, within which time the 103.7(b)(1)’’ and adding in its place ‘‘8
new organization is expected to file a ■ 88. The authority citation for part 319
CFR 106.2’’.
new petition for O nonimmigrant continues to read as follows:
classification. If a new petition is not Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1430, 1443. PART 334—APPLICATION FOR
filed within 30 days, employment NATURALIZATION
authorization will cease. If a new § 319.11 [Amended]
petition is filed within 30 days, the ■ 89. Section 319.11 is amended in ■ 97. The authority citation for part 334
professional athlete’s employment paragraph (a) introductory text by continues to read as follows:
authorization will continue until the removing ‘‘8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)’’ and Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1443; 8 CFR part
petition is adjudicated. If the new adding in its place ‘‘8 CFR 106.2’’. 2.
§ 334.2 [Amended] PART 343a—NATURALIZATION AND and adding in its place ‘‘8 CFR 106.2’’
CITIZENSHIP PAPERS LOST, in the first sentence.
MUTILATED, OR DESTROYED; NEW
paragraph (a) by removing ‘‘8 CFR CERTIFICATE IN CHANGED NAME; PART 392—SPECIAL CLASSES OF
103.7(b)(1)’’ and adding in its place ‘‘8 CERTIFIED COPY OF REPATRIATION PERSONS WHO MAY BE
CFR 106.2’’. PROCEEDINGS NATURALIZED: PERSONS WHO DIE
WHILE SERVING ON ACTIVE DUTY
PART 341—CERTIFICATES OF ■ 102. The authority citation for part WITH THE UNITED STATES ARMED
CITIZENSHIP 343a continues to read as follows: FORCES DURING CERTAIN PERIODS
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101 note, 1103, 1435, OF HOSTILITIES
■ 99. The authority citation for part 341 1443, 1454, and 1455.
continues to read as follows:
§ 343a.1 [Amended] ■ 106. The authority citation for part
Authority: Pub. L. 82–414, 66 Stat. 173, 392 continues to read as follows:
238, 254, 264, as amended; 8 U.S.C. 1103, ■ 103. Section 343a.1 is amended in
paragraph (a) by removing ‘‘8 CFR Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1440 and note,
1409(c), 1443, 1444, 1448, 1452, 1455; 8 CFR
103.7(b)(1)’’ and adding in its place ‘‘8 and 1440–1; 8 CFR part 2.
part 2.
CFR part 106’’.
§ 392.4 [Amended]
§ 341.1 [Amended]
PART 343b—SPECIAL CERTIFICATE
■ 100. Section 341.1 is amended by OF NATURALIZATION FOR
paragraph (e) by removing ‘‘8 CFR
removing ‘‘8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)’’ and RECOGNITION BY A FOREIGN STATE
103.7(b)(1)’’ and adding in its place ‘‘8
adding in its place ‘‘8 CFR 106.2’’.
■ 104. The authority citation for part CFR 106.2’’.
§ 341.5 [Amended] 343b continues to read as follows:
Chad R. Mizelle,
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1443, 1454, 1455.
■ 101. Section 341.5 is amended in Senior Official Performing the Duties of the
paragraph (e) by removing ‘‘8 CFR § 343b.1 [Amended] General Counsel for DHS.
103.7’’ and adding in its place ‘‘8 CFR ■ 105. Section 343b.1 is amended by [FR Doc. 2020–16389 Filed 7–31–20; 8:45 am]
106.2’’. removing the term ‘‘8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)’’ BILLING CODE 9111–97–P

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 149 / Monday, August 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

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

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 149 / Monday, August 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

46788 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No.

149 / Monday, August 3, 2020 / Rules and Regulations

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Alien Investor Regulatory Review), and Executive Order

recipients of Special Immigrant Juvenile 3 As described in section 1059(a)(2) of the

fee may not represent the total change

TABLE 1—NON-STATUTORY IEFA IMMIGRATION BENEFIT REQUEST FEES

TABLE 1—NON-STATUTORY IEFA IMMIGRATION BENEFIT REQUEST FEES—Continued

N–336 Request for Hearing on a Decision in Naturalization Proceedings

13 84 FR 62287, 84 FR 67243. This final rule does

TABLE 2—REVISED IEFA NON-PREMIUM COST AND REVENUE PROJECTIONS COMPARISON

Non-Premium Revenue ............................................................................................. $3,408,233,376 $3,408,233,376 $3,408,233,376

Difference ........................................................................................................... ($923,744,743) ($1,148,153,087) ($1,035,948,915)

D. Final Rule supporting documents may be reviewed USCIS–2019–0010 in response to the

viewed 03/06/2020). received, 12,114 were posted to

accessible. tremendous economic and societal limited decreases in the number of

Rule • The rule cites to INA section 286(m)

1255(l)(7). reduction in the number of cases served.

43 See 5 U.S.C. 552.

waivers. DHS declines to make changes

Is subject to the affidavit of support

burdensome, intended to discourage

the U.S. armed forces and who is petitioning for a

TABLE 4—FILING FEE EXEMPTIONS 67—Continued

for Abused Non-

TABLE 4—FILING FEE EXEMPTIONS 67—Continued

employment authorization will increase moving to electronic process, including

TABLE 5—FEES FOR ONLINE FILING

Employment Authorization, page 23 (stating,

fees for Forms G–1041 and G–1041A to

asylum applicants and other immigrants, which

recover full cost would have exceeded

processing time associated with Form I–

adjudicating previously received tension with congressional intent. A

90 The longstanding interpretation of DHS is that

Fees by Immigration Benefit Request of the

documentation to be eligible to work if

fees would be lower in recognition of

requirement of 20,820 in this final rule

TABLE 6—REVISED COST BASELINE PROJECTIONS

Total Base FY 2018 IEFA Non-Premium Budget ............................................................................................................................... $3,585.6

Total Adjusted FY 2018 IEFA Non-Premium Budget .................................................................................................................. 3,802.8

Total Adjusted FY 2019 IEFA Non-Premium Budget .................................................................................................................. 4,332.0

Total Adjusted FY 2020 IEFA Non-Premium Budget .................................................................................................................. 4,556.4

Projections section of the supporting

out of their control.

decision. Nonetheless, while this final

as the commenters have indicated, DHS

applications was necessary to yield

the agency’s operations are conducted

130 Government Accountability Office (GAO), available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-

support under INA section 213A, 8 U.S.C • None. Qualitative:

consistent with the validity of FBI biometric

Annualized quantified, but un-monetized, costs ................................................. N/A

petitioner applying for a particular immigration benefit.

Miscellaneous analyses/category Effects.

Effects on state, local, and/or tribal governments None. Preamble.

Effects on wages ................................................................................................. None. None.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act rulemaking at http:// have a significant economic impact on

populations of less than 50,000.133 A substantial number of small entities.

businesses, small not for profits, and

and Quality. 0.35 percent and the smallest totaled

100 = .06 percent. of this analysis. 2008) (final rule).

Form I–129H1—Named Beneficiaries ............................................................. $460 $555 $95 $21