[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 149 (Monday, August 3, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46788-46929]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-16389]



[[Page 46787]]

Vol. 85

Monday,

No. 149

August 3, 2020

Part II





 Department of Homeland Security





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





8 CFR Parts 103, 106, 204, et al.





U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Fee Schedule and Changes to 
Certain Other Immigration Benefit Request Requirements; Final Rule

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

[[Page 46788]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

8 CFR Parts 103, 106, 204, 211, 212, 214, 216, 217, 223, 235, 236, 
240, 244, 245, 245a, 248, 264, 274a, 286, 301, 319, 320, 322, 324, 
334, 341, 343a, 343b, and 392

[CIS No. 2627-18; DHS Docket No. USCIS-2019-0010]
RIN 1615-AC18


U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Fee Schedule and 
Changes to Certain Other Immigration Benefit Request Requirements

AGENCY: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This final rule adjusts certain immigration and naturalization 
benefit request fees charged by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS). It also removes certain fee exemptions, changes fee 
waiver requirements, alters premium processing time limits, and 
modifies intercountry adoption processing. USCIS conducted a 
comprehensive biennial fee review and determined that current fees do 
not recover the full cost of providing adjudication and naturalization 
services. Therefore, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is 
adjusting USCIS fees by a weighted average increase of 20 percent, 
adding new fees for certain immigration benefit requests, establishing 
multiple fees for nonimmigrant worker petitions, and limiting the 
number of beneficiaries for certain forms. This final rule is intended 
to ensure that USCIS has the resources it needs to provide adequate 
service to applicants and petitioners.

DATES: This final rule is effective October 2, 2020. Any application, 
petition, or request postmarked on or after this date must be 
accompanied with the fees established by this final rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kika Scott, Chief Financial Officer, 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland 
Security, 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20529-2130, 
telephone (202) 272-8377.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Executive Summary
    A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
    B. Legal Authority
    C. Summary of the Final Rule Provisions
    D. Summary of Costs and Benefits
    E. Effect on the Department of Justice's Executive Office for 
Immigration Review (EOIR)
    F. Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the USCIS Fee Review and 
Rulemaking
II. Background
    A. History
    B. Authority and Guidance
    C. Basis for Fee Adjustments
    D. Final Rule
III. Response to Public Comments on the Proposed Rule
    A. Summary of Public Comments
    B. Comments Expressing General Support for the NPRM
    C. Comments Expressing General Opposition to the NPRM
     1. Immigration Policy Concerns
     2. Other General Opposition
     3. Proposed Fees Are Unconstitutional
     4. Rule Will Have Negative Effects on Applicants
     5. Rule Will Have Negative Effects on the Economy and Employers
     6. Comments on the DACA Renewal Fee
    D. Comments on Legal Adequacy of the Rule
    E. Comments on Fee Waivers
     1. Limits on Eligible Immigration Categories and Forms
     2. Fee Waiver Income Requirements
     3. Means-Tested Benefits
     4. Public Charge Rule
     5. Financial Hardship
     6. Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility and Affidavit of 
Support Requirements
     7. Discretionary Fee Waivers
     8. Fee Waiver Documentation
     9. Cost of Fee Waivers
     10. Changes to Form I-912, Request for Fee Waiver
     11. Suggestions
    F. Comments on Fee Exemptions
     1. EAD (Form I-765) Exemption
     2. TPS
    G. Comments on Specific Fees
     1. Fees for Online Filing
     2. Biometric Services Fee
     3. Genealogy Fees, Forms G-1041, Genealogy Index Search 
Request, and G-1041A, Genealogy Records Request
     4. Form I-90, Application To Replace Permanent Resident Card
     5. Form I-131, Application for Travel Document, Refugee Travel 
Documents
     6. Form I-131A, Application for Travel Document (Carrier 
Documentation)
     7. Form I-192, Application for Advance Permission To Enter as a 
Nonimmigrant
     8. Form I-193, Application for Waiver of Passport and/or Visa
     9. Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion
     10. Form I-360, Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special 
Immigrant
     11. Form I-485, Application To Register Permanent Residence or 
Adjust Status
     12. Form I-526, Immigrant Petition by Alien Investor
     13. Form I-589, Application for Asylum and Withholding of 
Removal Fee
     14. Form I-600A/I-600 Supplement 3, Request for Action on 
Approved Form I-600A/I-600
     15. Form I-601A, Application for Provisional Unlawful Presence 
Waiver
     16. Form I-751, Petition To Remove Conditions on Residence
     17. Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization
     18. Form I-817, Application for Family Unity Benefits
     19. Form I-821D, DACA Renewal Fee
     20. Form I-829, Petition by Investor To Remove Conditions on 
Permanent Resident Status
     21. Form I-881, Application for Suspension of Deportation or 
Special Rule Cancellation of Removal (Pursuant to Section 203 of 
Public Law 105-100 (NACARA))
     22. Forms I-924, Application for Regional Center Designation 
Under the Immigrant Investor Program, and I-924A, Annual 
Certification of Regional Center
     23. Form I-929, Petition for Qualifying Family Member of a U-1 
Nonimmigrant
     24. Form N-400, Application for Naturalization
     25. Other Naturalization and Citizenship Forms
    H. Comments on Changes to Form I-129, Petition for a 
Nonimmigrant Worker
    I. Premium Processing
    J. 9-11 Response and Biometric Entry-Exit Fee for H-1B and L-1 
Nonimmigrant Workers (Pub. L. 114-113 Fees)
    K. Comments on Other General Feedback
    L. Cost Analysis and DHS Rationale for Fee Adjustments
     1. Workload Projections
     2. Completion Rates
     3. USCIS Staffing
     4. Cost Baseline
     5. Alternative Funding Sources
    M. ICE Transfer
    N. Processing Times and Backlogs
    O. Fee Payment and Receipt Requirements
    P. Fees Shared by CBP and USCIS
    Q. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Comment Responses
    R. Statutory and Regulatory Responses
     1. General Comments on the Regulatory Impact Analysis
     2. Methodology Issues
     3. Other Comments on the Cost-Benefit Analysis
     4. Impacts on Lower-Income Individuals and Families
     5. Impacts on Immigrant Populations in Distinct Geographic 
Areas
     6. Immigrants' Access to Legal and Supportive Services
     7. Impacts on Students From Low Income Families
     8. Impacts on Victimized Groups and Other Vulnerable 
Populations
     9. Impacts to Industries That Use H-2A Workers
     10. Effects on Other Federal Agencies
IV. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), 
Executive Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), 
and Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs)
    B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
     1. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA)
    a. A Statement of Need for, and Objectives of, the Rule

[[Page 46789]]

    b. A statement of the Significant Issues Raised by the Public 
Comments in Respone to the Initail Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, 
a Statement of the Assessment of the Agency of Such Issues, and a 
Statement of Any Changes Made in the Proposed Rule as a Result of 
Such Comments
    c. The Response of the Agency to any Comments Filed by the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in 
Response to the Rule, and a Detailed Statement of Any Change Made to 
the Final Rule as a Result of the Comments
    d. A Description of and an Estimate of the Number of Small 
Entities to Which the Rule Will Apply or an Explanation of Why No 
Such Estimate is Available
    e. A Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and 
Other Compliance Requirements of the Rule, Including an Estimate of 
the Classes of Small Entities That Will be Subject to the 
Requirement and the Type of Professional Skills Necessary for 
Preparation of the Report or Record
    f. Description of the Steps the Agency Has Taken To Minimize the 
Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities Consistent With the 
Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes, Including a Statement of 
Factual, Policy, and Legal Reasons for Selecting the Alternative 
Adopted in the Final Rule and Why Each One of the Other Significant 
Alternatives to the Rule Considered by the Agency Which Affect the 
Impact on Small Entities was Rejected
    C. Congressional Review Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
    F. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)
    G. Executive Order 13175 Consultation and Coordination With 
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Family Assessment
    I. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
    J. Paperwork Reduction Act
    K. Signature

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

ABC Activity-Based Costing
the Act Homeland Security Act of 2002
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
AOP Annual Operating Plan
APA Administrative Procedure Act
ASVVP Administrative Site Visit and Verification Program
ASC Application Support Center
BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics
CAA Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966
CAT Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading 
Treatment or Punishment
CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
CFO Chief Financial Officer
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CNMI Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands
CUNY City University of New York
DACA Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOJ Department of Justice
DOL Department of Labor
DOS Department of State
EAD Employment Authorization Document
EB-5 Employment-Based Immigrant Visa, Fifth Preference
EIN Employer Identification Number
E.O. Executive Order
EOIR Executive Office for Immigration Review
FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation
FDMS Federal Docket Management System
FOIA Freedom of Information Act
FPG Federal Poverty Guidelines
FR Federal Register
FRFA Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
FVRA Federal Vacancies Reform Act
FY Fiscal Year
GAO Government Accountability Office
GDP Gross Domestic Product
ICE U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
IEFA Immigration Examinations Fee Account
IIRIRA Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
INA Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952
INS Immigration and Naturalization Service
IRS Internal Revenue Service
ISAF International Security Assistance Forces
IT information technology
LCA Labor Condition Application
LGBTQ Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning
IOAA Independent Offices Appropriations Act
LIFO Last In, First Out
LPR Lawful Permanent Resident
MOAs Memoranda of Agreement
MPP Migrant Protection Protocols
NACARA Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NARA National Archives and Records Administration
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NOID Notice of Intent to Deny
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
NRC National Record Center
OIG DHS Office of the Inspector General
OIRA Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PA Privacy Act
PII Personally Identifiable Information
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
PRC Permanent Resident Card
Privacy Act Privacy Act of 1974
Pub. L. Public Law
RFE Request for Evidence
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
SAVE Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements
SBA Small Business Administration
SCRD Signature Confirmation Restricted Delivery
Secretary The Secretary of Homeland Security
SIJ Special Immigrant Juvenile
SNAP Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
SSI Supplemental Security Income
Stat. U.S. Statutes at Large
STEM Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
TPS Temporary Protected Status
TVPA Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000
TVPRA The William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection 
Reauthorization Act of 2008
UAC Unaccompanied Alien Child
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
U.S.C. United States Code
USCIS U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
VAWA Violence Against Women Act
VPC Volume Projection Committee

I. Executive Summary

A. Purpose of the Regulatory Action

    This final rule adjusts certain immigration and naturalization 
benefit request fees charged by USCIS. It also makes changes related to 
setting, collecting, and administering fees. Fee schedule adjustments 
are necessary to recover the full operating costs associated with 
administering the nation's lawful immigration system and safeguarding 
its integrity and promise by efficiently and fairly adjudicating 
requests for immigration benefit, while protecting Americans, securing 
the homeland, and honoring our values. This final rule also makes 
certain adjustments to fee waiver eligibility, filing requirements for 
nonimmigrant workers, premium processing service, and other 
administrative requirements.

B. Legal Authority

    DHS's authority is in several statutory provisions. Section 102 of 
the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (the Act),\1\ 6 U.S.C. 112, and the 
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA) section 103, 8 U.S.C. 
1103, charge the Secretary with the administration and enforcement of 
the immigration and naturalization laws of the United States. Further, 
authority for establishing fees is found in INA section 286(m), 8 
U.S.C. 1356(m) (authorizing DHS to charge fees for adjudication and 
naturalization services at a level to ``ensure recovery of the full 
costs of providing all such services, including the costs of similar 
services provided without charge to asylum applicants and other 
immigrants'').\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Public Law 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, 2142-44 (Nov. 25, 2002).
    \2\ The longstanding interpretation of DHS is that the 
``including'' clause in INA section 286(m) does not constrain DHS's 
fee authority under the statute. The ``including'' clause offers 
only a non-exhaustive list of some of the costs that DHS may 
consider part of the full costs of providing adjudication and 
naturalization services. See INA section 286(m), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m); 
84 FR 23930, 23932 n.1 (May 23, 2019); 81 FR 26903, 26906 n.10 (May 
4, 2016).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 46790]]

C. Summary of the Final Rule Provisions

    DHS carefully considered the public comments received. This final 
rule adopts, with appropriate changes, the regulatory text proposed in 
the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published in the Federal 
Register on November 14, 2019. See U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services Fee Schedule and Changes to Certain Other Immigration Benefit 
Request Requirements; Proposed rule, 84 FR 62280. This final rule also 
relies on all the justifications articulated in the NPRM, except as 
reflected below.
    This final rule makes the following changes as compared to the 
NPRM:
     Does not provide for the transfer of Immigration 
Examinations Fee Account (IEFA) funds collected by USCIS to U.S. 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). 84 FR 62287; ``U.S. 
Citizenship and Immigration Services Fee Schedule and Changes to 
Certain Other Immigration Benefit Request Requirements,'' Proposed 
Rule; Extension of Comment Period; Availability of Supplemental 
Information, 84 FR 67243 (Dec. 9, 2019).
     Removes the proposed fee ($275) for Form I-821D, 
Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, filed for 
renewal of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). 84 FR 62320, 
62362; proposed and new 8 CFR 106.2(a)(38).
     Reassigns National Record Center (NRC) costs that do not 
directly apply to the genealogy program, thereby setting genealogy fees 
lower than proposed. 84 FR 62315, 62316, 62362; proposed 8 CFR 
106.2(c)(1) and (2); new 8 CFR 106.2(c)(1) and (2).
     Realigns $10 million of anticipated IEFA costs for the 
Office of Citizenship to account for citizenship grants appropriations 
received via the FY 2019--2020 DHS appropriation bills. See 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019, Public Law 116-6, div. A, tit. 
IV (Feb. 15, 2019) and Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, Public 
Law 116-93, div. D, tit. IV (Dec. 20, 2019).
     Provides a $50 reduction in the fee for Form I-485, 
Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, filed in 
the future for principal applicants who pay the $50 fee for Form I-589 
and are subsequently granted asylum. New 8 CFR 106.2(a)(17)(ii).
     Provides that petitioners for and recipients of Special 
Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) classification who, at the time of filing, 
have been placed in out-of-home care under the supervision of a 
juvenile court or a state child welfare agency, may submit requests for 
fee waivers for Form I-485 and associated forms; and explains the 
documentation requirement for SIJs. New 8 CFR 106.3(a)(2)(i) and 
(a)(3).
     Provides that an Afghan or Iraqi Interpreter, an Iraqi 
National employed by or on behalf of the U.S. Government, or an Afghan 
National employed by the U.S. Government or the International Security 
Assistance Forces (ISAF) may submit requests for fee waivers for Form 
I-485 and associated forms.\3\ New 8 CFR 106.3(a)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As described in section 1059(a)(2) of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 Public Law 109-163 (Jan. 6, 
2006) as amended; section 602(b) of the Afghan Allies Protection Act 
of 2009, Public Law 111-8, title VI (Mar. 11, 2009), as amended, 8 
U.S.C. 1101 note; and section 1244(g) of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, as amended Public Law 110-
181 (Jan. 28, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Provides that requestors who meet the requirements of INA 
section 245(l)(7), 8 U.S.C. 1255(l)(7) may also request a fee waiver 
for the Forms N-400, N-600, and N-600K. New 8 CFR 106.3(a)(3).
     Also provides that SIJs who are placed in out-of-home care 
under the supervision of a juvenile court or a state child welfare 
agency and Afghan or Iraqi Interpreter, or Iraqi National employed by 
or on behalf of the U.S. Government or Afghan National employed by the 
U.S. Government or ISAF may submit requests for fee waivers for Forms 
N-400, N-600, and N-600K. New 8 CFR 106.3(a)(2)(i) and (a)(3).
     Clarifies that the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) self-
petitioner classification includes individuals who meet the 
requirements of INA section 101(a)(51) and anyone otherwise self-
petitioning due to battery or extreme cruelty pursuant to the 
procedures in INA section 204(a) See new 8 CFR 106.3(a)(1)(i).
     Consolidates the Director's discretionary provision on fee 
waivers to remove redundancy. See proposed 8 CFR 106.3(b) and (c); 84 
FR 62363 (containing the text that is being consolidated). New 8 CFR 
106.3(b).
     Moves proposed 8 CFR 106.3(d)(1) and (d)(2) (not 
permitting a fee waiver for a requestor who is subject to the affidavit 
of support, already a sponsored immigrant, or subject to the public 
charge inadmissibility ground) to 8 CFR 106.3(b)(1) and (b)(2) 
(governing waivers provided by the USCIS Director), because an 
affidavit of support and the public charge inadmissibility ground are 
not applicable to applicants who are otherwise eligible for fee waivers 
in this rule). New 8 CFR 106.3(b).
     Clarifies the fee waiver request documentation 
requirements for VAWA, T, and U requestors who may not have access to 
documentation of household income. New 8 CFR 106.3(f)(5).
     Provides that the fee for forms currently available for 
online filing with USCIS and filed online will be $10 lower than the 
fee for the same paper forms. New 8 CFR 106.2(d).
     Requires a separate $30 biometric services fee for Form I-
765 filed by pending asylum applicants and applicants for status as a 
long-term resident from the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
Islands (CNMI). New 8 CFR 106.2(a)(32)(i).
     Separates fee exemptions for Form I-765 for renewal or 
replacement of an Employment Authorization Document and clarifies the 
provisions related to VAWA self-petitioners who are eligible for a fee 
exemption. New 8 CFR 106.2(a)(32).
     Incorporates a $10 fee for the registration requirement 
for petitioners seeking to file H-1B petitions on behalf of cap-subject 
aliens. See old 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(NNN), 84 FR 60307 (Nov. 8, 2019); 
new 8 CFR 106.2(c)(11). The final regulation at 8 CFR 103.2(a)(1) also 
clarifies that all USCIS fees are generally non-refundable, regardless 
of whether they apply to a benefit request, another adjudication and 
naturalization service, or other requests such as H-1B Registration, 
DACA, Civil Surgeon Designation, and Genealogy requests.
     Updates 8 CFR 244.6(b) to clarify the Temporary Protected 
Status (TPS) related fee provisions in accordance with the NPRM. See 84 
FR 62301 (stating that the rule proposed to remove the Form I-765 fee 
exemption for Temporary Protected Status if the individual is filing an 
initial TPS application and is under 14 years of age or over 65 years 
of age).
     DHS will maintain the DACA policy fees as in effect before 
September 5, 2017, at $410 for employment authorization and $85 for 
biometric services. New 8 CFR 106.2(a)(32)(vi).
     Makes other minor non-substantive and clarifying changes.
    DHS summarizes the final fees in Table 1. The table excludes fees 
established and required by statute and those that DHS cannot adjust. 
The table only calculates the change in the current fee. If an 
applicant, petitioner, or requestor must file additional forms as a 
result of policy changes in this rule, then the individual changes to a 
single

[[Page 46791]]

fee may not represent the total change in fees for every circumstance.

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

[[Page 46792]]

 
N-336 Request for Hearing on a Decision in                   700           1,735           1,035             148
 Naturalization Proceedings (paper filing)......
N-400 Application for Naturalization (online                 640           1,160             520              81
 filing)........................................
N-400 Application for Naturalization (paper                  640           1,170             530              83
 filing)\8\.....................................             320           1,170             850             226
N-470 Application to Preserve Residence for                  355           1,585           1,230             346
 Naturalization Purposes........................
N-565 Application for Replacement Naturalization/            555             535             -20              -4
 Citizenship Document (online filing)...........
N-565 Application for Replacement Naturalization/            555             545             -10              -2
 Citizenship Document (paper filing)............
N-600 Application for Certificate of Citizenship           1,170             990            -180             -15
 (online filing)................................
N-600 Application for Certificate of Citizenship           1,170           1,000            -170             -15
 (paper filing).................................
N-600K Application for Citizenship and Issuance            1,170             935            -235             -20
 of Certificate (online filing).................
N-600K Application for Citizenship and Issuance            1,170             945            -225             -19
 of Certificate (paper filing)..................
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                 65             160              95             146
 filing)........................................
G-1041 Genealogy Index Search Request (paper                  65             170             105             162
 filing)........................................
G-1041A Genealogy Records Request (online                     65             255             190             292
 filing)........................................
G-1041A Genealogy Records Request (paper filing)              65             265             200             308
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Because the FY 2016/2017 fee review and resulting fee change 
were based on USCIS's costs for processing inadmissibility waivers 
and not CBP's costs, the Form I-192 fee remained $585 when filed 
with and processed by CBP. See 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(P); 81 FR 73307.
    \5\ Currently, there are two fees for Form I-485. See 8 CFR 
103.7(b)(1)(i)(U). The $750 fee is applied to ``an applicant under 
the age of 14 years when [the application] is (i) submitted 
concurrently with the Form I-485 of a parent, (ii) the applicant is 
seeking to adjust status as a derivative of his or her parent, and 
(iii) the child's application is based on a relationship to the same 
individual who is the basis for the child's parent's adjustment of 
status, or under the same legal authority as the parent.'' See 84 FR 
62305. With this rule, DHS removes the reduced child fee. See 
section III.G.11.b. Form I-485 Child Fee. Additionally, DHS adds a 
$1,080 fee for certain asylum applicants. See section III.G.11.c. 
Form I-485 Reduced Fee for Asylees and new 8 CFR 106.2(a)(17)(ii).
    \6\ DHS will maintain the DACA fees at $410 for employment 
authorization and $85 for biometric services. See section III.C.6. 
Comments on DACA Renewal Fee of this preamble; new 8 CFR 
106.2(a)(32)(vi).
    \7\ Currently there are two USCISs fees for Form I-881: $285 for 
individuals and $570 for families. See 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(QQ)(1). 
EOIR has a separate $165 fee. DHS does not change the EOIR fee with 
this rule.
    \8\ Currently, there are two fees for paper filing of Form N-
400. See 8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(BBB). This final rule eliminates the 
reduced fee option for an applicant whose documented income is 
greater than 150 percent and not more than 200 percent of the 
Federal poverty level. See section III.G.24.c of this final rule or 
84 FR 62317 for the proposed rule.
    \9\ As explained in this preamble and NPRM, this rule only 
requires the separate biometric services fee in certain cases. See 
section III.G.2. Biometric Services Fee of this preamble; 84 FR 
62302; new 8 CFR 103.7(a)(2), 106.2(a)(32)(i), and 
106.2(a)(37)(iii).
    \10\ See footnote 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Summary of Costs and Benefits

    Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess 
the costs and benefits of available alternatives, and if regulation is 
necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits 
(including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety 
effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the 
importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, 
of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rulemaking has 
been designated an ``economically significant regulatory action'' under 
section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, it has been reviewed by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). E.O. 13771 directs agencies to 
reduce regulation and control regulatory costs. Because the estimated 
impacts range from costs to cost savings, this final rule is considered 
neither regulatory or deregulatory under E.O. 13771. Details on the 
estimated impacts of this final rule can be found in the rule's 
economic analysis, section 2.
    This final rule adjusts certain immigration and naturalization 
benefit request fees charged by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS). It also removes certain fee exemptions, changes fee 
waiver requirements,\11\ alters premium processing time limits, and 
modifies intercountry adoption processing. This final rule removes the 
proposed fee that was introduced in the NPRM of this rule for Form I-
821D; \12\ it does not provide for the proposed transfer of any 
Immigration Examination Fee Account (IEFA) funds collected by USCIS to 
ICE; \13\ it reassigns the proposed National Record Center (NRC) costs 
that do not directly apply to the genealogy program, thereby setting 
genealogy fees lower than proposed; \14\ and it now allows for a $10 
reduction in filing fee for applicants who file online for forms that 
are electronically available by USCIS rather than submit paper 
applications.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Also, in this final rule DHS Consolidates the Director's 
discretionary provision on fee waivers to remove redundancy. 84 FR 
62363. Proposed and new 8 CFR 106.3.
    \12\ 84 FR 62320, 62362; proposed and new 8 CFR 106.2(a)(2)(38).
    \13\ 84 FR 62287, 84 FR 67243. This final rule does not transfer 
funds to ICE. Therefore, DHS removes $207.6 million for ICE from its 
cost baseline, resulting in lower fees than if DHS pursued the 
transfer of funds.
    \14\ 84 FR 62315, 62316, 62362; proposed and new 8 CFR 
106.2(c)(1)-(c)(2); new 8 CFR 106.2(c)(1)-(c)(2).
    \15\ New 8 CFR 106.2(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The fee schedule that went into effect on December 23, 2016 was 
expected to yield approximately $3.4 billion of average annual revenue 
during the FY 2019/2020 biennial period. This represents a $0.9 
billion, or 36 percent, increase from the FY 2016/2017 fee rule 
projection of $2.5 billion. See 81 FR 26911. The projected revenue 
increase is due to higher fees as a result of the FY 2016/2017 fee rule 
and more anticipated fee-paying receipts. The FY 2016/2017 fee rule 
forecasted approximately 5.9 million total workload receipts and 4.9 
million fee-paying receipts, excluding biometric services. See 81 FR 
26923-4. However, the FY 2019/2020 fee review forecasts approximately 
8.5 million total workload receipts and 7.0 million fee-paying 
receipts, excluding biometric

[[Page 46793]]

services. This represents a 44 percent increase to workload and a 43 
percent increase to fee-paying receipt assumptions.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See FY 2019/2020 Immigration Examinations Fee Account Fee 
Review Supporting Documentation with Addendum, which is part of the 
docket for this final rule. DHS revised the volumes to exclude DACA 
and change fee-paying assumptions for Forms N-400, N-600, and N-
600K, as discussed later in this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the 10-year implementation period of the rule, DHS estimates 
the annualized costs of the rule to be $13,856,291, annualized at 
either 3- and 7-percent discount rates. DHS estimates the annualized 
cost savings to be $6,192,201 to $22,546,053. DHS estimates the 
annualized net societal costs and savings of the rule to range from 
costs of $7,664,090 to savings of $8,689,762. Over the 10-year 
implementation period of the rule, DHS estimates the annualized 
transfers to the government from applicants/petitioners to be 
$551,842,481, annualized at either 3- and 7-percent discount rates. 
Over the same 10-year implementation period of the rule, DHS estimates 
the annualized transfers of the rule between different groups of fee-
paying applicants and/or petitioners to specific form populations is 
$832,239,426, annualized at either 3- and 7-percent discount rates.
    The final revenue increase is based on USCIS costs and volume 
projections available at the time of the USCIS fee review. A full 
analysis of these regulatory provisions and their impacts can be found 
in the stand-alone Regulatory Impact Analysis found in the docket of 
this rulemaking and in the statutory and regulatory requirements 
section of this preamble.

E. Effect on the Department of Justice's Executive Office for 
Immigration Review (EOIR)

    DHS notes possible ancillary effects of this final rule on the fees 
charged by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). In the 
NPRM, DHS proposed a fee for a Form I-589 filed with DHS only. Whether 
the fee also will apply to a Form I-589 filed with EOIR is a matter 
within the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice (DOJ) rather than 
DHS, subject to the laws and regulations governing the fees charged in 
EOIR immigration proceedings. 84 FR 62318. DHS does not directly set 
any fees for DOJ. DHS did not collaborate with DOJ to calculate or 
incorporate the costs for DOJ adjudication and naturalization services 
into the USCIS Activity-Based Costing (ABC) model used for this final 
rule. After the NPRM was published, DOJ published a rule that proposed 
to increase the fees for those EOIR applications, appeals, and motions 
that are subject to an EOIR-determined fee, based on a fee review 
conducted by EOIR. 85 FR 11866 (Feb. 28, 2020). EOIR also stated that 
its proposed rule would not affect the fees that have been established 
by DHS with respect to DHS forms for applications that are filed or 
submitted in EOIR proceedings. Id. at 11871. DOJ did not propose any 
revisions to 8 CFR 1103.7(b)(4)(ii) in its rule that would change its 
longstanding use of DHS forms and fees. Rather, EOIR proposed to revise 
its regulations to make changes conforming to the DHS NPRM, namely the 
transfer of DHS's fee schedule from 8 CFR 103.7 to the new 8 CFR part 
106. Id. Consequently, in immigration court proceedings, EOIR will 
continue to charge fees established by DHS for DHS forms, including the 
fees that DHS is establishing in this final rule, which include but are 
not limited to the fees for Form I-485, Application to Register 
Permanent Residence or Adjust Status; Form I-589, Application for 
Asylum and Withholding of Removal Fee; \17\ and Form I-601, Application 
for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ No fee would apply where an applicant submits a Form I-589 
for the sole purpose of seeking withholding of removal under INA 
section 241(b)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3), or protection from removal 
under the regulations implementing U.S. obligations under Article 3 
of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or 
Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT). See 85 FR 11871.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

F. Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on the USCIS Fee Review and 
Rulemaking

    DHS acknowledges the broad effects of the COVID-19 international 
pandemic on the United States broadly and the populations affected by 
this rule. USCIS has seen a dramatic decline in applications and 
petitions during the COVID-19 pandemic which has also resulted in an 
unprecedented decline in revenue. DHS has no comparable historical data 
that can be used to project the scope, duration, and total effect this 
will have on USCIS' revenue. As a result, USCIS is monitoring its 
revenue collections daily. In April 2020, USCIS projected that USCIS' 
non-premium revenue for April 2020 through September 2020 would fall 
approximately 59 percent below USCIS' initial FY 2020 annual operating 
plan revenue projection based on the dramatic reduction in fees 
received during the pandemic. The projections show that USCIS would 
receive $1.1 billion less in non-premium revenue in the second half of 
the fiscal year than previously forecast.\18\ USCIS cannot absorb that 
large of a revenue loss and have enough funding to sustain operations 
at the same level as prior to the pandemic. Therefore, DHS has provided 
technical assistance identifying for Congress USCIS funding needs to 
help cover payroll and other fixed costs in FY 2020 ($571 million) and 
to have enough carryover ($650 million) available during the first 
quarter of FY 2021 to continue operations while new fees continue to be 
collected. The additional revenue provided by this rule addresses the 
difference between the costs of USCIS operations and USCIS revenue for 
the biennial period as projected at the time of the USCIS fee review. 
The amount of funding identified in DHS's technical assistance to 
Congress would restore USCIS' financial situation to its pre-rule 
status and would not obviate the need for DHS to adjust USCIS' fees to 
address the projected disparity between costs and revenue identified in 
this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ In April 2020, USCIS revised its internal annual operating 
plan revenue projections based on observed receipt patterns for each 
form during the pandemic. The annual operating plan revenue 
projections are not the same as the fee rule revenue projections, 
and revisions to them do not adjust the results of the USCIS fee 
review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS makes no changes in this rule in response to the pandemic. 
USCIS considers all available data at the time it conducts its fee 
review. USCIS conducted most of the FY 2019/2020 fee review in FY 2017, 
before the emergence of the pandemic. At that time, USCIS did not 
foresee, and could not reasonably have foreseen, the effects of such a 
pandemic on USCIS receipt, revenue, or cost projections during the FY 
2019/2020 biennial period, and we cannot project the effects at this 
time. The projections in this rule were based on conventional 
conditions, and with no way of knowing or being able to predict the 
long-term effects of COVID-19 at this point, DHS must assume that 
filing volumes will return to near previous levels within a reasonable 
period. Thus, DHS proceeds with this rulemaking on the basis of the FY 
2019/2020 USCIS fee review and associated projections. Consistent with 
past practice and as required by the CFO Act, USCIS will evaluate all 
available data at the time it conducts future fee reviews, including 
data related to the COVID-19 pandemic and any potential effects on 
USCIS workload volumes, revenue, or costs. DHS will consider these 
effects in future fee rules.

II. Background

A. History

    On November 14, 2019, DHS published a proposed rule in the Federal 
Register (docket USCIS-2019-

[[Page 46794]]

0010). See 84 FR 62280. In consideration of requests to extend the 
comment period and to provide additional time for the public to review 
supplemental information, on December 9, 2019, DHS published a proposed 
rule; extension of comment period; availability of supplemental 
information; and extended the comment deadline from December 16, 2019 
through December 30, 2019. 84 FR 67243 (Dec. 9, 2019). Then on January 
24, 2020, DHS further extended the comment period until February 10, 
2020. See 85 FR 4243 (Jan. 24, 2020). In addition, DHS announced that 
it would consider comments received during the entire public comment 
period, including comments received since December 30, 2019. Id. In 
this final rule, DHS will refer to these three documents collectively 
as the proposed rule or NPRM.

B. Authority and Guidance

    DHS issues this final rule consistent with INA section 286(m), 8 
U.S.C. 1356(m) and the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act, 31 U.S.C. 
901-03 (requiring each agency's CFO to review, on a biennial basis, the 
fees imposed by the agency for services it provides and to recommend 
changes to the agency's fees).
    This final rule is also consistent with non-statutory guidance on 
fees, the budget process, and federal accounting principles. See OMB 
Circular A-25, 58 FR 38142 (July 15, 1993) (establishing federal policy 
guidance regarding fees assessed by federal agencies for government 
services); \19\ Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board Handbook, 
Version 17 (06/19), Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards 
4: Managerial Cost Accounting Standards and Concepts, SFFAS 4 
(generally describing cost accounting concepts and standards, and 
defining ``full cost'' to mean the sum of direct and indirect costs 
that contribute to the output, including the costs of supporting 
services provided by other segments and entities.); id. at 49-66 
(identifying various classifications of costs to be included and 
recommending various methods of cost assignment); \20\ see also OMB 
Circular A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget, 
section 20.7(d), (g) (June 29, 2018) (providing guidance on the FY 2020 
budget and instructions on budget execution, offsetting collections, 
and user fees).\21\ DHS uses OMB Circular A-25 as general policy 
guidance for determining user fees for immigration benefit requests, 
with exceptions as outlined in section III.B. of the preamble. DHS also 
follows the annual guidance in OMB Circular A-11 if it requests 
appropriations to offset a portion of IEFA costs.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Circular-025.pdf (last viewed 03/06/2020).
    \20\ Available at http://files.fasab.gov/pdffiles/handbook_sffas_4.pdf (last viewed 03/06/2020).
    \21\ Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/a11_2018.pdf (last viewed 03/06/2020).
    \22\ OMB Circulars A-25 and A-11 provide nonbinding internal 
Executive Branch direction for the development of fee schedules 
under the Independent Offices Appropriations Act (IOAA) and 
appropriations requests, respectively. See 5 CFR 1310.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, this final rule accounts for, and is consistent with, 
congressional appropriations for specific USCIS programs. See 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019, Public Law 116-6, div. A, tit. 
IV (Feb. 15, 2019) and Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, Public 
Law 116-93, div. D, tit. IV (Dec. 20, 2019).

C. Basis for Fee Adjustments

    DHS conducted a comprehensive fee review for the FY 2019/FY 2020 
biennial period. It identified a projected average annual cost and 
revenue differential of $1,262.3 million between the revenue 
anticipated under current fees and the anticipated full cost of 
providing immigration adjudication and naturalization services. DHS 
revises the estimated cost and revenue differential to $1,035.9 million 
in this final rule. In the final rule, DHS has removed $226.4 million 
of average annual estimated costs related to the immigration 
adjudication and naturalization services provided by ICE and the 
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (DACA) policy from the budget 
projection used to calculate the fees in the NPRM. DHS issues this 
final rule to adjust USCIS' fee schedule to recover the full cost of 
providing immigration adjudication and naturalization services.

                    Table 2--Revised IEFA Non-Premium Cost and Revenue Projections Comparison
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            IEFA Non-Premium Cost and Revenue Projections Comparison
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  FY 2019/2020
                       Comparison                             FY 2019            FY 2020            average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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

    Following careful consideration of public comments received, DHS 
made modifications to the NPRM's regulatory text, as described above. 
Rationale provided in the background section of the NPRM remains valid, 
except as described in this regulatory preamble. Section III of this 
preamble includes a detailed summary and analysis of the public 
comments. Comments and supporting documents may be reviewed at the 
Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at http://www.regulations.gov, 
docket number USCIS-2019-0010.

III. Response to Public Comments on the Proposed Rule

A. Summary of Public Comments

    DHS received a total of 43,108 public comment submissions in Docket 
USCIS-2019-0010 in response to the NPRM.\23\ DHS reviewed all the 
public comments received in response to the NPRM and addresses relevant 
comments in this final rule, grouped by subject area. The majority of 
comment submissions were from individual and anonymous commenters. 
Other commenters included healthcare providers; research institutes and 
universities; law firms and individual attorneys; federal, state, 
local, and tribal

[[Page 46795]]

elected officials; state and local government agencies; religious and 
community organizations; advocacy groups; unions; as well as trade and 
business organizations. While some commenters wrote that they supported 
the NPRM, the vast majority of commenters opposed all or part of it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Of the 43,108 public comment submissions received, 12,114 
were posted to www.regulations.gov. The other 30,994 submissions 
were designated ``inactive--do not post'' and included form copies, 
duplicates, and non-germane submissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Comments Expressing General Support for the NPRM

    Comment: Several commenters expressed general support for the NPRM. 
Most did not state precise reasons for their support. Examples of the 
rationale for some of the generally supportive comments include: Fees 
are a small price to pay for the benefits of immigration; the burden of 
immigration should fall on the applicants and not on U.S. taxpayers; 
the fees will discourage fraudulent immigration; USCIS must have funds 
to operate; and the rule would benefit the U.S. government. A few 
commenters suggested that fees should be even higher than DHS proposed. 
One commenter generally supported the proposal and wrote that the 
methodology used in the biennial fee review was accurate and fully 
compliant with statutory requirements set forth at INA sections 286(m) 
and (n), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m), (n). This commenter said the fee review was 
also compliant with OMB and Federal Accounting Standards Board 
standards for budgeting and financial management.
    Response: DHS appreciates that some commenters support the NPRM. 
However, it has not separately summarized these comments and does not 
make any changes in this final rule because of them.

C. Comments Expressing General Opposition to the NPRM

    Many commenters generally opposed the NPRM, including the proposed 
fees, magnitude of the fee adjustments, charging fees in general, and 
specific proposed policy changes. DHS summarized and responded to the 
public comments as follows:
1. Immigration Policy Concerns
    Comment: Many commenters opposed fee adjustments for policy reasons 
generally suggesting that the fees will be harmful. The comments are 
summarized as follows:
     Immigration is important to the United States and the NPRM 
betrays or is contrary to American values.
     USCIS has an enormous and far-reaching impact and it is 
imperative that USCIS consider the harmful human effects of the 
proposed fee increases.
     The fee increase is an attack on immigrants and vulnerable 
populations.
     The fees would especially affect people of color; the rule 
implements and displays the racial animus that officials have 
expressed, is designed to keep non-white immigrants out of the U.S., 
limits people of color from becoming lawful permanent residents or U.S. 
citizens, and would have a negative effect on the Latin population.
     The rule is cruel, inhumane, nationalistic, fascist, 
racist, xenophobic, intended to limit voting rights to the wealthy, and 
deter green card holders from seeking citizenship.
     The fee increases will create financial hardships for low-
income immigrants and the increased cost of renewing residency cards 
would make it more difficult for immigrants to obtain employment or 
provide proof of their immigration status.
     Low income immigrants will be forced to choose between 
providing for basic needs and pursuing immigration benefits.
     The fee increase is an attack on the immigrant and refugee 
communities who already face discrimination, language barriers, lack of 
services, poverty, marginalization, persecution, trauma, and fear.
     High fees could result in healthcare avoidance and other 
negative impacts on foreign-born individuals, as well as their U.S. 
citizen family members.
     The rule would harm LGBTQ or HIV positive noncitizens.
     The rule's adverse and disparate impact on immigrants of 
color renders the proposed rule arbitrary and capricious in 
contravention of federal anti-discrimination protections.
     The rule creates roadblocks to the integration of 
immigrants.
     The rule attempts to establish discriminatory policies 
that have been judicially enjoined and to prevent fair and equal access 
to the U.S. immigration system.
     The proposed fee increase would prevent many immigrants 
from seeking and obtaining the right to vote. A commenter questioned 
whether the increase was intentionally seeking to suppress potential 
low- and middle-income immigrant voters.
     DHS should remove financial barriers clearly intended to 
target the poor to encourage people to use the legal immigration 
process.
     Increased fees and removal of fee waiver categories in the 
proposed rule would result in more applicants being put into removal 
proceedings.
     The proposal would worsen USCIS' already bad reputation.
     USCIS is engaging in partisan machinations rather than 
acting as a neutral federal agency.
     The proposal would increase predatory and fraudulent 
immigration services scams and USCIS will need to enhance its efforts 
to combat these harmful practices.
     The proposal would negatively impact familial integrity 
and family unity and would increase the financial strain on immigrants' 
household resources that would be better spent on improving the 
family's welfare.
     The proposal, along with the previous public charge rule, 
demonstrates DHS' ``animus towards low-income immigrants seeking family 
unity'' and urged the agency to instead facilitate family unity 
regardless of immigrants' finances.
     The proposal would create an ``invisible wall'' that would 
block many hard-working noncitizens from accessing immigration benefits 
and would cause long-term family separation.
    Response: DHS proposed adjustments to USCIS' fee schedule to ensure 
full cost recovery. DHS did not target any particular group or class of 
individuals, or propose changes with the intent to deter requests from 
low-income immigrants seeking family unity or deterring requests from 
any immigrants based on their financial or family situation or to block 
individuals from accessing immigrant benefits. With limited exceptions 
as noted in the NPRM and this final rule, DHS establishes its fees at 
the level estimated to represent the full cost of providing 
adjudication and naturalization services, including the cost of 
relevant overhead and similar services provided at no or reduced charge 
to asylum applicants or other immigrants. This rule is consistent with 
DHS's legal authorities. See INA section 286(m), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m). DHS 
proposed changes in fee waiver policies to ensure that those who 
benefit from immigration benefits pay their fair share of costs, 
consistent with the beneficiary-pays principle as described in the 
Government Accountability Office report number GAO-08-386SP.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ GAO, Federal User Fees: A Design Guide (May 29, 2008), 
available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-386SP. (last 
accessed Feb. 24, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In certain instances, DHS deviates from the beneficiary-pays 
principle to establish fees that do not represent the estimated full 
cost of adjudication. For example, DHS proposed a $50 fee for Form I-
589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, when filed 
with USCIS. This fee deviates from the beneficiary-pays principle by 
holding the fee well below the estimated

[[Page 46796]]

cost of adjudication. The $50 fee for affirmative asylum filings is not 
intended to recover the estimated full cost of adjudication. Instead, 
it is intended to limit the increase of other fees that must otherwise 
be raised to cover the estimated full cost of adjudicating asylum 
applications. Fee adjustments are not intended to advance any policy 
objectives related to influencing the race or nationality of 
immigrants, deterring immigration and naturalization, or affecting 
voting.
    DHS adjusts the USCIS fee schedule in this final rule to provide 
for recovery of the estimated full cost of immigration adjudication and 
naturalization services. DHS notes that the fees are the same for all 
people who submit benefit requests regardless of their physical, 
cultural, or individual characteristics. The commenters state that DHS 
has discriminatory intent or pretext for this rulemaking, but they 
provide no evidence to support that statement. DHS has complied with 
all relevant legal and statutory authorities, including the Immigration 
and Nationality Act (INA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). 
DHS rejects the claim that its justifications for adjusting the fees 
are pretextual or intended to obscure its true intent, or that 
nefarious reasons like voter suppression and racial animus are behind 
the fee adjustments, and DHS declines to make any changes in this final 
rule on these bases.
2. Other General Opposition
    Comment: Many commenters expressed general opposition to the 
proposed increase in USCIS fees. Commenters stated:
     USCIS should find a way to increase its margins without 
causing detriment to the populations it serves.
     The NPRM was not justifiable and USCIS should increase its 
own efficiency instead of charging more and providing less service.
     The rule's objectives are pretextual, and its goal of 
fully recovering costs is undermined by the series of USCIS policies 
and practices that increase the agency's costs and inefficiencies. 
USCIS fails to describe alternatives to those policies and practices in 
the proposed rule.
     USCIS should not increase fees when it has inefficiencies 
such as performing three different background and biological checks on 
a single applicant.
     USCIS policy failings and inefficient resource allocation 
are creating the need for increased fees. Commenters provided examples 
such as the following:
    [cir] Failure to revise policies to keep costs within current fees;
    [cir] Failure to hire and train already budgeted staff;
    [cir] Extensive and frivolous use of a Request for Evidence (RFE) 
and Notice of Intent to Deny (NOID);
    [cir] ``Extreme vetting'';
    [cir] Lengthy suspension of longstanding premium processing 
services for certain applications;
    [cir] The current lockbox system;
    [cir] Increased and unnecessary in-person interviews;
    [cir] Ramped up denaturalization efforts;
    [cir] Resources spent litigating improperly denied applications; 
and
    [cir] Actions that increased appeals and motions.
    Many of these commenters said the NPRM does not account for agency 
inefficiencies resulting from these policies or how increased revenue 
would mitigate them and that USCIS should end them before seeking 
additional fees from applicants.
    After listing several policy changes leading to USCIS 
inefficiencies, one commenter said these policies and requiring fee 
increases would, in key respects, transfer the costs of the agency's 
own inefficiencies to the public. The commenter also wrote that the 
NPRM suggests that the agency could expand implementation of at least 
some of these ``misguided measures.'' The commenter concluded that it 
is therefore unsurprising that the NPRM fails to provide any meaningful 
evidence that the changes it proposes would relieve case processing 
delays or otherwise improve agency performance; rather, the proposed 
rule assumes that lengthy delays will persist.
    Response: DHS will continue to explore efficiencies that improve 
USCIS services. DHS may incorporate corresponding cost savings into 
future biennial fee reviews and rulemakings accordingly. Nevertheless, 
USCIS must recover the estimated full cost of providing immigration 
adjudication and naturalization services, including services provided 
at no or reduced charge to asylum applicants and other immigrants. DHS 
declines to make changes in this final rule in response to these 
comments.
    Comment: Several commenters suggested tax solutions instead of fee 
increases. One commenter stated that because they were an American, the 
U.S. government should raise the commenter's taxes instead of raising 
fees for citizenship applications. Another commenter suggested that the 
U.S. government should tax large corporations to fund public services. 
One commenter opposed the regulation for three reasons: The department 
managers should be requesting additional funding from Congress to meet 
legal requirements, reimbursements between USCIS and DHS ``are not to 
be addressed directly by the users of services required to be provided 
by the executive branch,'' and the executive branch is required to 
provide certain services regardless of cost.
    Response: DHS has no opinion on whether Congress should pass any 
new laws to address fees for adjudication and naturalization services. 
However, DHS reiterates that this final rule complies with current 
laws. Consistent with DHS' statutory authority, user fees are the 
primary source of funding for USCIS. See INA section 286(m), 8 U.S.C. 
1356(m). This final rule adjusts those user fees to provide for full 
cost recovery to USCIS. DHS declines to make changes in this final rule 
in response to these comments.
    Comment: One commenter stated that new administrative procedures 
instituted in the last 3 years serve as barriers to naturalization and 
immigration rather than as security precautions.
    Response: Under the law, DHS must fund USCIS operations, including 
the vetting of individuals who want to enter the United States, using 
fees. The security screening, background checks, and interviews are all 
vitally necessary to ensuring that bad actors do not exploit the legal 
immigration system to enter the United States and undertake actions 
that harm citizens and conflict with our national values. USCIS must 
carry out those functions as part of the vetting process and these 
functions are funded by fees.
    Comment: Some commenters said that USCIS should maintain the 
current fee schedule as-is and revisit the issue after further review 
of the efficiency and effectiveness of current policies, or possible 
review of the U.S. system of immigration policy by future terms of 
Congress.
    Response: In its FY 2019/2020 fee review, USCIS estimated that 
there is a gap of more than $1 billion annually between the revenue 
collections projected under the previous fee schedule and the resources 
USCIS needs to meet its operational needs to address incoming 
workloads. Therefore, if DHS did not adjust fees in this final rule, 
USCIS' pending caseload would likely continue to grow and applicants 
and petitioners would experience longer processing times. DHS declines 
to adopt the commenter's suggestion in this final rule.

[[Page 46797]]

3. Proposed Fees Are Unconstitutional \25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ For constitutional claims against the $50 asylum fee see 
the General Comments on the Asylum Fee section of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Several commenters wrote that the proposed USCIS fee rule 
violates one or more provisions of the United States Constitution. 
These comments are summarized as follows:
     By removing fee waivers for most categories of cases, 
USCIS is conditioning fundamental rights, such as the ability to vote, 
on the ability to pay, engaging in discrimination prohibited by the 
Constitution because it affects one race more than another, and using 
the ``beneficiary pays'' principle as a pretextual argument to conceal 
an intent to discriminate against racial minorities.
     Raising the citizenship application fee to over $1,000 is 
like imposing a ``poll'' tax on future voters, which is outlawed by the 
24th amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
     Naturalization is an especially important immigration 
benefit, as it is the only one referenced in the Constitution.
     Depriving low-income immigrants of their due process 
rights through significant economic obstacles to immigration benefits 
is contrary to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ The commenter likely meant the equal protection component 
of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The intent of the rule is unconstitutional because it is 
intended to directly exclude individuals based on their economic class.
    Response: DHS is not adjusting the USCIS fee schedule with any 
undisclosed motivation or intent other than to recover the estimate 
full cost of adjudication and naturalization services. The new fees are 
not insubstantial, but DHS disagrees with the commenters' assertions 
that the fees in this final rule will have an effect on the economic 
class or number of applicants. DHS has no data that would indicate that 
the populations noted by the commenters will be precluded from 
submitting benefit requests. As stated in other parts of this final 
rule, DHS must study the adequacy of its fee schedule biennially. If 
this final rule results in a significant reduction in the number of 
requests submitted for immigration benefits, DHS can adjust to address 
that result in a future fee rule. Therefore, DHS does not agree that 
the new fees violate the U.S. Constitution.
4. Rule Will Have Negative Effects on Applicants
    Comment: Many commenters wrote that the NPRM, including the fee 
schedule and limited fee waivers, would have negative effects on 
applicants, including the following:
     Impede legal immigration;
     Block low-income immigrants from achieving citizenship and 
the associated benefits;
     Disproportionately impact Asian immigrants and Asian 
Americans;
     Encourage illegal immigration;
     Prevent immigrants from being contributing members of 
society;
     Cause immigrants to rely on public assistance;
     Make it difficult to become documented;
     Cost DHS more money for deportations;
     Prevent nonimmigrants and their families from accessing 
the American Dream;
     Make it difficult for immigrants to make a better life for 
themselves and their families;
     Make it more difficult for immigrant residents in South 
Carolina to maintain lawful status, secure work authorization, and 
provide support for their families;
     Make it more difficult for people to immigrate and for 
lawyers to obtain clients;
     Dissuade citizens and lawful permanent residents (LPRs) 
from bringing their family members to the U.S and family support is a 
relevant factor in economic mobility;
     Promote ``healthcare avoidance'' and exacerbate medical 
needs when immigrants finally emerge in care systems, resulting in 
increased costs for the health and human services sectors;
     Cause significant negative effects on Latino immigrants;
     Punish immigrants who did their utmost to obey immigration 
laws;
     Adversely impact populations already much less likely to 
apply for and obtain naturalization, such as survivors of domestic 
violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking. Further discouraging 
naturalization among these populations would harm their chances of 
reuniting with family through immediate relative petitions and 
undermine applicants' sense of security in the United States.
     The fee increases making naturalization less accessible 
for low-income immigrants would yield poor health outcomes among 
children.
     The proposal, along with other policies, serves to disrupt 
access to programs that address social determinants of health and 
contribute to individuals' and families' well-being.
    Response: 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 may not receive a fee waiver. DHS also 
recognizes that if individuals borrow or use a credit card, they are 
likely also responsible for the filing fee, and any additional interest 
cost accruing on the loan or credit card. 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. However, DHS disagrees that the fees will result 
in the negative effects the commenters' suggested. DHS believes that 
immigration to the United States remains attractive to millions of 
individuals around the world and that its benefits continue to outweigh 
the costs noted by the commenters. Therefore, DHS believes the price 
elasticity for immigration services is inelastic and increases in price 
will have no impact on the demand for these services. This is true for 
all immigration services impacted by this rule. DHS also does not 
believe that the NPRM is in any way discriminatory in its application 
and effect. Therefore, DHS declines to make changes in this final rule 
in response to these comments.
5. Rule Will Have Negative Effects on the Economy and Employers
    Comment: Multiple commenters stated that the NPRM would have 
negative direct and indirect impacts on local, state, regional and the 
United States' economy, as well as businesses and employers. These 
comments are summarized as follows:
     Immigrants provide crucial labor in agriculture, 
construction, healthcare, hospitality, and other industries, and they 
need an ample workforce from which to draw.
     Lawful permanent residents becoming citizens is important 
to the economy of the United States, and those positive economic 
impacts reach across generations.
     Immigrants can contribute more to the economy with access 
to legal documentation.
     Higher fees affect lower-skilled laborers who are in 
demand in several industries. Immigrants are key contributors to the 
U.S. labor force and the proposed fee change would impede immigration 
to the detriment of the labor force.

[[Page 46798]]

     The rule could cost the United States potential future 
taxpayers. This impact could result in a long-term economic loss.
     Immigrants are the backbone of industry and the economy, 
often responsible for significant job creation and innovation.
     An increase in fees will negatively affect U.S. companies 
that pay immigration fees on behalf of their employees.
     The proposed fee increases will result in the decrease of 
immigration applications, negatively affecting the government.
     The increased fees will create a financial barrier to 
protection from deportation and work authorization, thus making it more 
expensive to participate on the U.S. economy.
     Immigrants will be the primary source of future U.S. labor 
growth. Limiting working class immigration is contrary to the interests 
of the U.S. society and economy. Similarly, naturalization boosts 
American democracy, economy, and diversity.
     Increased fees will negatively affect the U.S. workforce 
because employees who may be eligible to naturalize will no longer have 
access to naturalization.
     The fees would be detrimental to immigrant students' 
success and the nation's economic prosperity.
     Improved immigration status allows low-income immigrants 
to rise out of poverty and contribute economically to their communities 
with access to better jobs and opportunities.
     The rule will damage regional and national economies by 
stymieing immigration and the benefits that flow from it.
     The proposed rule would have a negative ripple effect on 
U.S. citizens because of the economic benefits derived from immigrants.
     These changes would not only impact individual applicants 
who may be unable to work due to delays in their pursuit of work 
authorization, but also family members and employers who may have to 
lay off valuable employees.
     Immigrant communities in rural areas with high levels of 
poverty live paycheck to paycheck and the proposed fee increases would 
make immigration benefits less accessible to working-class and 
vulnerable individuals.
     Raising fees would undermine the jobs and wages of 
domestic workers with limited education performing low-skill jobs.
     The proposed rule would increase unemployment among 
immigrant workers.
     The proposed fee increases and the revocation of fee 
waivers would increase economic and administrative burdens on State and 
local government workforces.
     The destabilizing effects of barriers to naturalization 
would create undue financial burdens on municipalities that outweigh 
any stated benefits of the proposal.
     Immigrant entrepreneurs and small business owners generate 
``tens of billions of dollars'' in business revenue.
     Immigrants make important contributions in research and 
science. Four of eight Nobel Prize Laureates from the United States in 
2019 were foreign born and 34 percent of all Nobel Prize Laureates from 
the United States were immigrants.
     Scientific discovery is dependent on the ability to travel 
freely and the rule would limit the ability of scholars to study and 
work in the United States.
     The proposal would adversely impact the direct care and 
nursing home industries' abilities to hire and retain sufficient staff. 
These industries are increasingly reliant on immigrants to staff 
positions.
     The H-2A program provides the citrus industry with 
reliable foreign labor. The cost increase for H-2A petitions was 
excessive and other cost in the industry were also increasing.
     The increased fees, coupled with restrictions to fee 
waivers, would result in many fewer residents accessing a desired 
immigration status for which they are eligible simply because they 
cannot afford to apply.
     Impeding an individual's ability to achieve a secure 
immigration status because of poverty is unacceptable and 
unconscionable.
    Response: DHS knows that immigrants make significant contributions 
to the U.S. economy, and this final rule is in no way intended to 
impede or limit legal immigration. DHS's rule in no way is intended to 
reduce, limit, or preclude immigration for any specific immigration 
benefit request, population, industry, or group. DHS agrees that 
immigrants are an important source of labor in the United States and 
contribute to the economy. DHS does not have data that would indicate 
that the fees in this rule would make a U.S. employer that is unable to 
find a worker in the United States forego filling a vacant position 
rather than submitting a petition for a foreign worker with USCIS. DHS 
saw no or limited decreases in the number of benefit requests submitted 
after its fee adjustments in 2007, 2010, and 2016 and has no data that 
would indicate that the fees for family based benefit requests, lawful 
permanent residence, and naturalization in this final rule would 
prevent applicants from being filed. DHS agrees that immigrants are 
crucial for agriculture, construction, healthcare, hospitality, almost 
all industries, immigrants are a source of future U.S. labor growth, 
many immigrants are successful entrepreneurs, and that welcoming new 
citizens helps the U.S. economy. DHS acknowledges in its analyses 
accompanying this rule that the higher fees must be paid by U.S. 
companies that hire foreign nationals, but DHS has no data that 
indicates that higher fees will affect the supply of lower-skilled 
laborers, impede immigration to the detriment of the labor force, 
result in aliens being unable to work, cause employers to lay off 
employees, undermine the jobs and wages of domestic workers with 
limited education performing low-skill jobs, or increase unemployment 
among immigrant workers. DHS knows that immigrants make important 
contributions in research, science, and we have no data that supports 
the assertion that the increased fees and restrictions on fee waivers 
would result in many fewer residents accessing a desired immigration 
status for which they are eligible simply because they cannot afford to 
apply.
    Comment: A commenter requested that DHS more thoroughly analyze the 
costs of impeding access to naturalization, which include long-term 
reduced economic and social mobility for affected populations.
    Response: DHS recognizes the contributions that naturalized 
citizens make to American society. However, USCIS must fund itself 
through fees unless DHS receives a Congressional appropriation to do 
so. DHS does not have any data to establish that these fees, though 
required, are a significant impediment to naturalization or economic 
and social mobility. DHS saw no or limited decreases in the number of 
benefit requests submitted after its fee adjustments in 2007, 2010, and 
2016 (e.g. N-400 filing volumes grew from less than 600,000 in FY 2009 
to approximately 750,000 in FY 2011; similarly, N-400 filing volumes 
grew from less than 800,000 in FY 2015 to nearly 1 million in FY 2017). 
In an effort to apply fees more equitably to the beneficiary of each 
benefit request, DHS must increase the fee for Form N-400, Application 
for Naturalization, in this final rule. As stated in the proposed rule 
and elsewhere in this final rule, DHS performs a biennial review of the 
fees collected by USCIS and may recommend changes to future fees. DHS 
declines to conduct further analysis on

[[Page 46799]]

this issue or make changes in this final rule in response to this 
comment.
    Comment: Many commenters wrote about the benefits of 
naturalization, the effect of naturalization on the economy and how the 
current application fee and proposed fee discourages naturalization. 
These comments are summarized as follows:
     Immigrants contribute to the economy by paying taxes, and 
they should have easy access to naturalization.
     Naturalization increases support for American political 
institutions, workforce diversity, strengthens employee productivity 
and retention, and creates well-informed community members.
     Raising fees for naturalization could discourage 
immigrants from seeking citizenship, negatively affecting the economy.
     Naturalization is a key driver in allowing immigrants to 
fully integrate into our society, economically contribute to the U.S. 
economy.
     Everyone benefits from residents naturalizing.
     Naturalization increases net taxable income, GDP, 
individual earnings, employment rates, homeownership, federal, state, 
and city tax revenues, and higher education, etc.
     Naturalization decreases government benefit expenditures.
     Citizenship promotes social benefits, higher rates of 
health insurance, English proficiency, quality of employment, and buy-
in to U.S. democratic principles.
     Naturalization increases engagement in civic life.
     The proposal would increase profits for private companies 
that benefit from financial obstacles to naturalization.
     In its proposal, DHS incorrectly stated that 
naturalization applicants will find some way to come up with the fee 
and failed to prove that the proposal would not shrink revenues due to 
a reduction in submitted applications.
     The proposed fee increases would place citizenship and the 
``American dream'' out of reach for many immigrants.
     Costs associated with naturalization were already 
prohibitively high and DHS should refrain from any efforts to make 
naturalization and other immigration benefits even less accessible.
     Research from the Journal on Migration and Human Security 
that found there were approximately 9 million LPRs eligible to 
naturalize and the proposed naturalization fee increase would make 
naturalization unaffordable for low-income and working-class people.
     The Immigrant Legal Resource Center and Stanford 
University's Immigration Policy Lab study demonstrates current fee 
levels already prevent a considerable share of low-income immigrants 
from applying for citizenship, as well as a 40 percent increase in 
application rates when low-income immigrants are given vouchers to 
cover application fee costs.
     Compliance with immigration and naturalized citizenship 
laws was already an ``arduous and risky'' process and USCIS should 
estimate the impact on compliance for immigrants seeking to follow such 
laws.
     USCIS should implement a system to account for individuals 
who cannot afford to comply with immigration and citizenship laws due 
to the proposed fee increases.
     An analysis from the American Immigration Council shows 
that the cost of citizenship has become a systemic barrier and the 
proposal would raise naturalization fees even higher.
     An analysis from the Center for Migration Studies that 
found 39 percent of those eligible for naturalization live in 
households with incomes below 150 percent of Federal Poverty Guidelines 
(FPG) and the proposal would price out naturalization-eligible 
individuals from pursuing citizenship to the detriment of their 
families and communities.
     A hypothetical family of four would have to pay an 
additional $3,115 over a 3-year period to maintain their status and 
secure citizenship.
     The ``road to naturalization eligibility may be lengthy, 
unpredictable and costly,'' and the proposed fee increases and changes 
to fee waiver eligibility would impact immigrants who must file 
concurrent applications for spousal petitions, work authorizations, and 
adjustment of status. These changes would cost $4,680 over a 4-year 
period, an amount the commenter described as ``prohibitive.''
     Existing costs for immigration benefits already pose 
challenges for immigrant families and DHS should not increase fees by 
such an unprecedented amount.
    Response: DHS recognizes the economic and societal value of 
nonimmigrants, immigration, and naturalization. DHS agrees that new 
citizens and naturalization are of tremendous economic and societal 
value and generally agrees with the points made by, and the studies 
cited by, commenters. DHS is not adjusting the USCIS fee schedule with 
an intent to impede, reduce, limit, or preclude naturalization and did 
not propose to adjust the USCIS fee schedule to reduce, limit, or 
preclude immigration in any way for any specific immigration benefit 
request, population, industry or group, including members of the 
working class. However, DHS must adjust the USCIS fee schedule to 
recover the full cost of providing immigration adjudication and 
naturalization services. While fully aware of the benefits that 
immigrants provide to society, DHS must fund USCIS with fees unless DHS 
receives a Congressional appropriation to do so.
    DHS acknowledges that the fee for Form N-400, Application for 
Naturalization is increasing by a greater percentage than the total 
increase in USCIS costs and the average increase in fees generally. The 
fee for this form is increasing more than for most other forms because 
DHS has historically held the fee for Form N-400, Application for 
Naturalization, below the estimated cost to USCIS of adjudicating the 
form in recognition of the social value of citizenship. Immigration 
services provide varying levels of social benefit, and previously DHS 
accounted for some aspect of the social benefit of specific services 
through holding fees below their cost. However, in this final rule DHS 
is emphasizing the beneficiary-pays principle of user fees. This 
approach means that the fee for Form N-400 will now represent the 
estimated full cost to USCIS of adjudicating the form, plus a 
proportional share of overhead costs and the costs of providing similar 
services at reduced or no charge to asylum applicants and other 
immigrants. In other words, the fee for Form N-400 will now be 
determined in the same manner as most other USCIS fees. Because DHS has 
held the fee for Form N-400 below full cost in the past, adjusting to 
full cost requires an increase in excess of the volume-weighted average 
increase of 20 percent. If DHS did not increase the fee for Form N-400 
this amount, other fees would need to increase further to generate the 
revenue necessary to recover full cost, including the costs of the N-
400 not covered by its fee. DHS believes the increase in the fee for 
Form N-400 is fully justified. Finally, DHS does not believe the new 
Form N-400 fee will deter naturalization or that the new fees 
established in this final rule will prevent immigrants from receiving 
immigration benefits. DHS saw no or limited decreases in the number of 
benefit requests submitted after its fee adjustments in 2007, 2010, and 
2016 (e.g. N-400 filing volumes grew from less than 600,000 in FY 2009 
to approximately 750,000 in FY 2011; similarly, N-400 filing volumes 
grew

[[Page 46800]]

from less than 800,000 in FY 2015 to nearly 1 million in FY 2017). 
Therefore, DHS declines to make any changes in this final rule in 
response to this comment.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the higher fees would result in 
fewer clients for their advocacy organization. As a result, the group 
might have to let go of some staff. Another commenter wrote that the 
proposal would harm its city's efforts to create a welcoming 
environment for immigrants. The commenter described programs like 
Citizenship Day in Boston intended to make immigration legal services 
more accessible and said the proposal would undermine these efforts. 
The proposed fee changes and elimination of fee waivers would harm 
agencies that carry out the DOJ's Office of Legal Access Programs 
mission as those agencies would lose clients as naturalization and 
other applications become less affordable, resulting in a reduction of 
funding and potential staff layoffs. The commenter also said these 
agencies would need to change their informational and educational 
materials if the proposed rule is implemented, resulting in increased 
design, printing, and distribution costs.
    A commenter stated that while it does not provide direct social or 
legal services, it frequently fields questions from transgender 
individuals and their family members, attorneys, and other 
organizations about government policies and individuals' legal rights, 
including questions about immigration. The commenter wrote that if the 
proposed rule is adopted, it will need to expend considerable resources 
to comprehend and explain changes to the public and will see an 
increase in requests for information. The commenter said USCIS should 
also consider the impact of the proposed rule on organizations like 
theirs, and on organizations that provide direct services to immigrants 
applying for immigration benefits.
    A commenter said the proposal would harm its organization's mission 
and ability to sustain itself financially. The commenter said 90 
percent of its funding comes from the State of Washington's allocation 
for the Washington New Americans Program and is tied to certain 
contractual obligations, including that the organization complete 1,000 
naturalization applications, host various workshop events, and screen 
around 2,000 green card holders for eligibility each year, among other 
conditions. The commenter said its ability to meet these numbers and 
its success rate would be adversely impacted if the proposed fee 
increases and elimination of fee waivers become finalized. One 
commenter wrote that the proposal would present challenges for non-
profit organizations providing legal assistance to low-income 
immigrants because it would reduce the number of clients who connect 
with services for which they are eligible, and would require increased 
outreach by an already overworked staff.
    Another commenter wrote that the proposal would interfere with 
state and local non-profit programs that provide services to help 
individuals navigate the immigration process. The commenter said that 
if the proposal is implemented, such programs in Washington State 
anticipate that the increased demand for fee reimbursement will outpace 
other services. The commenter wrote that many organizations providing 
immigration services are dependent on reasonable application fees and 
would be at risk of disappearing if fees increase above current levels. 
Another commenter said the proposal would interfere with its 
organizational mission and would hamper the work done by other non-
profit entities serving immigrant communities. The commenter wrote that 
its organization is funded primarily by city and state grants, with 
specific funding attached to specific numbers of low-income immigrants 
served and that the proposal would undermine its ability to meet grant 
requirements. The commenter said in the previous year, it had processed 
hundreds of applications that it would not have been able to file under 
the proposed removal of fee waivers for certain application types. Many 
commenters wrote that the proposed fee increases would deter immigrants 
from using qualified legal services, an outcome that the commenters 
stated would complicate USCIS processing. The commenter said that if 
these actors are left unchecked, they will end up diverting thousands 
of dollars away from the agency.
    Commenters said the proposed fee increases and elimination of fee 
waivers would disrupt organizations that provide legal assistance and 
other services to immigrants because of a reduction in the number of 
clients served, an inability to meet contractual requirements, and loss 
of financial support through contracts or grants. One commenter said 
their city partners with immigration legal service organizations to 
help immigrants secure needed benefits because income-based barriers to 
such benefits already exist. One commenter said their office assists 
1,000 constituents annually who already face burdens navigating the 
immigration system.
    Some commenters suggested that because the fee increases will 
discourage many immigrants from utilizing qualified legal assistance to 
assist with applications, USCIS will encounter challenges and 
inefficiencies in processing due to less complete or less accurate 
applications being filed. Other commenters wrote that the proposal 
would increase the prevalence of ``notario'' fraud and other types of 
consumer fraud against immigrants, who would be more likely to turn to 
dishonest providers of legal and other assistance due to the proposed 
fee increases. Another commenter agreed that the fee increases would 
decrease immigrants' ability to afford counsel, and referred to a 2014 
study from Stanford Law School that found detained immigrants were 
three times more likely to win deportation cases when they were 
assisted by attorneys. The commenter also cited research from the New 
York Immigrant Family Unity Project from November 2017 that 
demonstrated for every 12 individuals who received counsel under the 
organization's ``universal representation model,'' 11 would have been 
deported without access to an attorney. The commenter concluded that 
non-profit organizations that are already under-resourced will have to 
step in to provide services if immigrants lack income to hire 
attorneys. Some commenters suggested that the proposed rule would not 
only impact immigrant populations, but also legal aid organizations 
providing services to such populations and students who benefit from 
programs and clinics designed to support low-income populations.
    Response: DHS recognizes the value of the various groups that 
assist individuals navigate its regulations and forms. However, USCIS 
strives to develop rules and forms that are user-friendly, can be 
easily completed by the public, and require no legal or professional 
assistance. As stated before, DHS is changing USCIS fees to recover the 
costs of administering its adjudication and naturalization services. 
DHS is not changing USCIS fees with the intent to deter requests from 
low-income immigrants seeking family unity or deterring requests from 
any immigrants based on their financial or family situation. Previous 
fee adjustments had no discernible effect on the number of benefit 
requests filed. This final rule amends fee waiver requirements and 
divides the Form I-129 into multiple forms, but otherwise makes no 
major changes to any immigration benefit requests. DHS will continue to 
explore efficiencies that

[[Page 46801]]

improve USCIS services. DHS may incorporate corresponding cost savings 
into future biennial fee reviews and rulemakings accordingly. 
Therefore, DHS declines to make any changes in this final rule as a 
result of these comments.
    Comment: One commenter cited a Bureau of Labor Statistics study 
(2017-2018), which indicates that the unemployment rate for foreign-
born men (3.0 percent) was smaller than the unemployment rate for 
native-born men (4.2 percent), as a benefit to the United States.
    Response: DHS appreciates the comment and agrees that foreign-born 
workers are dependable employees who are important to the U.S. economy.
6. Comments on the DACA Renewal Fee
    Comment: Many commenters generally opposed higher DACA fees. 
Commenters stated:
     Current DACA fees are high and an increase to renewal fees 
would make it difficult for people to afford legal immigration 
processes.
     It would be unjust to charge students and families to pay 
more to maintain DACA.
     Many DACA recipients are in school, early in their 
careers, or have young children, and therefore cannot afford the fee 
increases.
     DACA fees would make it difficult for individuals to renew 
their work permits and they could lose the ability to work legally in 
the United States. The proposed fee increase would cause emotional and 
financial hardships for the families of DACA recipients.
     DACA fees will suppress/undermine the DACA policy while 
legal status is undetermined.
     The DACA renewal fee will discourage DACA recipients from 
seeking citizenship.
     High fees are the reason only 800,000 of the 1.3 million 
DACA-qualified individuals have requested DACA.
     The fee increases will reduce the number of DACA 
recipients who are able to renew their deferred action and complete 
higher education. DACA recipients often live paycheck-to-paycheck and 
must support family members financially. The renewal fees already 
present a burden and the proposed increase would exacerbate the 
hardship.
     DACA is a prerequisite for in-state tuition in many 
states, and increased fees would cause many DACA recipients to lose 
their DACA and give up their pursuit of higher education.
     DACA has been instrumental in helping many recipients 
access better educational and professional opportunities and better 
support their families.
     Many DACA recipients have lived in the United States since 
early childhood, and this rule would place them in danger of removal 
from the only country they consider home.
     DACA recipients have, in some cases, shown to be dedicated 
to serving their communities through Teach For America.
     Without the contributions of DACA recipients the United 
States would lose $433.3 billion in GDP and $24.6 billion in Social 
Security and Medicare contributions.
     DACA renewals should be funded by increased taxes rather 
than by placing the burden on DACA requestors, who are vulnerable.
     USCIS needs to offer justification for increasing DACA 
fees from an economic standpoint.
    Response: In light of the concerns raised by commenters, as well as 
the recent Supreme Court Decision in DHS et al v. Regents of the Univ. 
of Cal. et al, No. 18-587 (S.Ct. June 18, 2020), DHS will not impose a 
fee for Form I-821D. Therefore, there is no fee for Form I-821D, 
Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, in this final 
rule, and USCIS will not receive revenue from Form I-821D. DHS has 
removed the estimated costs and staff directly attributable to the DACA 
policy from its cost baseline used in its fee calculations for this 
final rule, consistent with past practice. See 81 FR 26903, 26914 (May 
4, 2016) (explaining that USCIS excludes from the fee calculation model 
the costs and revenue associated with programs and policies that are 
temporary in nature such as DACA). In this final rule, DHS adjusts 
other fees to recover the anticipated overhead and cost reallocation 
that the NPRM associated with DACA fees, including Forms I-765 and I-
821D.
    In light of the recent Supreme Court ruling and attendant changes 
to DHS' operations relating to the DACA policy DHS will maintain the 
DACA fees as in effect before the rescission on September 5, 2017 at 
$410 for employment authorization and $85 for biometric services. New 8 
CFR 106.2(a)(32)(vi).

D. Comments on Legal Adequacy of the Rule

    Comment: Multiple commenters stated that the rule was arbitrary and 
capricious, contrary to law, and in violation of the Administrative 
Procedure Act for various reasons, summarized as follows:
     The fee increase is excessive particularly for 
naturalization and adjustment of status.
     Fee increases will frustrate the substantive policies 
promoted in the INA.
     The proposal was a pretext for decreasing legal 
immigration.
     The fee of $2,000 to change the status of a single family 
member is a thinly veiled effort to bring the recently enjoined public 
charge regulations and health insurance proclamation to life and 
circumvent the judicial injunctions on that rule.
     In emphasizing the beneficiary-pays principle, the rule 
abandons prior motivations to tailor fees based on users' ability to 
pay. The 2008 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report to Congress 
entitled, Federal User Fees: A Design Guide, undermines USCIS' sudden 
switch to the beneficiary-pays principle, and USCIS has elevated the 
beneficiary-pays principle as a pretext for restricting and deterring 
legal immigration against the will of Congress.
     The rule's objectives are pretextual, and its goal of 
fully recovering costs is undermined by the series of USCIS policies 
and practices that increase the agency's costs and inefficiencies. 
USCIS fails to describe alternatives to those policies and practices in 
the proposed rule.
     The proposed rule fails to determine a social good that 
results from equity among application fees, with no evidence, data, or 
rational connection between that good and the stated goal of equity.
     The agency failed to adequately describe the terms or 
substance of the proposed rule in accordance with APA.
     The NPRM's rationale and fee increases are arbitrary 
because the amount of revenue that would be generated is much bigger 
than the projected shortfall at USCIS and some fees would increase more 
than others.
     Not all fees are being changed proportionally or 
rationally, and some fee decreases and increases appear completely 
arbitrary and do not align with the agency's reasoning.
     The rule lacks a detailed description of how or why the 
costs of adjudication have increased so dramatically as to necessitate 
such a large fee increase.
     The rule cites to INA section 286(m) multiple times for 
the Congressional mandate that authorizes the DHS to charge fees ``at a 
level that will recover the full costs of adjudication,'' but fee 
increases should be supported with details of what those ``costs'' 
actually

[[Page 46802]]

are, and they should be itemized in a way that clearly justifies the 
price.
     The public has the right to know the specific details of 
the projected budget shortfall and how proposed fee changes would be 
allocated to meet the projected deficit.
     Some fee increases were larger than others.
     It is arbitrary to eliminate fee caps for some but not all 
categories, and the rationale provided for not limiting fee increases 
for some benefit requests is inadequate. If limited fee increases were 
continued for all previously limited requests some proposed fees could 
increase by as much as $1,185 with the average of those changes being 
an increase of $12 per immigration benefit request.
     The rule contains clear and measurable hypocrisy in that 
USCIS claims that prior policy must fall in the face of the agency's 
newfound insistence on the ``beneficiary-pays principle,'' but it 
violates this principle for certain form types because USCIS proposes 
to maintain a 5 percent limit on fee increases without specific 
justification for each.
     The proposed rule's invocation of the ``beneficiary-pays 
principle'' is not made in good faith in that USCIS is still willing to 
support subsidies for some users (e.g., adoptive parents and religious 
institutions) and even a high premium on others (e.g., ``regional 
center'' investment groups).''regional center'' investment groups).
     Contrary to DHS's rationales for the rule, increased fees 
will not improve USCIS' efficiency or allow the agency to provide 
better service to applicants.
    Response: INA section 286(m), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m) authorizes DHS to 
recover the full cost of providing immigration adjudication and 
naturalization services, including the cost of services provided at 
reduced or no charge to asylum applicants and other immigrants through 
the USCIS fee schedule. This final rule complies with the INA, as DHS 
estimated the cost of providing immigration adjudication and 
naturalization services over the biennial period and adjusts USCIS' fee 
schedule to recover those costs. DHS has explained its rational basis 
for adjusting USCIS fees in the proposed rule and this final rule. The 
docket and administrative record document the bases for the changes and 
show that the fee adjustments in this final rule are not motivated by 
any purpose other than those expressly stated in this rulemaking. This 
final rule intends to recover the estimated full cost of providing 
immigration adjudication and naturalization services and is not a 
pretext to implement the Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds final 
rule, as indicated by a commenter. DHS notes that the Public Charge 
final rule was implemented nationwide on February 24, 2020, after the 
Supreme Court of the United States stayed the last remaining injunction 
on that final rule on February 21, 2020.
    This final rule also complies with the APA. DHS issued an NPRM in 
the Federal Register on November 14, 2019, and a Supplemental Notice on 
December 9, 2019. DHS accepted public comments on the proposed rule 
through February 10, 2020. DHS fully considered the issues raised in 
the public comments and made some adjustments in response, as detailed 
in responses throughout this final rule.
    DHS disagrees with commenters' assertions that the fees established 
in this final rule are unjustified because the fees differ in amount or 
are not being changed ``proportionally.'' In most instances, DHS sets 
the fees based on the estimated full cost of providing the relevant 
immigration adjudication or naturalization service. Some services cost 
USCIS more to provide than others, resulting in fees that differ in 
relation to how costly the applicable service is. Furthermore, the 
costs to USCIS of providing a given service may evolve over time in a 
manner that is different than the cost of providing another service. 
Thus, when DHS adjusts the USCIS fee schedule, not all fees are 
adjusted ``proportionally.'' For example, as DHS explains in the NPRM 
and elsewhere in this rule, DHS determined that it would be appropriate 
to limit the fee increase for several forms while not limiting the fee 
increase for other forms to reduce the cost burden placed upon other 
fee-paying applicants, petitioners, and requestors.
    DHS reiterates that this final rule complies with the all current 
laws. Therefore, DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in 
response to these comments.
    Comment: Numerous issues permeate the NPRM and result in such a 
vague rule change as to invalidate the entire proposal. The NPRM fails 
to disclose the actual weighted average fee increase or fee increases 
associated with individual form types and many unrelated changes are 
proposed without supporting documentation for each of these proposed 
changes. The commenter wrote that other open-ended language in this 
proposal also improperly subverts the legal requirements of this notice 
process by granting exclusive powers to the Attorney General to set 
such fees and fee waiver regulations and create such USCIS forms 
without future public notices. The commenter wrote that other open-
ended language in this proposal also improperly subverts the legal 
requirements of this notice process by granting exclusive powers to the 
Attorney General to set such fees and fee waiver regulations and create 
such USCIS forms without future public notices.
    Response: DHS has provided sufficient details of the bases for the 
fee adjustments in the NPRM, this final rule, and supporting 
documentation. As clearly stated earlier, the INA authorizes the use of 
fees for funding USCIS. However, the law does not prescribe a method 
for USCIS fee setting. As explained in the supporting documentation 
that accompanies this final rule, USCIS follows guidance provided by 
OMB Circular A-25 and has leveraged an ABC methodology in the last five 
fee reviews. USCIS' use of commercially available ABC software to 
create financial models has enabled it to align with the Federal 
Accounting Standards Advisory Board's (FASAB's) Statement of Federal 
Financial Accounting Standards Number 4 on managerial cost accounting 
concepts, which provides guidelines for agencies to perform cost 
assignments in the following order of preference: (1) Directly tracing 
costs wherever feasible and economically practicable; (2) Assigning 
costs on a cause-and-effect basis; or (3) Allocating costs on a 
reasonable and consistent basis.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ FASAB, Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards 
4, available at http://files.fasab.gov/pdffiles/handbook_sffas_4.pdf 
(last viewed 03/06/2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    USCIS is a worldwide operation of thousands of employees with 
myriad responsibilities and functions. The commenter's expectations of 
absolute precision are unattainable for setting the fees for such a 
large organization that provides a wide range of services and 
immigration benefit requests. DHS has provided rational connection to 
the law, its needs, policy choices, calculations, and fees established 
in this final rule, even if the rational basis may require following 
mathematical calculations and defensible estimates.
    DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in response to the 
comment.
    Comment: Some commenters said that the excessive fee increase and 
limiting fee waivers would indirectly make wealth a dispositive 
requirement for immigration benefits, effectively adopting a ``wealth 
test'' for citizenship and similar immigrant benefits that will deter 
non-citizens from seeking lawful immigration status in violation of the 
INA and which the legislature never

[[Page 46803]]

intended. A commenter said DHS's proposal to eliminate most fee waivers 
and exemptions, coupled with dramatic fee hikes for most immigrants, 
breaks from decades of executive practice and ignores clear 
Congressional intent to create a fair and accessible immigration 
system. The commenter said DHS has declined, despite congressional 
requests, to consider the effect of eliminating reduced fees on 
applicants for naturalization or to maintain fee waivers for such 
applicants.
    A commenter said USCIS' policy of recovering the full cost of 
application processing is a choice, not a legal requirement. 
Specifically, the commenter said USCIS cites INA section 286(m), 8 
U.S.C. 1356(m) as the basis of its policy, but this section states 
merely that the agency ``may be set at a level that will ensure 
recovery of the full costs of providing all such services.'' Therefore, 
the statute is permissive, not mandatory. The commenter went on to say 
that USCIS also cites OMB Circular A-25, but this document is only 
policy guidance that lacks the force of law and, by its own terms, 
provides for exceptions to this general policy. The commenter also said 
that since USCIS has used its discretion to set fees for several forms 
at levels that would not recover its full costs, it should go further 
in shifting costs away from applications that would help working 
immigrant families acquire, maintain, or document lawful status and 
citizenship. Similarly, another commenter said USCIS is not required by 
law to recover its costs on the backs of applicants, many of whom are 
low-income; the relevant section of the INA is permissive, not 
mandatory.
    A commenter said the proposed rule ignores Congressional intent, 
citing a 2018 House Appropriations Committee report (H. Rep. No. 115-
948) and the bipartisan, bicameral conference report accompanying the 
omnibus appropriations act for Fiscal Year 2019 (H. Rep. No. 116-9), 
both of which stated that ``USCIS is expected to continue the use of 
fee waivers for applicants who can demonstrate an inability to pay the 
naturalization fee. USCIS is also encouraged to consider whether the 
current naturalization fee is a barrier to naturalization for those 
earning between 150 percent and 200 percent of the federal poverty 
guidelines (FPG), who are not currently eligible for a fee waiver.'' 
Although the NPRM states that ``USCIS appreciates the concerns of this 
recommendation and fully considered it before publishing this proposed 
rule,'' the commenter said USCIS provides no evidence that it either 
``appreciates'' or ``fully considered'' these directives from Congress. 
Instead, the commenter said the agency is eliminating fee waivers and 
naturalization fee reductions in direct contravention of Congressional 
will. A couple of other commenters also cited the same Congressional 
directives, stating that DHS has ignored these directives without 
rational explanation.
    Another commenter said that, by solely focusing on ``full cost 
recovery'' regardless of an immigrant's ability to pay and under the 
false pretense of equity, DHS is restricting immigration to only those 
who can afford it. The commenter said this is a ``backhanded attempt'' 
to introduce a merit-based immigration system without legislation. The 
commenter said Congress has already shown it does not wish to enact a 
merit-based immigration system and the DHS should not be able to go 
around the will of Congress. Similarly, another commenter said the 
changes serve to circumvent Congressional oversight of the immigration 
system by effectively eliminating statutory paths to immigration status 
by making them unaffordable and inaccessible to those who qualify.
    Another commenter said these fees would effectively impose a means 
test for U.S. residence and citizenship, and that these immigration 
benefits is of such importance that any related policy should be 
determined by Congressional legislation. A commenter said a limit 
should be placed on USCIS' ability to raise fees without Congressional 
approval, concluding that such policies should only be passed by 
Congressional authority.
    A commenter said the administration is attempting to reshape 
American immigration policy, ignoring Congress' plenary power and 
attempting to make the immigration process established by Congress 
inaccessible to eligible immigrants. Similarly, another commenter said 
USCIS is imposing financial tests cloaked under the rule-making process 
to reshape the demographics of the American society by excluding those 
who are not wealthy and asylum-seekers who are largely from Central 
America, Latin America, Africa, and Asia.
    A commenter said the rule would significantly deter family-based 
immigration, contrary to Congressional intent. The commenter said that 
the effect of the rule will promote employment-based immigration at the 
expense of family-based immigration because immigrants who arrive on 
employment-based visas are typically well-educated, can speak English 
proficiently, have sufficient assets, and have solid employment 
prospects. The commenter said the effect of the proposed rule will be 
to favor wealthy or higher-skilled immigrants over families, and in 
turn reverse over a half century of bedrock immigration policy in the 
United States. The commenter concluded that Congress did not delegate 
DHS the authority to implement such sweeping reform of our immigration 
laws.
    Another commenter said Congress needs a clear expenditure plan in 
order to monitor if the funds are being used as warranted, which is not 
present in the current proposal. Similarly, a commenter said the 
proposed fee schedule is inconsistent with statutory framework because 
it lacks a valid analysis as to how the proposal might achieve the 
policy objectives it ``allegedly would further.''
    Response: DHS adjusts the fees for immigration benefit requests in 
this final rule to recover the estimated full cost of providing 
immigration adjudication and naturalization services, as provided by 
law. In adjusting the fees, DHS is not imposing a ``wealth test'' or 
otherwise attempting to erect barriers to immigration and rejects any 
implication that its justifications for adjusting the fees are pretexts 
to obscure any other motivation.
    INA section 286(m), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m) authorizes DHS to recover the 
full cost of providing immigration adjudication and naturalization 
services, including the cost of services provided at no charge to 
asylum applicants and other immigrants through the USCIS fee schedule. 
This final rule complies with the INA, as DHS estimated the cost of 
providing immigration adjudication and naturalization services over the 
biennial period and adjusts USCIS' fee schedule to recover those costs.
    This final rule also complies with the APA. DHS issued an NPRM in 
the Federal Register on November 14, 2019, and a Supplemental notice on 
December 9, 2019. DHS accepted public comments on the proposed rule 
through February 10, 2020. DHS fully considered the issues raised in 
the public comments and made some adjustments in response, as detailed 
elsewhere in this final rule. DHS provides responses to those comments 
in this final rule.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed rule was not ripe 
for comment, because DHS did not provide a final, definitive set of 
fees but instead provided a range of potential outcomes that were 
possible.
    Response: DHS disagrees that the proposed rule was not ripe for 
comment. DHS provided multiple options for proposed fee schedules and

[[Page 46804]]

explained that the final outcome would be one of the proposed scenarios 
or another outcome within the range of the alternatives proposed. The 
fee schedule adopted in this final rule falls within the range of 
outcomes DHS provided in the NPRM. The policies implemented in this 
final rule are identical to, or are logical outgrowths of, those 
contained in the NPRM.
    The intent of the comment period provided under the APA is to allow 
agencies to consider public feedback on proposed rules and make changes 
as appropriate. Because a single change made in response to public 
comments may affect multiple fees, it is impossible to provide a final 
set of fees in an NPRM unless it were to be adopted without any 
modification, thereby negating the value of public feedback. Therefore, 
the NPRM was fully ripe for public comment, and DHS declines to make 
any adjustments in response to this comment.
    Comment: Two commenters wrote that the NPRM has no force or effect 
because Mr. Wolf does not have a valid legal claim to the office of DHS 
Secretary. The commenters detailed the required line of succession 
required by Executive Order 13753 after the departure of Secretary 
Nielsen, which according to the commenters should not have led to Mr. 
McAleenan. The commenters then stated that, even if President Trump 
lawfully departed from E.O. 13753 when Mr. McAleenan was designated, 
his authority was limited to 210 days under the Vacancies Act, but Mr. 
McAleenan purported to serve as Acting Secretary for a year and a half. 
The commenters stated that, because Mr. Wolf's appointment to Secretary 
was a result of Mr. McAleenan's unlawful amendment to the order of 
succession, Mr. Wolf has no valid legal claim to the office of the 
Secretary, and the action he has taken in promulgating the proposed 
rule shall have ``no force or effect.''
    Similarly, other commenters said the rule violates the Appointments 
Clause and the Federal Vacancies Reform Act (FVRA) because it was 
promulgated under the unlawful authority of Kenneth Cuccinelli. The 
commenters detailed the requirements of the FVRA and the succession 
line leading to Mr. Cuccinelli's appointment. The commenters concluded 
that, since Mr. Cuccinelli has not succeeded to the Acting Director of 
USCIS position pursuant to the FVRA, his designation was void, and 
thus, the rule that was proposed under his purported authority should 
have ``no force or effect'' and its adoption would be unlawful.
    Another commenter said it is improper to issue a significant rule 
when the authority of DHS and USCIS leadership is in question. The 
commenter said the significant changes proposed are egregious when the 
agency lacks confirmed leadership to exercise authority pursuant to the 
law. The commenter wrote that legal challenges to the authority of 
agency leadership are currently pending and a letter from the House 
Committee on Homeland Security to the GAO that questions the legality 
Chad Wolf's appointment as Acting DHS Secretary and Kenneth 
Cuccinelli's appointment as Senior Official Performing the Duties of 
the Deputy Secretary. The commenter wrote that the lack of responsible 
authorities makes it inappropriate for the agency to make the radical 
and untested policy shifts it proposes.
    Response: DHS disagrees that Mr. Cuccinelli was unlawfully 
appointed in violation of the Appointments Clause or the Federal 
Vacancies Reform Act. In any event, it is unnecessary to discuss the 
merits of Mr. Cuccinelli's appointment, because the proposed rule only 
proposed changes to DHS regulations and requested comments. It did not 
effectuate any change that would be amount to a final action taken by 
Mr. Cuccinelli or any DHS official. In addition, neither the NPRM nor 
this final rule were signed by Mr. Cuccinelli. Thus, while DHS believes 
that Mr. Cuccinelli is lawfully performing the duties of the Director 
of USCIS and using the title Senior Official Performing the Duties of 
Director of USCIS, and the Senior Official Performing the Duties of the 
Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security, whether that is true is 
immaterial.
    The NPRM was signed by Kevin K. McAleenan and this final rule is 
signed by Chad F. Wolf, both as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security. 
Contrary to the comment, Secretary Wolf is validly acting as Secretary 
of Homeland Security. Under INA section 103(a)(1), 8 U.S.C. 1103(a)(1), 
the Secretary of Homeland Security is charged with the administration 
and enforcement of the INA and all other immigration laws (except for 
the powers, functions, and duties of the Secretary of State and 
Attorney General). The Secretary is also authorized to delegate his or 
her authority to any officer or employee of the agency and to designate 
other officers of the Department to serve as Acting Secretary. See 8 
U.S.C. 103 and 6 U.S.C. 113(g)(2). The HSA further provides that every 
officer of the Department ``shall perform the functions specified by 
law for the official's office or prescribed by the Secretary.'' 6 
U.S.C. 113(f).
    On April 9, 2019, then-Secretary Nielsen, who was Senate confirmed, 
used the authority provided by 6 U.S.C. 113(g)(2) to establish the 
order of succession for the Secretary of Homeland Security. This change 
to the order of succession applied to any vacancy. Exercising the 
authority to establish an order of succession for the Department 
pursuant to 6 U.S.C. 113(g)(2), superseded the FVRA and the order of 
succession found in E.O. 13753.
    As a result of this change and pursuant to 6 U.S.C. 113(g)(2), Mr. 
McAleenan, who was Senate confirmed as the Commissioner of CBP, was the 
next successor and served as Acting Secretary without time limitation. 
Acting Secretary McAleenan was the signing official of the proposed 
rule. Acting Secretary McAleenan subsequently amended the Secretary's 
order of succession pursuant to 6 U.S.C. 113(g)(2), placing the Under 
Secretary for Strategy, Policy, and Plans position third in the order 
of succession below the positions of the Deputy Secretary and Under 
Secretary for Management. Because these positions were vacant when Mr. 
McAleenan resigned, Mr. Wolf, as the Senate confirmed Under Secretary 
for Strategy, Policy, and Plans, was the next successor and began 
serving as the Acting Secretary. Therefore, both the NPRM and this 
final rule were lawfully signed by the Acting Secretary of Homeland 
Security.
    Comment: A commenter opposed the proposal because it would result 
in family separation and would run counter to the family-based 
immigration system Congress intended to create through the INA. Another 
commenter wrote that the proposal conflicts with the principle of 
family unity because it interferes with the right to choose to live 
with family members and disrupts the INA's goal of family unity.
    Response: In adjusting the USCIS fee schedule in this final rule, 
DHS complies with all relevant legal authorities. DHS does not intend 
to erect barriers to family unity or reunification. This final rule 
adjusts the USCIS fee schedule to recover the estimated full cost of 
providing immigration adjudication and naturalization services.
    DHS declines to adjust this final rule in response to these 
comments.
    Comment: A commenter wrote that the proposed transfer of $112.3 
million in IEFA ICE fees violates the Appropriations Clause of the 
Constitution. The commenter wrote that the use of the IEFA to fund any 
activities of ICE circumvented the

[[Page 46805]]

Appropriations Clause and other laws that prohibit the transfer of 
funds without statutory authorization. Another commenter wrote that 
enactment of the FY 2020 appropriations package in December clarified 
USCIS' understanding of its Congressional mandate and spending 
authority, but that the agency had failed to acknowledge this package 
in its January 2020 notice regarding the fee proposal. The commenter 
wrote that funding provided by Congress in that bill should have 
resolved open questions about the fee schedule, and that USCIS' failure 
to propose a fee schedule based on ``no transfer of funding'' in its 
January 2020 notice precludes the public from providing fully informed 
feedback.
    Response: DHS is not moving forward with the proposed transfer of 
IEFA funds to ICE in this final rule. Please see the ICE Transfer 
Section (Section III.L) of this final rule for more information.
    Comment: Multiple commenters requested that DHS extend the public 
comment period to 60 days to allow more time to review the proposed 
rule and to develop responses. Commenters stated that the length of the 
NPRM was greater than that of earlier fee rules, but commenters had 
less time to respond to this rule. Multiple commenters suggested that 
the timing of the comment period over multiple holidays hindered the 
ability of the public to respond to the proposed rule.
    Response: DHS understands that the general policy of the Executive 
Branch is that agencies should afford the public a meaningful 
opportunity to comment on any proposed regulation, which in most cases 
should include a comment period of not less than 60 days, for rules 
that are determined to be significant by OMB's Office of Information 
and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). See E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and 
Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct 4, 1993), Sec. 6(a)(1). (E.O. 12866). However, 
circumstances may warrant a shorter comment period and the minimum 
required by the APA is 30-days. 5 U.S.C. 553(d). On January 24, 2020, 
DHS reopened the comment period for an additional 15-days and accepted 
public comments through February 10, 2020. See 85 FR 4243. Thus, the 
public was provided a comment period of 61 days to review the NPRM, 
revised information collections, supporting documents, other comments, 
and the entire docket contents. In addition, comments received between 
December 30, 2019, and January 24, 2020, were also considered. As a 
result, although in three separate notices, the public was afforded 
more time to comment than required by E.O. 12866, the APA, and the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).
    Comment: One commenter wrote that USCIS promised to provide public 
review of its cost model software; however, it did not provide access 
when the commenter reached out to the provided contact. Later, that 
same commenter along with several other commenters submitted a comment 
that referenced a February 3, 2020, meeting during which USCIS hosted a 
demonstration of its ABC cost-modeling software, as promised in the 
original proposed rule. A commenter wrote that USCIS gave stakeholders 
just one week to write comments on the cost-assignment software before 
the end of the comment period. The commenter said USCIS should never 
force stakeholders to review and provide a formal response to a complex 
financial proposal within the space of just one week, and it should not 
impose such an impossible deadline upon analysis of a sophisticated 
tool that is the foundation of the rule. A commenter asked why the 
public's ability to provide informed comment on the software was 
unfairly limited to an in-person demonstration with no phone or online 
access, asserting that the process limited the ability of stakeholders 
to request and analyze relevant information. Another commenter also 
said USCIS' presentation did not allow meaningful public engagement. 
Another commenter wrote that none of the information received was made 
available to the rest of the public, which the commenter said would 
have generated additional important perspectives.
    Response: DHS met all requirements under the APA in affording 
commenters who requested a meeting with DHS to review the ABC software 
the opportunity to provide public comments. The public was offered a 
chance to meet with USCIS experts and review the software and every 
party who requested an appointment to review the software was provided 
an appointment and a review. DHS did not provide additional time beyond 
the end of the public comment period for the meeting participants to 
provide feedback because doing so would have advantaged the feedback of 
those commenters relative to the rest of the public.
    DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in response to the 
comment.
    Comment: A commenter said DHS has not complied with the Treasury 
General Appropriations Act by failing to assess whether the proposed 
rule strengthens or erodes the stability or safety of the family, 
increases or decreases disposable income or poverty of families and 
children, and is warranted because the proposed benefits justify the 
financial impact on the family.
    Response: As stated in the Family Assessment Section of this final 
rule (Section IV.H), DHS does not believe that this rulemaking will 
have a negative financial impact on families. DHS disagrees with 
commenter's assertions about the effects of the proposed fees and does 
not agree that the data provided by the commenter indicates that the 
fees established in this final rule will affect the financial stability 
and safety of immigrant families. As stated elsewhere in response to 
similar comments, based on the number of filings received after past 
fee increases, DHS does not anticipate that the fees would affect 
application levels or that it will create barriers to family 
reunification or stymie noncitizens seeking to adjust their status or 
naturalize. DHS must have sufficient revenue to operate USCIS or its 
service to all people who file immigration benefit requests could 
suffer, persons who are not eligible could improperly be approved for a 
status, or a person who wants to harm the United States and its 
residents may not be properly vetted. Thus, the benefits of the fees 
outweigh the costs they impose.

E. Comments on Fee Waivers

    Comment: Many commenters, without providing substantive rationale 
or supporting data, stated that they oppose the elimination of fee 
waivers in the rule. Some commenters stated that fee waivers are a 
matter of public policy and reflect American values. The commenters 
further stated that the rule would increase dependence on debt to 
finance applications, the fees are already difficult to pay, and this 
change will allow only affluent individuals and families to immigrate 
legally. Commenters indicated that the elimination of almost all fee 
waivers would cause a substantial burden and prevent large numbers of 
people from accessing immigration relief and submitting a timely 
application, and even force applicants to forgo the assistance of 
reputable and licensed counsel in order to save money to pay the fees.
    Commenters also stated that fee waivers should continue to be 
available for low-income individuals and their elimination would result 
in financial hardship for immigrant and mixed-status families, 
resulting in immigrants delaying or losing immigration status due to 
financial considerations. Commenters also discussed the benefits of fee 
waivers to immigrants, including helping families to improve their

[[Page 46806]]

stability, to financially support themselves, and to fully integrate 
into their communities while allowing them to allocate funds for higher 
education. Commenters further stated that fee waivers help families be 
secure, stable, and financially stronger, and help them integrate into 
their communities. Commenters stated that the proposed fee increases 
and elimination of fee waivers would prevent many individuals and 
families from engaging with the legal immigration system, including 
putting benefits such as naturalization, lawful permanent residence, 
and employment authorization out of reach for people who face financial 
hardship and low-income individuals by serving as a ``metaphorical 
border wall.'' Commentators indicated that fee waivers are commonly 
used by low-income and vulnerable immigrants, especially students and 
their families, and the rule would leave essential immigration benefits 
accessible primarily to the affluent.
    A commenter disagreed with USCIS' statement in the NPRM that 
changes in fee waiver policy would not impact application volume 
because research suggests price increases for naturalization 
applications are a significant barrier for lower income noncitizens. 
Another commenter provided data from several sources and wrote that 
immigrants tend to have higher rates of poverty and that fee waivers 
are an important asset for immigrants looking to maintain legal status. 
Another commenter stated that fee waivers serve to permit those with an 
``inability to pay'' the same opportunity as others and denying access 
to fee waivers divides the ``opportunity pool.'' Another commenter 
wrote that applicants may, instead of going into debt, have to forego 
other expenses such as housing, childcare, transportation, and 
healthcare in order to apply. A commenter wrote that the elimination of 
fee waivers would force families to forego necessities such as food, 
shelter, transportation, education, and healthcare to pay for proof of 
lawful status that allows them to work. A commenter wrote that USCIS 
eliminating the fee waiver altogether for non-humanitarian applications 
directly contradicts USCIS' previous statements regarding the revision 
to Form I-912.
    Response: To align fee waiver regulations more closely with the 
beneficiary-pays principle, DHS proposed to limit fee waivers to 
immigration benefit requests for which USCIS is required by law to 
consider a fee waiver. See proposed 8 CFR 106.3. DHS acknowledges that 
this is a change from its previous approach to fee setting and believes 
that these changes will make USCIS' fee schedule more equitable for all 
immigration benefit requests by requiring fees to be paid mostly by 
those who receive and benefit from the applicable service. 
Additionally, DHS believes that making these changes to the fee waiver 
policy would ensure that fee-paying applicants do not bear the costs of 
fee-waived immigration benefit requests. DHS does not agree that 
individuals will be prevented from filing applications or receiving 
immigrant benefits.
    DHS provided notice in its FY 2016/2017 USCIS fee rule that in the 
future it may revisit the USCIS fee waiver guidance with respect to 
what constituted inability to pay under the previous regulation, 8 CFR 
103.7(c). See U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Fee Schedule, 
Proposed Rule, 81 FR 26903-26940, 26922 (May 4, 2016). INA section 
286(m), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m) authorizes, but does not require, that DHS set 
fees to recover the full cost of administering USCIS adjudication and 
naturalization services. That statute also authorizes setting such fees 
at a level that will recover the costs of services provided without 
charge, but it does not require that DHS provide services without 
charge.
    DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in response to 
these comments.
    Comment: Several commenters stated that USCIS has neither explained 
its significant departure from its prior reasoning and practice nor 
satisfactorily justified limiting fee waivers for naturalization and 
several other application categories. A commenter stated that the 
proposed changes concerning fee waivers represents such a ``massive and 
inadequately explained shift in policy'' that it would create a 
crippling burden on low-income immigrants compounded with previous 
recent fee waiver changes.
    Response: DHS understands that the NPRM and this final rule 
represent a change from previous guidance on fee waivers. Due to the 
cost of fee waivers and inconsistency of current regulations with the 
beneficiary-pays principle emphasized in the NPRM and this final rule, 
DHS is limiting fee waivers to immigration benefit requests for which 
USCIS is required by law to consider a request or where the USCIS 
Director exercises favorable discretion as provided in the regulation, 
as well as a few other instances. In addition, DHS is allowing fee 
waivers for certain associated humanitarian programs including 
petitioners and recipients of SIJ classification and those classified 
as Special Immigrants based on an approved Form I-360 as an Afghan or 
Iraqi Translator or Interpreter, Iraqi National employed by or on 
behalf of the U.S. Government, or Afghan National employed by or on 
behalf of the U.S. government or employed by the International Security 
Assistance Forces. Although these changes do limit the number of people 
eligible for fee waivers, as previously discussed, the changes also 
limit increases to fees for forms that previously had high rates of fee 
waiver use.
    Comment: Some commenters provided information specific to a 
geographic area or political subdivision. One commenter added that 
reductions in fee waivers would in turn cause sweeping consequences to 
applicants, safety net programs, and state and county economies. One 
commenter wrote that the proposal would significantly harm New York as 
a whole because fee waivers allow indigent and low-income immigrants to 
obtain lawful status, which puts them on the path to social and 
economic security. The commenter cited data showing that New York's 
immigrants account for $51.6 billion of the State's tax revenue and 
stated that New York would lose much needed support if fewer immigrants 
are unable to legally work and live in the United States. Another 
commenter cited data showing that immigrant-led households in Oregon 
paid $1.7 billion in federal taxes and over $736.6 million in State 
taxes and stated that the proposed change would prohibit many of these 
immigrant from fully participating in their local economies. Another 
commenter calculated the costs a family with an income of 150 percent 
of the FPG level would face living in Boston, writing that fee waivers 
are vital to such families maintaining their immigration status or 
naturalizing.
    Response: DHS disagrees that the fee waiver regulations in this 
final rule would prohibit immigrants from participating in local and 
state economies or affect safety net programs. This final rule does not 
prevent any person from submitting a benefit request to USCIS or 
prohibit immigrants from obtaining services or benefits from state or 
local programs. DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in 
response to this comment.
    Comment: Another commenter stated that limiting fee waivers would 
result in a greater number of applicants delaying submitting 
applications due to financial hardship. The commenter wrote that 
applicants would therefore live without authorization for which they 
are

[[Page 46807]]

lawfully eligible for a longer time period, resulting in negative 
impacts to their financial and emotional security.
    Response: DHS acknowledges that the changes in the fee waiver 
provisions may impose a burden on applicants who may have previously 
been eligible for a fee waiver. However, DHS does not have data 
indicating that individuals will delay submitting applications and 
petitions in response to the fee waiver policy changes. USCIS accepts 
credit cards to pay for a USCIS request sent to one of the USCIS 
Lockboxes. While DHS acknowledges that the use of a credit card may add 
interest expenses to the fee payment, a person can generally use a 
debit or credit card to pay their benefit request fee and does not have 
to delay their filing until they have saved the entire fee. DHS 
declines to make changes in this final rule in response to this 
comment.
    Comment: A few commenters said that eliminating fee waivers is a 
racist attempt to prevent immigration from poorer countries. Commenters 
indicated that eliminating fee waivers would be discriminatory against 
immigrants who have limited incomes, who are willing to work for 
everything they get, want a better life for their children, desire to 
improve their communities, and the rule would put immigration benefits 
out of reach for people who face financial hardship.
    Response: DHS changes to fee waiver availability in this rule have 
no basis in race or discriminatory policies. DHS is not limiting fee 
waivers to discriminate against any group, nationality, race, or 
religion, to reduce the number of immigrants, or limit applications for 
naturalization. Rather, the change is to alleviate the increase of fees 
for other applicants and petitioners who must bear the cost of fee 
waivers as previously discussed. DHS does not anticipate a reduction in 
receipt volumes because of the fee waiver policy changes. DHS declines 
to make changes in this final rule in response to these comments.
    Comment: A few commenters stated that the curtailment of fee 
waivers disregards a Senate Appropriations Committees' directive that 
USCIS was to ``report on the policies and provide data on the use of 
fee waivers for four fiscal years in 90 days,'' which is not provided 
in the NPRM.
    Response: DHS has previously provided the required reports to 
Congress. The Congressional reporting requirements do not include a 
limit on USCIS fees or limit the authority of DHS to provide 
discretionary fee waiver eligibility criteria or guidelines. They also 
do not require publication in the NPRM or the Federal Register as the 
commenter implies. Therefore, DHS does not believe this final rule 
disregards the directive for reporting to Congress and declines to make 
changes in this final rule in response to these comments.
1. Limits on Eligible Immigration Categories and Forms
    Comment: Many commenters stated that USCIS should maintain fee 
waivers for all current categories and that the proposed fee waiver 
changes would make essential benefits such as citizenship, green card 
renewal, and employment authorization inaccessible for low-income 
immigrants.
    Response: DHS has always implemented USCIS fee waivers based on 
need and since 2007, has precluded fee waivers for individuals that 
have financial means as a requirement for the status or benefit sought. 
See Adjustment of the Immigration and Naturalization Benefit 
Application and Petition Fee Schedule; Proposed Rule, 72 FR 4887-4915, 
4912 (Feb 1, 2007). As discussed in the NPRM, under the ability-to-pay 
principle, those who are more capable of bearing the burden of fees 
should pay more for the service than those with less ability to pay. 
See 84 FR 62298. IEFA fee exemptions, fee waivers, and reduced fees for 
low income households adhere to this principle. Applicants, 
petitioners, and requestors who pay a fee cover the cost of processing 
requests that are fee-exempt, fee-waived, or fee-reduced. For example, 
if only 50 percent of a benefit request workload is fee-paying, then 
those who pay the fee will pay approximately twice as much as they 
would if everyone paid the fee. By paying twice as much, they pay for 
their benefit request and the cost of the same benefit request for 
which someone else did not pay.
    In prior years, USCIS fees have given significant weight to the 
ability-to-pay principle by providing relatively liberal fee waivers 
and exemptions and placing the costs of those services on those who 
pay. In the FY 2016/2017 fee rule, DHS noted that the estimated annual 
dollar value of waived fees and exemptions has increased markedly, from 
$191 million in the FY 2010/2011 fee review to $613 million in the FY 
2016/2017 fee review. See 81 FR 26922 and 73307. DHS set the fees in 
the FY 2016/2017 fee rule based on those estimates of the level of fee 
waivers and exemptions by increasing other fees accordingly. To the 
extent that waivers and exemptions exceed the estimates used to 
calculate fees, USCIS forgoes the revenue. While DHS acknowledges that 
the fee adjustments established in this final rule are not 
insubstantial to an applicant of limited means, DHS does not believe 
that they make immigration benefits inaccessible to low income 
applicants. Thus, DHS will not shift the costs from all low-income 
applicants to other fee-paying applicants and petitioners in this final 
rule.
    DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in response to 
these comments.
a. Categories or Group of Aliens
    Comment: A commenter stated that while USCIS may claim it is not 
required to waive any fees for vulnerable applicants such as the 
disabled and elderly, federal laws, such as the Americans with 
Disabilities Act (ADA) and Rehabilitation Act, do require that fees and 
benefits are kept within reach of protected and vulnerable populations.
    Response: DHS disagrees with the commenter's assertion. Section 504 
of the Rehabilitation Act, applicable to USCIS, provides that qualified 
individuals with a disability shall not be excluded from the 
participation in, denied the benefits of, or be subjected to 
discrimination under any program or activity conducted by a federal 
executive agency. USCIS immigration benefit request fees are generally 
applicable and do not violate that provision. Congress did not 
specifically provide for an immigration benefit request fee exemption 
or waiver for individuals with disabilities. DHS generally does not 
assess fees to applicants for any accommodations requested by the 
applicants for physical access to USCIS facilities when required for 
interviews, biometrics submission, or other purposes. Therefore, the 
USCIS fee schedule established in this final rule does not violate the 
Rehabilitation Act. The ADA does not generally apply to USCIS programs, 
but to the extent that it provides guidance on the expectations for a 
Federal agency's accommodations for a qualified individual with a 
disability, the fees that DHS is establishing in this final rule also 
fully comply with the ADA.
    DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in response to 
these comments.
    Comment: Commenters stated that the proposed limits on fee waivers 
would threaten disabled immigrants and deny them access to citizenship. 
The commenter wrote that disabled lawful permanent residents rely on 
Supplemental Security Income (SSI), but that LPRs must naturalize 
within 7 years to sustain this benefit. The commenter stated that 
removing the naturalization fee waiver would drive

[[Page 46808]]

these disabled LPRs to homelessness and desperation, with negative 
societal consequences and no benefit. A commenter added that LPRs with 
disabilities lose SSI benefits 7 years after their entry, and, thus, 
that the proposed rule could deny members of this population access to 
basic necessities. A commenter wrote that citizens are eligible for 
SSI, but such benefits are only available to some non-citizens for up 
to seven years. The commenter wrote that the increase in naturalization 
fees would ``create an insurmountable barrier'' for disabled non-
citizens to naturalize, and thus creates a ``finite timeline'' during 
which a non-citizen can receive important needed benefits like SSI.
    Response: DHS disagrees that removing the application for 
naturalization fee waiver would drive disabled applicants into 
homelessness, despair, or deny them access to citizenship. Normally, if 
an applicant entered the United States on or after August 22, 1996, he 
or she is not eligible for SSI for the first 5 years as a lawfully 
admitted permanent resident, unless he or she is a qualified alien, as 
provided under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 
Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA).\28\ Some categories of aliens who 
are eligible, including asylees and refugee, may be limited to a 
maximum of 7 years of SSI. Generally, an alien may apply for 
naturalization after 5 years as an LPR. This final rule does not 
prohibit eligible aliens from obtaining SSI benefits or naturalizing. 
DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in response to these 
comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See Title IV of Public Law 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105, 2260-77 
(Aug 22, 1996). For information on who is a qualified alien see 
eligible for SSI, see Under What Circumstances May A Non-Citizen Be 
Eligible For SSI? available at https://www.ssa.gov/ssi/spotlights/spot-non-citizens.htm (last visited June 5, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Commenters stated that fee waivers should be available for 
both affirmative and defensive asylum seekers. One commenter stated 
that DHS failed to justify its decision to forgo fee waivers for asylum 
applications, since the agency did not analyze data from other fee 
waiver processes to determine whether the fee waivers would offset the 
cost recovery of the asylum fee. Another commenter said that if fee 
waivers will offset the revenue from the asylum fee, then the entire 
fee should be abandoned.
    One commenter said that the asylum fee should be established at 
$366 while allowing Form I-589 applications to be submitted with a fee 
waiver application, stating that many asylees are able to pay the full 
fee. The fee waiver application process would better allow USCIS to 
detect fraud while serving as a sworn statement of financial status, 
circumventing the need for universal verification which consumes agency 
resources.
    The fee waiver for asylum applications would, according to this 
commenter, enable indigent applicants to be granted asylum, upholding 
the U.S.'s non-refoulement obligations. The commenter also stated that 
defensive applications should be subject to the same fees as 
affirmative applications, so long as a fee waiver remains available.
    One commenter wrote that the elimination of fee waivers would 
require immigrants with few economic resources to finance the cost of 
their own oppression referencing that applicants who have a legal basis 
for asylum claims will be forced to pay the fees associated with that 
claim with no discretion or real procedural mechanism for accessing a 
fee waiver. The commenter indicated that immigrants living in this 
country often arrived as economic refugees and do not have economic 
resources, especially given the difficulties in obtaining employment 
without status. The commenter stated that forcing some of the most 
marginalized communities to pay, for instance, a $1,170 filing fee 
(more than 3 weeks wages for a low-income earner) makes a mockery of 
the country's values.
    Response: DHS acknowledges the commenters' concerns related to fees 
and fee waivers for asylum seekers and asylees. As stated in the NPRM 
and in this final rule, DHS is not providing fee waivers for the $50 
asylum application fee. DHS's decision to establish a mandatory $50 fee 
is justified. The $50 fee would generate an estimated $8.15 million of 
annual revenue. If DHS permits fee waiver requests, it legitimately 
assumes that the cost of administering the fee waiver request review 
process may exceed the revenue, thereby negating any cost recovery 
achieved from establishment of the fee. See 84 FR 62319. Although the 
INA authorizes DHS to set fees ``at a level that will ensure recovery 
of the full costs of providing all such services, including the costs 
of similar services provided without charge to asylum applicants or 
other immigrants,'' INA section 286(m), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m), DHS 
establishes a $50 fee for Form I-589, which is well below the estimated 
full cost of adjudicating the application.
    The statutory authorization for fees allows, but does not require, 
imposition of a fee equal to the full cost of the services provided. 
The INA provides that DHS may impose fees for the consideration of 
asylum and employment authorization applications that are not to exceed 
the estimated costs of adjudicating the applications. See INA section 
208(d)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(3).\29\ INA section 208(d)(3) also states, 
``[n]othing in this paragraph shall be construed to require [DHS] to 
charge fees for adjudication services provided to asylum applicants, or 
to limit the authority of [DHS] to set adjudication and naturalization 
fees in accordance with section 286(m).'' Thus, DHS is permitted to 
charge asylum applicants the same fee for employment authorization that 
it charges all others for employment authorization. The fee for Form I-
765 is calculated in accordance with INA section 286(m), 8 U.S.C. 
1356(m). DHS considered the effect of a non-waivable fee for the Form 
I-589 on affirmative asylum seekers and believes that the fee does not 
create a barrier to asylum for indigent applicants. The imposition of 
any fees for defensive asylum applications filed with EOIR is a matter 
that falls within the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice, rather 
than DHS, subject to the laws and regulations governing fees charged in 
immigration court proceedings before EOIR. Under those regulations, 
EOIR charges the fee established by DHS for a DHS form and determines 
the availability of a fee waiver for a DHS form based on whether DHS 
allows such a waiver. See 8 CFR 1103.7(b)(4)(ii), (c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ This section states, ``The Attorney General may impose fees 
for the consideration of an application for asylum, for employment 
authorization under this section, and for adjustment of status under 
section 209(b). Such fees shall not exceed the Attorney General's 
costs in adjudicating the applications. The Attorney General may 
provide for the assessment and payment of such fees over a period of 
time or by installments.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the fees align with U.S. international treaty obligations 
and domestic implementing law. As indicated in the NPRM, DHS believes 
that the asylum fee may arguably be constrained in amount, but is not 
prohibited, by the 1951 U.N. Convention Relating to the Status of 
Refugees (``1951 Refugee Convention'') and the 1967 U.N. Protocol 
Relating to the Status of Refugees (``1967 Refugee Protocol'').\30\ See 
84 FR 62318-19; 1951 Refugee Convention, 19 U.S.T. 6259,

[[Page 46809]]

189 U.N.T.S. 137; 1967 Refugee Protocol, 19 U.S.T. 6223, 606 U.N.T.S. 
267. The 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Refugee Protocol, as 
incorporated by reference, address the imposition of fees on 
individuals seeking protection, and limit ``fiscal charges'' to not 
higher than those charged to their nationals in similar situations. See 
Article 29(1) of the 1951 Refugee Convention, and 1967 Refugee 
Protocol, as incorporated by reference. Domestic implementing law, 
which is consistent with international treaty obligations, authorizes 
the Attorney General to ``impose fees for the consideration of an 
application for asylum, for employment authorization under this section 
[208], and for adjustment of status under section 209(b).'' INA section 
208(a)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1158(a)(3). Thus, as provided in the NPRM and in 
this final rule, no fee waivers are available to asylum seekers in 
connection with filing Form I-589 or for Form I-765 with USCIS. 
Notably, unaccompanied alien children in removal proceedings who file 
an application for asylum with USCIS are exempt from the Form I-589 
fee. New 8 CFR 106.2(a)(20).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, opened 
for signature July 28, 1951, 19 U.S.T. 6259, 189 U.N.T.S. 137; 1967 
Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, open for signature Jan. 
31, 1967, 19 U.S.T. 6223, 606 U.N.T.S. 267. Although the United 
States is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, it adheres 
to Articles 2 through 34 by operation of the 1967 Refugee Protocol, 
to which the United States acceded on Nov. 1, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As proposed in the NPRM and stated in this final rule, DHS exempts 
applicants filing as refugees under INA section 209(a), 8 U.S.C. 
1159(a), from the filing fee for adjustment of status applications 
(Form I-485). See 8 CFR 106.2(a)(17)(iii). Asylees are not exempt from 
the Form I-485 filing fee, and neither asylees nor refugees are exempt 
from naturalization fees (Form N-400). The fee waiver regulations are 
consistent with the INA and international treaty obligations, which 
allow for the imposition of fees, and do not require that DHS offer 
these applicants fee waivers. See INA section 208(a)(3), 8 U.S.C. 
1158(a)(3).
    DHS considered extending the fee waiver rules that apply to SIJ, 
SIVs, T, U and VAWA applicants to asylum seekers, asylees, and 
refugees. However, in reviewing the data on the number of applicants 
for various forms, DHS concluded that the populations of asylum 
applicants, refugees, and asylees are substantial enough that a fee 
waiver would have caused a greater increase to the I-765 and N-400 
fees, for example, thereby increasing the burden upon other applicants. 
As explained in the NPRM, initial applicants with pending asylum 
applications, aliens who have not yet established eligibility for 
asylum, account for approximately 13 percent of the total Form I-765 
workload volume forecast. See 84 FR 62320. Continuing to exempt this 
population of aliens which is only eligible to obtain an EAD due to an 
asylum application pending for a certain amount of time from the Form 
I-765 fee or permitting fee waivers would have further increased the 
proposed fee, meaning that fee-paying EAD applicants would pay a higher 
amount to fund the cost of EADs for asylum applicants. Therefore, DHS 
limited fee waiver availability to only those categories of 
humanitarian programs that had limited populations to avoid increasing 
other fees. The limitation of fee waiver availability conforms with the 
beneficiary pays principle, and unlike the asylum seeker, asylee, and 
refugee population, such limited fee waiver availability does not pass 
on a significant burden to other applicants.
    Notwithstanding these considerations and changes, DHS retains the 
authority in the final rule for the Director of USCIS to waive any fee 
if he or she determines that such action is an emergent circumstance, 
or if a major natural disaster has been declared in accordance with 44 
CFR part 206, subpart B. See 8 CFR 106.3(b). As provided in the NPRM, 
USCIS will continue to notify the general public of eligibility for fee 
waivers for specific forms under this provision through policy or 
website updates. See 84 FR 62300. Individuals who may qualify for such 
a fee waiver will still need to meet the requirements to request a fee 
waiver as provided in 8 CFR 106.3(b).
    In this final rule, DHS consolidates the provisions regarding the 
USCIS Director's discretion to provide fee waivers in the proposed 8 
CFR 106.3(b) and 8 CFR 106.3(c), as proposed 8 CFR 106.3(b) was 
redundant.
    Comment: Multiple commenters wrote that the proposal eliminating 
the fee waivers would severely affect vulnerable immigrants and 
survivor-based immigration. Several commenters stated that the 
elimination of fee waivers will harm the most vulnerable populations, 
such as domestic violence or human trafficking survivors, and those in 
times of crisis. One commenter stated fee waivers should be available 
to individuals seeking humanitarian relief and lacking the ability to 
pay. Several commenters stated that the elimination of most fee waivers 
discriminates against immigrants who are low income, elderly, and have 
disabilities and undermines humanitarian protection for victims of 
gender-based violence and other crimes. Multiple commenters wrote that 
eliminating the availability of fee waivers would only create an 
insurmountable economic barrier to low-income, vulnerable immigrants 
and lawful permanent residents, such as survivors of domestic violence, 
sexual assault, human trafficking, gender-based abuses, and other 
crimes, as well as their children. A few commenters wrote that access 
to fee waivers helps survivors and their children rebuild their lives; 
break free from the cycle of abuse; heal; and protect themselves, their 
children, and the community. Commenters stated that USCIS should 
instead focus on ensuring that low-income and other vulnerable 
immigrants have access to immigration relief for which they are 
eligible.
    One commenter said that access to fee waivers is essential for 
survivors because it allows them to replace confiscated immigration 
documents such as permanent resident cards or employment authorization 
cards. The commenter stated that without fee waivers, survivors would 
be unable to pay these filing fees and would have to choose between 
going without these documents or putting their lives in danger to 
retrieve documents from potentially dangerous situations.
    Multiple commenters wrote that while fee waivers for certain 
survivor-related applications will remain, the proposed rule ignores 
the fact that survivors may pursue other routes to secure immigration 
status other than those specifically designed for crime survivors. The 
commenters stated that, by removing waivers for these other routes, the 
proposed rule would harm survivors. One commenter indicated for a 
survivor of family violence, the ability to apply for a fee waiver was 
crucial to be able to obtain an EAD and gain some financial stability 
and independence from her abusive spouse. The commenter indicated that, 
as an example, a fee waiver allows a client to be able to maintain 
employment eligibility at her minimum wage job. Without the ability to 
apply for a fee waiver for all related applications the client would 
have faced additional barriers that would have prohibited her from 
obtaining financial independence from the abuser and lawful status. One 
commenter stated that the proposal ignores the fact that survivors of 
human trafficking may pursue other routes to secure immigration status 
and in these instances, survivors will no longer have access to fee 
waivers. Some commenters drew upon their experiences counseling those 
seeking immigration benefits to underscore their opposition to further 
restricting access to legal immigration via unaffordable filing fees or 
the elimination of fee waivers. A commenter said the elimination of fee 
waivers would place ``the majority'' of its clients in a precarious 
position because they do not have funds to pay fees out of pocket and 
will have to

[[Page 46810]]

choose between borrowing money and pursuing immigration benefits that 
would improve their lives. The commenter wrote that many of its clients 
were ``cut off'' from financial institutions and described the dangers 
of borrowing from ``predatory lending mechanisms'' or from family 
members who may use the debt owed as ``currency for their abusive 
behavior'' in some circumstances. The commenter also said the increased 
fees for work authorization would leave many immigrants vulnerable to 
victimization, citing a report from Public Radio International.
    Many commenters also wrote that the proposed changes for necessary 
ancillary forms, including I-765, I-601, I-192, and I-929, would impose 
significant fee increases that survivors often cannot afford. Another 
commenter stated that the elimination of fee waivers, combined with the 
increased fees for N-400, would put those escaping violence in the 
position of having to choose between expending resources to become a 
U.S. citizen or covering basic necessities for their families.
    A commenter said individuals with U nonimmigrant status or other 
humanitarian-based immigration benefits should not be ``priced out'' of 
remaining with their families. Another commenter said more than 94 
percent of domestic violence survivors suffer financial abuse, and many 
receive some form of means-tested benefits that may preclude them from 
applying for fee waivers in the naturalization process. The commenter 
said fee waivers were critical for ensuring such vulnerable individuals 
have the opportunity to pursue citizenship.
    Response: DHS is not intending to further harm survivors of 
domestic violence, human trafficking, or other crimes. In fact, DHS 
continues to exempt VAWA self-petitioners, individuals who are victims 
of a severe form of human trafficking and who assist law enforcement in 
the investigation or prosecution of those acts of trafficking or 
qualify for an exception (who may qualify for T nonimmigrant status), 
and individuals who are victims of certain crimes and have been, are 
being, or are likely to be helpful to the investigation or prosecution 
of those crimes (who may qualify for U nonimmigrant status) from paying 
a fee for the main benefit forms: Form I-360 for VAWA, and Forms I-914 
and I-918 for T and U nonimmigrants including family members, 
respectively. See 8 CFR 106.2(a)(16)(ii), (a)(45) and (a)(46). DHS 
believes that maintaining access to fee waivers for these vulnerable 
populations mitigates any concerns that the increase in certain fees 
would limit access for protected categories of individuals. In 
addition, in response to commenters' concerns regarding the ability for 
the VAWA, T nonimmigrant, U nonimmigrant and Special Immigrant (Afghan 
and Iraqi translators) populations to pay for the cost of 
naturalization applications, DHS decided to expand the ability of these 
populations to apply for a fee waiver for Form N-400, Application for 
Naturalization, Form N-600, Application for Certificate of Citizenship, 
and Form N-600K, Application for Citizenship and Issuance of 
Certificate Under Section 322. See 8 CFR 106.3(a)(3).
    Comment: One commenter referred to a study from the National 
Resource Center on Domestic Violence that found means-tested benefits 
support financial security and independence and are ``critically 
important'' for survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and 
human trafficking. The commenter said recipients of means-tested 
benefits are, by definition, of limited financial means and need these 
benefits to meet their basic needs. The commenter said restricting the 
availability of fee waivers would harm survivors of domestic violence 
and other forms of gender-based violence, and cited research 
demonstrating the widespread incidence and devastating economic impacts 
of such violence.
    Response: DHS does not intend to further harm domestic violence or 
human trafficking survivors. In fact, the rule continues to exempt 
those applying for VAWA, T, and U benefits from certain fees and allows 
them to request fee waivers for other forms as provided by statute. DHS 
believes that maintaining access to fee waivers for these populations 
mitigates any concerns that the increase in certain fees would limit 
access for protected categories of individuals. See 8 CFR 106.3(a).
    Comment: A commenter stated that Congress mandated that DHS permit 
applicants to apply for a waiver of any fees associated with VAWA 
benefits, T nonimmigrant filings, U nonimmigrant filings, or an 
application for VAWA cancellation of removal or suspension of 
deportation. In doing so, Congress recognized that ensuring equal 
access to immigration protections was crucial for crime survivors to 
achieve safety and security. Many commenters also wrote that the 
proposed rule undermines Congressional intent to make humanitarian 
relief accessible to victims. Another commenter stated that the 
proposed rule clearly violates Congressional intent, as reiterated in a 
December 2019 House Appropriations Committee report, by imposing fees 
on individuals who have received humanitarian protection and 
subsequently seek adjustment of status and other immigration benefits 
which they cannot afford. The commenters said low-income survivors will 
not apply for benefits due to the barriers they will encounter in 
demonstrating their eligibility for fee waivers and that the proposed 
rule ``undermines'' bi-partisan Congressional intent with respect to 
VAWA-based relief. Commenters stated that the language runs counter to 
existing law as Congress did not place any conditions on the 
availability of fee waivers for survivors when it codified the use of 
fee waivers for filing a VAWA self-petition, a T nonimmigrant status 
application or U nonimmigrant status petition, or an application for 
VAWA cancellation or suspension of deportation. Other commenters wrote 
that USCIS should automatically waive fees for all forms associated 
with applications for T nonimmigrant status, U nonimmigrant status, and 
VAWA self-petitioners to make humanitarian immigration relief 
accessible to victims.
    Response: DHS exempts VAWA self-petitioners, applicants for T 
nonimmigrant status, and petitioners for U nonimmigrant status from 
paying a fee for the main benefit forms: Form I-360 for VAWA, and Forms 
I-914 and I-918 for T and U nonimmigrants including family members, 
respectively. Thus, DHS is making relief accessible to the populations 
noted by the commenters.
    Further, this final rule complies with the law's requirements \31\ 
to permit these applicants to apply for a waiver of any fees associated 
with filing an application for relief through final adjudication of the 
adjustment of status. See new 8 CFR 106.3(a)(1). DHS agrees that 
Congress did not place any conditions on the availability of fee 
waivers for a VAWA self-petition, a T nonimmigrant status application, 
or U nonimmigrant status petition, or an application for VAWA 
cancellation or suspension of deportation, but DHS disagrees that any 
legislation requires or implies or that Congress intended that USCIS 
provide free adjudications for all of their associated benefit 
requests. Congress has codified several fee exemptions or fee limits. 
See, e.g., INA section 328(b)(4), 8 U.S.C. 1439(b)(4) (fee exemption 
for Military Naturalization Based on Peacetime Service); INA section 
244(c)(1)(B), 8

[[Page 46811]]

U.S.C. 1254a(c)(1)(B) (the registration fee for TPS is limited to $50, 
although additional fees may be collected for biometrics and associated 
services, See 8 U.S.C. 1254b. Congress has also appropriated funds for 
adjudication and certain naturalization services. See, e.g., 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019, Public Law 116-6, div. A, tit. 
IV (Feb. 15, 2019) and Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, Public 
Law 116-93, div. D, tit. IV (Dec. 20, 2020). Congress has not provided 
for a fee exemption, fee cap, or appropriated funds for VAWA self-
petitioners, T nonimmigrant status applicants, and U nonimmigrant 
status petitioners. To the contrary, the statute directs DHS to allow 
applications for fee waivers, rather than to waive all such fees, 
evidencing Congress's intent for DHS to evaluate the individual merits 
of such requests. DHS appreciates the concerns about affordability, 
but, while many victim requesters are in poor financial condition, 
being a victim does not equate to being poor, and DHS may require that 
the victim requester document eligibility for a fee waiver. Therefore, 
DHS makes no changes in the final rule as a result of these comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ See INA section 245(l)(7), 8 U.S.C. 1255(l)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Commenters stated that while applications and petitions 
for survivor-based relief do not have fees, applicants must frequently 
file ancillary forms whose fees are increasing under the proposed rule 
or may seek status through other immigration categories. The commenter 
stated that by eradicating fee waivers for other types of applications 
and petitions, the proposed rule ignores the facts that survivors of 
domestic violence, sexual assault, human trafficking, and other gender-
based abuses may pursue other routes to secure immigration status which 
lack such explicit protections. They also noted that fee waivers will 
no longer be available for any naturalization applications and many 
other forms in non-survivor based cases, like legal permanent residence 
applications; work permit applications; and Form I-751, Petition to 
Remove Conditions on Residence; among others. Another commenter said 
the final rule would need to more explicitly address the protections 
and exemptions for humanitarian visa categories because the proposed 
rule contained contradictory and confusing language and many potential 
applicants would not necessarily be aware of special protections to 
which they are entitled.
    Other commenters requested that USCIS withdraw the proposed rule, 
because it would create barriers to accessing immigration benefits for 
victims, and immigration benefits are essential for survivors to escape 
abuse and become self-sufficient after they have been victimized. 
Commenters stated that the rule ignores survivors of domestic violence, 
who have a spotty employment history or lack of savings, or both, and 
survivors of human trafficking, who may spend many months waiting for 
compensation from litigation or before they are able to recuperate 
their lost wages.
    Other commenters detailed how economic abuse affects survivors' 
finances, including precluding victims from working, destroying their 
work uniforms and equipment, preventing them from getting to work or an 
interview, and other tactics that impact a victim's financial 
independence and impede their ability to pay filing fees. One commenter 
specifically noted that VAWA self-petitioners often have limited 
financial means, are often homeless after escaping their abusers, and 
suffer from physical and mental health issues. The commenter stated 
that the little money they do have is needed to help them maintain 
independence from their abusers and provide for their families. One 
commenter wrote that USCIS should focus on ensuring vulnerable 
immigrants have access to immigration relief for which they are 
eligible. The commenters stated that fee waivers for survivor-based 
immigration protections have helped survivors improve their lives by 
allowing them to obtain employment authorization and legal status 
without having to request funds from their abusers or forgo food or 
housing in order to pay fees. In the context of VAWA, T, and U 
applicants, another commenter stated that the fee increases did not 
take into account areas of the country, such as the San Francisco Bay 
Area, where living expenses and housing costs are high. They said such 
a fee increase also does not consider the mandatory expense of the 
obligatory medical exam (Form I-693, Report of Medical Examination and 
Vaccination Record) that in their experience ranges anywhere from $300 
to $700 and for which there is no fee waiver.
    Response: DHS acknowledges the concerns commenters have raised and 
does not intend to unduly burden any alien, particularly those who have 
been victimized. To avoid confusion and clarify the applicability of 
the rule, DHS reiterates that the rule continues to exempt the VAWA, T, 
and U populations from fees for the main benefit forms and allows them 
to submit fee waiver requests for any associated forms up to and 
including the application for adjustment of status, as provided by 
statute. For example, there are no fees for the following forms: VAWA-
based Form I-360, Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special 
Immigrant; Form I-914, Application for T Nonimmigrant Status; and Form 
I-918, Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status. In addition, VAWA, T, and U 
filers may submit a request for a fee waiver for associated forms, 
including Forms I-765, I-131, I-212, and I-601, among other forms.
    Additionally, in response to commenters' concerns regarding the 
ability for the victim population to pay for the cost of naturalization 
applications, DHS will permit this population to request a fee waiver 
for Form N-400, Application for Naturalization; Form N-600, Application 
for Certificate of Citizenship; and Form N-600K, Application for 
Citizenship and Issuance of Certificate Under Section 322. The table 
below provides the full list of forms these applicants and petitioners 
may apply for that are either exempt from fees or eligible for fee 
waivers. DHS repeats these applicants, generally, do not have to pay 
the fees for the initial main benefit forms that provide the 
immigration status or benefit.

[[Page 46812]]



                     Table 3--Categories and Forms Without Fees or Eligible for Fee Waivers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Main immigration benefit requests
            Category                             \32\                              Associated forms
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Violence Against Women Act        Form I-360, Petition for           Form I-131, Application for Travel
 (VAWA) self-petitioners and       Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special   Document.\34\
 derivatives as defined in INA     Immigrant (no fee for VAWA-based  Form I-212, Application for Permission to
 section 101(a)(51) or             filings).                          Reapply for Admission into the United
 individuals otherwise self-      Form I-485, Application to          States After Deportation or Removal.
 petitioning for immigrant         Register Permanent Residence or   Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion.
 classification or seeking         Adjust Status.                    Form I-601, Application for Waiver of
 adjustment of status due to      Form I-751, Petition to Remove      Grounds of Inadmissibility.
 abuse by a qualifying relative    Conditions on Residence.          Form I-765, Application for Employment
 \33\.                            Form I-881, Application for         Authorization (no initial fee for
                                   Suspension of Deportation or       principals).\35\
                                   Special Rule Cancellation of      Form N-400, Application for Naturalization.
                                   Removal (Pursuant to Section 203  Form N-600, Application for Certificate of
                                   of Public Law 105-100 (NACARA)).   Citizenship.
                                                                     Form N-600K, Application for Citizenship
                                                                      and Issuance of Certificate Under Section
                                                                      322.
Victims of Severe Form of         Form I-914, Application for T      Form I-131, Application for Travel
 Trafficking (T nonimmigrant)      Nonimmigrant Status (no fee).      Document.
 \36\.                            Form I-914 Supplement A,           Form I-192, Application for Advance
                                   Application for Family Member of   Permission to Enter as a Nonimmigrant.
                                   T-1, Recipient (no fee).          Form I-193, Application for Waiver of
                                  Form I-914, Supplement B,           Passport and/or Visa.
                                   Declaration of Law Enforcement    Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion.
                                   Officer for Victim of             Form I-539, Application to Extend/Change
                                   Trafficking in Persons (no fee).   Nonimmigrant Status.
                                  Form I-485, Application to         Form I-601, Application for Waiver of
                                   Register Permanent Residence or    Grounds of Inadmissibility.
                                   Adjust Status.                    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 Certificate Under Section
                                                                      322.
Victims of Criminal Activity (U   Form I-918, Petition for U         Form I-131, Application for Travel
 nonimmigrant) \37\.               Nonimmigrant Status (no fee).      Document.
                                  Form I-918, Supplement A,          Form I-192, Application for Advance
                                   Petition for Qualifying Family     Permission to Enter as a Nonimmigrant.
                                   Member of U-1 Recipient (no fee). Form I-193, Application for Waiver of
                                  Form I-918 Supplement B, U          Passport and/or Visa.
                                   Nonimmigrant Status               Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion.
                                   Certification (no fee).           Form I-539, Application to Extend/Change
                                  Form I-929, Petition for            Nonimmigrant Status.
                                   Qualifying Family Member of a U-  Form I-765, Application for Employment
                                   1 Nonimmigrant.                    Authorization (no initial fee for
                                  Form I-485, Application to          principals).
                                   Register Permanent Residence or   Form N-400, Application for Naturalization.
                                   Adjust Status.                    Form N-600, Application for Certificate of
                                                                      Citizenship.
                                                                     Form N-600K, Application for Citizenship
                                                                      and Issuance of Certificate Under Section
                                                                      322.
Employment authorization for      Form I-765V, Application for       None.
 battered spouses of A, G, E-3,    Employment Authorization for
 or H nonimmigrants \38\.          Abused Nonimmigrant Spouse (no
                                   initial fee).
Battered spouses or children of   None with USCIS..................  Form I-601, Waiver of Grounds of
 a lawful permanent resident or                                       Inadmissibility.
 U.S. citizen and derivatives                                        Form N-400, Application for Naturalization.
 under INA section 240A(b)(2)                                        Form N-600, Application for Certificate of
 \39\.                                                                Citizenship.
                                                                     Form N-600K, Application for Citizenship
                                                                      and Issuance of Certificate Under Section
                                                                      322.
Temporary Protected Status \40\.  Form I-821, Application for        Form I-131, Application for Travel
                                   Temporary Protected Status.        Document.
                                  Biometric Services Fee...........  Form I-601, Application for Waiver of
                                                                      Grounds of Inadmissibility.
                                                                     Form I-765, Application for Employment
                                                                      Authorization.
Special Immigrant Juveniles       Form I-360, Petition for           Form I-131, Application for Travel
 (SIJ) who have been placed in     Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special   Document.\41\
 out-of-home care under the        Immigrant (no fee).               Form I-212, Application for Permission to
 supervision of a juvenile court  Form I-485, Application to          Reapply for Admission into the United
 or a state child welfare agency   Register Permanent Residence or    States After Deportation or Removal.
 at the time of filing.            Adjust Status.                    Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion.
                                                                     Form I-601, Application for Waiver of
                                                                      Grounds of Inadmissibility.
                                                                     Form I-765, Application for Employment
                                                                      Authorization.
                                                                     Form N-400, Application for Naturalization.
                                                                     Form N-600, Application for Certificate of
                                                                      Citizenship.
                                                                     Form N-600K, Application for Citizenship
                                                                      and Issuance of Certificate Under Section
                                                                      322.

[[Page 46813]]

 
Special Immigrant as an Afghan    Form I-360, Petition for           Form I-131, Application for Travel Document
 or Iraqi Translator or            Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special   (no fee).
 Interpreter, Iraqi National       Immigrant (no fee).               Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion (no
 employed by or on behalf of the  Form I-485, Application to          fee).
 U.S. Government, or Afghan        Register Permanent Residence or   Form I-765, Application for Employment
 National employed by or on        Adjust Status (no fee).            Authorization (no fee).
 behalf of the U.S. government                                       Form I-212, Application for Permission to
 or employed by the                                                   Reapply for Admission into the United
 International Security                                               States After Deportation or Removal.
 Assistance Forces.                                                  Form I-601, Application for Waiver of
                                                                      Grounds of Inadmissibility.
                                                                     Form N-400, Application for Naturalization.
                                                                     Form N-600, Application for Certificate of
                                                                      Citizenship.
                                                                     Form N-600K, Application for Citizenship
                                                                      and Issuance of Certificate Under Section
                                                                      322.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although DHS is increasing fees for various forms to account for 
the cost of adjudication, the victim populations identified here will 
be eligible to apply for a fee waiver for most forms if their income is 
at or below 125 percent of the FPG. As stated previously, the law does 
not require, and DHS declines to adopt, the recommendation to 
automatically waive fees for all forms associated with VAWA, T, and U 
filings or to withdraw the rule in its entirety. USCIS is funded 
through fees, and taxpayer dollars are not used to fund USCIS 
adjudication and naturalization services. The cost associated with 
applications and petitions that have been fee waived is paid from fees 
collected from other benefit requests. DHS believes that maintaining 
access to fee waivers for these vulnerable populations mitigates any 
concerns that the increase in the fees will limit access for protected 
categories of individuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Some immigration benefit requests may not have a fee for 
the specific category.
    \33\ See INA sections 101(a)(51) and 204(a), 8 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, 122 Stat. 5044 (Dec. 23, 2008); 22 U.S.C. 7101 
et seq. This category includes applicants for waivers of the joint 
filing requirement for Form I-751 based on battery and extreme 
cruelty; victims of battery or extreme cruelty as a spouse or child 
under the Cuban Adjustment Act Public Law 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359 
(November 6, 1986) (as amended), 8 U.S.C. 1255a; applicants 
adjusting based on dependent status under the Haitian Refugee 
Immigrant Fairness Act, Public Law 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681 (October 
21, 1998), 8 U.S.C. 1255, for battered spouses and children; and 
applicants for Suspension of Deportation or Special Rule 
Cancellation of Removal (Form I-881) under the Nicaraguan Adjustment 
and Central American Relief Act, Public Law 105-100, 111 Stat. 2163 
(Nov. 19, 1997), for battered spouses and children.
    \34\ Currently, fees for Form I-131 are exempt if filed in 
conjunction with a pending or concurrently filed Form I-485 with fee 
that was filed on or after July 30, 2007. See 8 CFR 
103.7(b)(1)(i)(M)(4). However, DHS implements changes to this policy 
in this final rule as explained in this preamble. New 8 CFR 
106.2(a)(7)(iv).
    \35\ Form I-360 allows a principal self-petitioner to request an 
EAD incident to case approval without submitting a separate Form I-
765. Form I-765 is required for employment authorization requests by 
derivative beneficiaries.
    \36\ See INA section 101(a)(15)(T), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(T) (T 
nonimmigrant status for victims of a severe form of trafficking in 
persons).
    \37\ See INA section 101(a)(15)(U), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(U) (U 
nonimmigrant status for victims of certain criminal activity).
    \38\ See INA section 106, 8 U.S.C. 1105a.
    \39\ See INA section 240A(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(2), and INA 
section 245(l)(7), 8 U.S.C. 1255(l)(7).
    \40\ See INA section 244, 8 U.S.C. 1254a.
    \41\ Currently, fees for Form I-131 are exempt if filed in 
conjunction with a pending or concurrently filed Form I-485 with fee 
that was filed on or after July 30, 2007. See 8 CFR 
103.7(b)(1)(i)(M)(4). However, DHS proposes changes to the policy in 
this final rule as explained later in this preamble. New 8 CFR 
106.2(a)(7)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As the commenters point out, the law provides specific immigration 
benefits for those who have been victimized and provides protections 
and flexibilities for these populations to address their particular 
concerns. This final rule complies with those provisions.
    Comment: Another commenter provided statistics describing the 
economic condition of the population served by non-profit legal service 
providers in its State and wrote that the proposal would increase the 
strain on these important organizations. The commenter noted that 
nearly 90 percent of the 25 legal service providers surveyed in its 
state represented applicants for humanitarian immigration benefits, 
such as VAWA petitions, trafficking victims on T nonimmigrant 
applications, or asylum applicants. The commenter stated the proposal 
would create a chilling effect on all clients served by these 
organizations, regardless of the benefits for which they qualify, and 
could ultimately jeopardize these organizations' budgets due to a 
reduction in the number of cases served.
    Response: As stated previously, DHS appreciates the services that 
charitable, community based, non-governmental, and non-profit 
organizations provide to the immigrant community. DHS declines, 
however, to exempt from fees all forms associated with VAWA, T, and U 
filings. Organizations providing services to the VAWA, T, and U 
population will continue to be able to request fee waivers for forms 
associated with these filings in addition to a fee exemption for the 
main benefit request (i.e., Form I-360, Form I-914, and Form I-918 have 
no fee for these populations).
    Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed Form I-912 
instructions ``create additional burdens that are ultra vires to the 
statute permitting fee waivers for survivor-based cases, notably with 
the phrase `due to your victimization.' '' The commenter stated that 
survivors should not have to demonstrate a nexus between their 
victimization and their lack of income or proof of income. The 
commenter also stated that this non-statutory requirement is burdensome 
on survivors, as they may face obstacles obtaining or providing proof 
of income for reasons that may or may not be related to their 
victimization and will prevent many survivors from accessing critical 
benefits. Several commenters said low-income survivors will not apply 
for benefits due to the barriers they will encounter in demonstrating 
their eligibility for fee waivers and that the proposed rule undermines 
bi-partisan Congressional intent with respect to VAWA-based relief. 
Many commenters stated that the additional limits on fee waiver 
eligibility criteria combined with the stringent documentation 
requirements for fee waivers (e.g., Form I-912 instructions that 
survivors need to ``demonstrate a nexus between their victimization and 
lack of income or proof of income) will prevent many survivors from 
qualifying or applying for fee waivers. A commenter stated that, 
whether intentional or not, the proposed rule will act as a barrier to 
status for the crime survivors we serve and, coupled with the stringent 
documentation requirements for fee waivers, will prevent many survivors 
from qualifying

[[Page 46814]]

for fee waivers.'' A commenter said the proposed Form I-912 
instructions create additional burdens for crime survivors from 
qualifying for fee waivers, and USCIS should continue to accept 
applicant-generated fee waiver requests. One commenter said USCIS had 
received many comments on a previous attempt to modify the fee waiver 
form from stakeholders concerned about the negative impact those 
changes would have on immigrant survivors of violence and wrote that 
the current proposal would make these problems worse. The commenter 
said survivors of violence would be adversely impacted by the 
heightened documentation requirements, specifically the provision that 
survivors would have to demonstrate that their inability to comply with 
documentation requirements was due to their victimization. The 
commenter said the proposal failed to reference any exceptions to the 
vague ``victimization'' standard despite USCIS' prior recognition that 
the requirement to provide documentation from the Internal Revenue 
Service (IRS) would disadvantage immigrant survivors.
    Response: To obtain a fee waiver, an applicant must demonstrate 
that he or she is at or below 125 percent of the FPG, meet the other 
criteria as provided in the rule, and provide the information and 
evidence available in order to establish eligibility. The applicant 
need only provide sufficient information to establish why the 
documentation is not available and not that it is unavailable directly 
or indirectly as a result of the victimization. The form provides space 
for explanations and attachments are accepted, but a separate 
declaration is unnecessary. Although not required by statute, USCIS has 
provided flexibilities in the instructions for the VAWA, T, and U 
populations permitting them to submit information regarding their 
inability to obtain documentation on their income with their fee waiver 
request. DHS will presume that the inability of this group of 
applicants to submit certain evidence is the result of the 
victimization and abuse and not require proof of a nexus between 
victimization and the inability to pay, but the request must 
demonstrate inability to pay to the extent necessary for USCIS to grant 
a discretionary fee waiver. All applicants for a fee waiver are subject 
to the evidence requirements as provided in the revised form 
instructions, which include more flexible rules with respect to the 
groups these comments mention. If individuals are unable to obtain 
documents without contacting the abuser, they can explain why they are 
unable to obtain such documentation and submit other evidence to 
demonstrate their eligibility. Obtaining information from the IRS in 
transcripts, a W-2, or proof of non-filing, if applicable, is 
sufficient documentation to establish the necessary income or lack of 
income.
    Comment: A few commenters discussed the processing times for 
survivor-based forms of immigration protections, citing increased 
adjudication time for filings such as petitions for U nonimmigrant 
status and Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) self-petitions. Commenters 
said slow processing times can lead to increased homelessness, 
violence, or a return to abusive relationships for victims and that 
USCIS has failed to address how these fees will improve processing 
times. One commenter cited several sources and wrote that new fees 
would not result in improved processing but instead would contribute 
to, and escalate, violence.
    Response: DHS understands the commenter's concerns regarding 
processing times. Processing times are impacted by several factors, and 
any changes based on the rule would limitedly impact these populations. 
The rule continues to exempt the VAWA, T, and U populations from 
certain fees and allows them to submit fee waiver requests for any 
forms up to adjustment of status. See new 8 CFR 106.2(a)(16), 
(a)(32)(ii), (a)(45) and (a)(46); 8 CFR 106.3(a)(3). In the final rule 
DHS is permitting a request for a fee waiver on the application for 
naturalization or certificate of citizenship for these categories. See 
new 8 CFR 106.3(a)(3). DHS disagrees that this final rule would result 
in increased processing times or contribute to escalating violence on 
these populations, particularly as the additional resources made 
available from increased fees may enable USCIS to limit growth in 
pending caseloads. As DHS states elsewhere in this rule, DHS is 
adjusting fees in this final rule because they are insufficient to 
generate the revenue necessary to fund USCIS at levels adequate to meet 
its processing time goals. The new fees will allow USCIS to hire more 
people to adjudicate cases and possibly prevent the growth of backlogs.
    Comment: A commenter stated that the proposed rule is not detailed 
enough about whether refugees are exempt from fees including the Form 
I-765 fees and whether asylees and SIJ petitioners and recipients will 
be eligible for fee waivers. The commenter also stated that DHS fails 
to understand that individuals are forced to file fee waivers when DHS 
places fees for benefits out of the reach of most low to moderate 
income applicants and that the inability to access identity documents 
exacerbates homelessness and unemployment, concluding that elimination 
of fee waivers is arbitrary and capricious.
    Response: DHS acknowledges the concerns of the commenter related to 
the availability of fee waivers for refugees and asylees, and other 
vulnerable applicants and petitioners. DHS will continue to provide a 
fee exemption for the initial Form I-765 for individuals who were 
granted asylum (asylees) or who were admitted as refugees. See 84 FR 
62301. DHS is also continuing to provide a fee exemption to refugees 
for Form I-485. See 84 FR 62360; new 8 CFR 106.2(a)(17)(iii). In 
addition, the fee that DHS charges for refugee travel documents will 
continue as a lesser fee, linked to the fee for a U.S. passport book, 
rather than the estimated full cost of adjudication. See 84 FR 62306.
    At the USCIS Director's discretion, USCIS may waive or exempt the 
fee for any form, including those filed by asylees and refugees. See 8 
CFR 106.3(b), (e). That provision is similar to, but somewhat more 
limited than, the authority that was in 8 CFR 103.7(d) for the Director 
of USCIS to provide for the waiver or exemption of any fee if doing so 
was in the public interest. The new provision provides that the 
Director determines that such action is an emergent circumstance or if 
a major natural disaster has been declared in accordance with 44 CFR 
part 206, subpart B. See 8 CFR 106.3(b), (e). As was stated in the 
NPRM, USCIS will notify the public of the availability of fee waivers 
for specific forms under this provision through external policy 
guidance, website updates, and communication materials. See 84 FR 
62300. Individuals who qualify for such a fee waiver would still need 
to meet the requirements to request a fee waiver as provided in the new 
8 CFR 106.3(b) and (d). In this final rule, DHS consolidated the 
provisions regarding the USCIS Director's discretion in 8 CFR 106.3(b) 
and 8 CFR 106.3(c), as the proposed provision in the NPRM, 8 CFR 
106.3(b), was redundant.
    In response to commenters' concerns, DHS will also allow 
petitioners for and recipients of SIJ classification who, at the time 
of filing, have been placed in out-of-home care under the supervision 
of a juvenile court or a state child welfare agency, to submit requests 
for fee waivers for Form I-485 and associated forms, as well as Forms 
N-400, N-600, and N-600K. See 8 CFR 106.3(a)(2)(i). DHS does not 
believe that the final rule eliminates fee waivers for

[[Page 46815]]

these applicants or blocks access to identity documents.
    Comment: Several commenters stated that the elimination of fee 
waivers will harm the most vulnerable populations, such as domestic 
violence or human trafficking survivors, and those in times of crisis. 
One commenter stated fee waivers should be available to individuals 
seeking humanitarian relief and lacking the ability to pay. One 
commenter suggested that it would make better fiscal sense and would 
result in better outcomes for USCIS if the agency automatically waives 
fees for all forms associated with applicants for T nonimmigrant 
status, petitioners for U nonimmigrant status, and VAWA self-
petitioners because fee waivers would facilitate non-profits' efforts 
to help these applicants file these forms quickly. A commenter wrote 
that delays in application submission due to limitations on fee waivers 
would result in delayed justice for individuals because immigration 
practitioners will be forced to spend more time on each case.
    Response: DHS acknowledges the commenters' concerns and clarifies 
that this final rule continues to exempt the VAWA, T and U populations 
from certain fees and allows them to request fee waivers on other forms 
as previously discussed. See 8 CFR 106.2(a)(16)(ii), (a)(45) and 
(a)(46), 8 CFR 106.3. Furthermore, in response to concerns expressed by 
the public, DHS provides in this final rule that those populations may 
also request a fee waiver for Forms N-400, N-600, and N-600K. See 8 CFR 
106.3(a)(3). DHS believes that by continuing to provide the opportunity 
to request fee waivers, the final rule will not unduly burden these 
populations or delay the submission of their applications and 
petitions.
    Comment: A commenter opposed the new form's request for applicants 
to self-identify as survivors. The commenter stated that most types of 
humanitarian relief covered by Form I-912 ``are subject to certain 
protections and sanctions'' relating to privacy and confidentiality and 
requested that USCIS clarify that the disclosure of personal 
information in these sections complies with protections codified at 8 
U.S.C. 1367.
    Response: DHS takes seriously its responsibility to properly 
protect sensitive information in its possession.\42\ DHS follows the 
Privacy Act requirements, which apply to information that is maintained 
in a ``system of records'' from which information is retrieved by the 
name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other 
identifier particular assigned to the individual. Information from 
forms is collected and maintained consistent with the Privacy Act of 
1974 \43\ (Privacy Act) and the System of Records Notice (SORN), which 
identifies the purpose for which Personally Identifiable Information 
(PII) is collected, from whom and what type of PII is collected, how 
the PII is shared externally (routine uses), and how to access and 
correct any PII maintained by DHS.\44\ With regard to 8 U.S.C. 1367 
protections, DHS remains committed to our obligations under the statute 
and applies the required protections to all information pertaining to 
individuals with a pending or approved VAWA, T, or U petition or 
application, which includes information provided on Form I-912.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ See generally Notice of Modified Privacy Act System of 
Records, 82 FR 43556, 43564 (Sept. 18, 2017) (``DHS/USCIS safeguards 
records in this system according to applicable rules and policies, 
including all applicable DHS automated systems security and access 
policies. USCIS has imposed strict controls to minimize the risk of 
compromising the information that is being stored.'').
    \43\ See 5 U.S.C. 552.
    \44\ See generally Notice of Modified Privacy Act System of 
Records, 82 FR 43556, 43564 (Sept. 18, 2017) (``DHS/USCIS safeguards 
records in this system according to applicable rules and policies, 
including all applicable DHS automated systems security and access 
policies. USCIS has imposed strict controls to minimize the risk of 
compromising the information that is being stored.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Several commenters stated that SIJ petitioners and 
recipients, a vulnerable group, are missing from USCIS' list of groups 
retaining access to fee waivers. A commenter stated that this proposal 
will hinder the ability of juveniles who receive SIJ classification to 
fully integrate into the United States, due to excessive costs, and 
that it will result in other unintended consequences, particularly for 
unaccompanied minors. Such consequences include difficulty finding 
sponsors and a lower level of legal representation. Commenters further 
noted that the proposed fee increases would burden SIJ petitioners and 
recipients who have no means to pay for the fees when applying for 
adjustment of status. The commenter stated that SIJ petitioners and 
recipients are children who have suffered abuse, neglect, or 
abandonment by at least one of their parents. The commenter stated that 
SIJs benefit immensely from obtaining work authorization, as working 
lets the SIJs take control over their lives, provide for themselves, 
and begin to build a brighter future. The commenter stated that 
adjustment offers them the chance to permanently put down roots in the 
United States, putting the trauma in their pasts behind them. One 
commenter stated that in passing the Trafficking Victims Protection 
Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA),\45\ Congress made amendments to 
the SIJ statute to provide ``permanent protection for certain at-risk 
children.'' The commenter further stated that not providing fee waivers 
to SIJs would preclude at-risk children from accessing fee waivers and 
thus clearly violate Congressional intent to permanently protect these 
at-risk children. Another commenter said that the hardship would be 
particularly acute for those SIJ petitioners in foster care, who have 
limited or no access to the funds necessary to seek adjustment of 
status with USCIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See The William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection 
Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA), Public Law 110-457, 112 Stat. 
5044 (Dec. 23, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The TVPRA \46\ requires DHS to permit certain applicants 
to apply for fee waivers for ``any fees associated with filing an 
application for relief through final adjudication of the adjustment of 
status.'' INA section 245(l)(7), 8 U.S.C. 1255(l)(7), provides that 
``The Secretary of Homeland Security shall permit aliens to apply for a 
waiver of any fees associated with filing an application for relief 
through final adjudication of the adjustment of status for a VAWA self-
petitioner and for relief under sections 1101(a)(15)(T), 
1101(a)(15)(U), 1105a, 1229b(b)(2), and 1254a(a)(3) of this title (as 
in effect on March 31, 1997).'' These provisions do not include SIJ 
petitioners or recipients. Therefore, DHS is not mandated to allow SIJs 
to apply for fee waivers. Nevertheless, after considering the 
commenters' concerns, DHS agrees that SIJ petitioners who are wards of 
the state are particularly vulnerable. Therefore, DHS will allow 
petitioners for and recipients of SIJ classification who, at the time 
of filing, have been placed in out-of-home care under the supervision 
of a juvenile court or a state child welfare agency, to request that 
the fees for Form I-485 and associated forms be waived. See 8 CFR 
106.3(a)(2)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ See title II, subtitle A, sec. 201(d)(3), Public Law 110-
457, 122 Stat. 5044 (2008); INA section 245(l)(7), 8 U.S.C. 
1255(l)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, DHS is including Forms N-400, N-600, and N-600K as 
forms eligible for a fee waiver for multiple categories of applicants. 
See 8 CFR 106.3(a)(3). Table 3 above provides a list of forms eligible 
for fee waivers based on SIJ classification.
    Comment: A commenter stated that limits on categories eligible for 
fee waivers and elimination of a need-based benefit as a way to qualify 
for a fee

[[Page 46816]]

waiver will have an especially heavy impact on the homeless, who often 
have difficulty providing required documents and must file applications 
for replacement of lost or stolen immigration documents.
    Response: This final rule does not prohibit aliens who are homeless 
from applying for or receiving a fee waiver if he or she is a member of 
one of the designated categories.
    Comment: Multiple commenters opposed lowering the income limit for 
fee waivers to 125 percent of the FPG as it would disqualify many 
immigrants, including survivors of crime who are statutorily protected, 
from receiving fee waivers for immigration benefits. Many commenters 
stated that the proposed rule fails to acknowledge that immigrants, 
especially survivors of crimes, often do not have access to financial 
documents or proof of their income for various reasons, including 
informal jobs (e.g., babysitting or yard work) that pay cash; the fact 
that limited earnings do not require taxes to be filed; and that 
abusers often have control of all financial documents, destroy records, 
or prevent victims from attaining financial independence. One commenter 
wrote that since many individuals would not fall within the proposed, 
narrower financial eligibility criteria, victims of labor trafficking 
may turn to jobs with exploitative employers or back to traffickers in 
order to pay the fees for adjustment of status or other ancillary 
forms.
    Response: DHS acknowledges that some applicants may no longer 
qualify for fee waivers if their income was higher than 125 percent of 
the FPG but lower than 150 percent of the FPG. However, many applicants 
may otherwise have income below 125 percent and, therefore, still 
qualify. Consistent with the statute, this final rule specifically 
permits aliens described in the TVPRA, including those seeking benefits 
under VAWA, as well as T and U nonimmigrants,\47\ to request fee 
waivers for ``any fees associated with filing an application for relief 
through final adjudication of the adjustment of status.'' \48\ The 
TVPRA provision requires DHS to allow these applicants to request fee 
waivers; however, the TVPRA does not require fee exemptions or set the 
FPG level for waivers. DHS declines to make changes in this final rule 
in response to this comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ See title II, subtitle A, sec. 201(d)(3), Public Law 110-
457, 122 Stat. 5044 (2008); INA section 245(l)(7), 8 U.S.C. 
1255(l)(7).
    \48\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Fee Waivers for Specific Forms
    Comment: Commenters opposed eliminating the fee waiver for 
naturalization, as well as lawful permanent residence, employment 
authorization, and other applications. Numerous commenters opposed the 
proposed elimination of fee waivers for Form I-90, Form I-765, Form I-
485, forms for applicants exempt from the public charge inadmissibility 
ground, Form I-751, and naturalization and citizenship-related forms.
    Response: DHS is not eliminating all fee waivers for Forms I-485 
and I-765 and is allowing fee waiver requests for certain humanitarian 
programs for naturalization and citizenship related forms as 
applicable. See 8 CFR 106.3(a). See Table 3: Categories and Forms 
Without Fees or Eligible for Fee Waivers. DHS will continue to accept 
fee waiver requests from applicants who meet the requirements of INA 
section 245(l)(7), 8 U.S.C. 1255(l)(7). Id. As explained in the NPRM, 
the INA requires DHS to permit fee waiver requests from certain 
immigrant categories and for certain forms; limiting fee waiver 
requests reduces the fee increases for all immigration benefits and 
places the fee costs on the benefit recipient instead of an unrelated 
party.
    DHS notes, however, that the law requires DHS to ``permit aliens to 
apply for a waiver of any fees associated with filing an application 
for relief through final adjudication of the adjustment of status for a 
VAWA self-petitioner and for relief under sections 101(a)(15)(T), 
101(a)(15)(U), 106, 240A(b)(2), and 244(a)(3) (as in effect on March 
31, 1997).'' DHS appreciates that aliens will often file multiple 
requests simultaneously or shortly after each other, including requests 
for asylum, SIJ classification, T nonimmigrant status, U nonimmigrant 
status, humanitarian parole, or deferred action. However, that a 
request may be filed simultaneously with a status included in section 
245(l)(7), 1255(l)(7), or while it is pending, does not make such a 
request an ``application for relief'' ``associated with filing'' for 
the purposes of fee waiver eligibility under that provision of law. 
USCIS will generally reject a fee waiver request and the associated 
benefit request that asserts that it is ``associated'' and eligible for 
a fee waiver simply because it is simultaneous or filed while another 
benefit request is pending.
    DHS will not make changes to its fee waiver regulations in this 
final rule in response to these comments.
    Comment: A few commenters said the Form I-90 should remain fee 
waivable, as the form is necessary to renew permanent resident cards. 
The commenters stated that without the fee waiver, applicants would be 
unable to renew their status and escape poverty. A commenter wrote that 
eliminating a fee waiver option for an I-90 would be ``egregious.'' The 
commenter stated that immigrants with expired legal status or 
employment authorization often get caught in a vicious cycle of being 
unable to prove they have permission to work, preventing them from 
earning funds to cover filing fees and thus perpetuating their 
inability to procure work authorization.
    Several commenters stated that removing fee waivers for forms such 
as the I-90 and the N-565 would prevent or significantly delay 
applicants from being able to apply for and maintain employment. The 
commenters stated that the change could likewise prevent applicants 
from having proof of their eligibility for certain public benefits, as 
many applicants, especially survivors of crime and homeless immigrants, 
have primary documents that have been stolen, lost, or destroyed, often 
by abusers.
    Response: DHS disagrees that eliminating the fee waivers for the I-
90 would be ``egregious,'' or that it will prevent or significantly 
delay applicants from being able to apply for and maintain employment. 
Applicants would still be eligible to obtain proof of status, and 
public benefit granting agencies have access to the Systematic Alien 
Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program which validates an alien's 
immigration status. DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in 
response to these comments.
    Comment: A commenter wrote that children should not be subject to 
fees for Form I-485 or for EAD applications while their asylum or 
adjustment of status application is pending because doing so would 
impose multiple hardships. The commenter stated that EADs serve as a de 
facto identification document and are frequently a precursor to 
obtaining access to state and federal services, as well as access to a 
social security number, which is a common prerequisite for enrolling in 
school, obtaining health insurance, or receiving preventative care.
    A commenter wrote that senior citizens have extremely limited 
financial situations but are often able to renew their Permanent 
Resident cards or apply for citizenship with a fee waiver. The 
commenter stated that eliminating this fee waiver, while also raising 
the form fees, would put these applications out of reach.

[[Page 46817]]

    Response: DHS disagrees that this final rule prevents asylees, 
children, or seniors from obtaining documentation of status. Immigrants 
are provided a stamp in their passports that they can use as 
documentation of lawful permanent resident status upon adjustment of 
status or their entry into the United States as a lawful permanent 
resident. Further, an alien's LPR card, which provides documentation of 
LPR status, and therefore employment eligibility, is generally valid 
for 10 years. For those without approved status, applicants may use 
their receipt notices to identify they have applied for the applicable 
immigration status. Schools, insurance companies, and doctors' offices 
should not require a permanent resident card or an employment 
authorization document from a child and DHS cannot adjust the fees for 
obtaining such documents based on such unofficial uses and unnecessary 
requirements. Further, DHS disagrees that this final rule imposes 
greater burdens on these aliens accessing public benefits or services. 
Public benefit granting agencies verify the immigration status of 
aliens through the SAVE program. DHS declines to make changes in this 
final rule on the basis of these comments.
    Comment: A commenter wrote that it is unjust to allow fee waivers 
for Form I-751 for VAWA self-petitioners but not for individuals who 
are submitting a waiver for joint spousal filing of Form I-751 due to 
battery or cruelty by the U.S. citizen spouse. A commenter said the 
petition to remove conditions on residence should remain accessible, 
especially for survivors of domestic violence. Similarly, a few 
commenters stated that, if USCIS were to eliminate fee waivers for Form 
I-751, some victims of violence could be subject to deportation or to 
the threats of their abusers.
    Response: DHS recognizes the concerns of commenters and clarifies 
that this final rule continues to allow an individual to request a fee 
waiver when he or she is filing a waiver of the Form I-751 joint filing 
requirement because they were subject to battery or extreme cruelty. 
See 8 CFR 106.3(a). The term ``VAWA self-petitioner'' as defined in INA 
section 101(a)(51)(C), 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(51)(C), includes individuals 
filing a waiver of the joint filing requirement based on battery or 
extreme cruelty. Thus, USCIS will continue to accept requests for fee 
waivers for Form I-751 when filed with a waiver of the joint filing 
requirement based on battery or extreme cruelty, as provided by 
statute.
    Comment: A few commenters stated that eliminating fee waivers for 
work authorization applications would cause further harm to asylum 
seekers. At least one commenter stated that elimination of fee waivers 
for asylum seekers would have a disproportionately negative impact on 
the people who most need asylum. Another commenter wrote that 
individuals with pending asylum cases before USCIS are required to 
renew their employment authorization every year, and without fee 
waivers, employment authorization filing fees would cut significantly 
into their paychecks and make it more difficult for them to provide for 
their families. Another commenter said USCIS should neither eliminate 
the waiver of the initial filing fee for Form I-765, Application for 
Employment Authorization, nor increase the filing fee. The commenter 
further stated this would make it harder for asylum seekers to apply 
for an EAD.
    Response: DHS acknowledges the concerns of the commenters related 
to asylum seekers applying for EADs. Charging a fee for adjudication 
services is in line with INA section 208(d)(3), which provides that 
``[n]othing in this paragraph shall be construed to require the 
Attorney General to charge fees for adjudication services provided to 
asylum applicants, or to limit the authority of the Attorney General to 
set adjudication and naturalization fees in accordance with section 
1356(m) of this title.'' Noncitizens are generally required to pay 
adjudication fees, and asylum seekers, in particular, are subject to 
several statutory and regulatory requirements that carefully regulate 
the circumstances under which they may qualify for employment 
authorization, including a mandatory waiting period before they may 
even apply for employment authorization. USCIS is continuing to provide 
a fee exemption for the initial Form I-765 filing for individuals who 
were granted asylum (asylees) or who were admitted as refugees. 
Therefore, there is no fee waiver request necessary for asylees filing 
an initial Form I-765. Asylees and refugees will generally continue to 
be required to pay the fee for renewal EADs. Finally, as a point of 
clarification, DHS notes that, at the time of publication of this rule, 
the validity period for an EAD for asylum seekers is two years (not one 
year, as asserted by the commenter) which should be sufficient time for 
asylum seekers to factor the required renewal EAD fee into their 
budget. Therefore, for the reasons above, DHS declines to make changes 
in this final rule in response to these comments.
    Comment: A few commenters opposed the elimination of fee waivers, 
including for Form I-765, which would unfairly limit the access to 
immigration benefits for students who cannot afford their request for 
employment authorization.
    Response: USCIS must incur the costs of adjudicating a Form I-765 
submitted by a student, and DHS does not believe it should shift that 
cost to other fee payers. Moreover, certain nonimmigrant students are 
required to establish the financial means to support themselves for the 
duration of their stay. See 8 CFR 214.2(f)(1)(i)(B); see also 8 CFR 
214.2(m)(1)(i)(B). That requirement also applies to students who are 
eligible to request employment authorization for pre- and post-
completion training programs. Therefore, DHS believes that this final 
rule would not cause undue burdens to student visa holders. DHS 
declines to make changes in this final rule in response to these 
comments.
c. Form N-400 Fee Waivers
    Comment: Numerous commenters said that USCIS should maintain 
existing fee waivers for naturalization applications, especially given 
the proposed increase of naturalization fees. Citing a 2017 Report to 
Congress, several commenters stated that naturalization is one of the 
most frequently requested application types for fee waivers and that 
over 500 of their clients a year would probably forgo the opportunity 
to become citizens of the United States if the proposed rule were 
adopted. Commenters wrote that removal of fee waivers will price many 
individuals out of naturalization and would discourage individuals from 
applying for fee waivers and citizenship. Citing various studies, a few 
commenters detailed how fee waivers increased naturalization rates. 
Citing to the USCIS Fee Waiver Policies and Data, Fiscal Year 2017 
Report to Congress, USCIS (Sept. 17, 2017), a commenter stated because 
of the benefits of naturalization, the naturalization application is 
one of the form types most frequently associated with fee waiver 
requests. Several commenters emphasized the importance of fee waivers 
to naturalization, citing the number of applicants who qualify for fee 
waivers through City University of New York's CUNY Citizenship Now! 
program. One commenter stated that CUNY Citizenship Now!, which runs 
one of the most prominent citizenship and naturalization clinics in New 
York, reports that 54.8 percent of naturalization applicants they 
assist qualify for fee waivers, while the same is true for 75.6 percent 
of Form N-600

[[Page 46818]]

applicants and 65.8 percent for Form I-90 applicants.
    An individual commented that the proposed naturalization fee 
increase would prevent residents from seeking citizenship, citing data 
on financial and administrative barriers as bars to naturalization. 
Commenters also cited a 2018 Stanford Immigration Policy Lab study from 
Hainmueller et al. in stating that the application fees discourage 
naturalization. Other commenters cited the same study and stated that 
offering ``fee vouchers'' increased naturalization application rates by 
about 41 percent or from 37 percent to 78 percent. Several commenters 
wrote that immigrants want to naturalize, citing the Migration Policy 
Institute figures on rising annual rates of naturalization. Commenters 
also cited a Yasenov et al. study demonstrating that the introduction 
of Form I-912 waivers had the greatest impact on naturalization 
applicants with low levels of income and education. A commenter cited a 
surge of naturalization applications before a fee increase in 2008 as 
evidence of the role of fees in naturalization decisions.
    A few commenters stated that, since naturalization is one of the 
form types for which fee waivers are most frequently submitted, the 
change would have a profound negative impact on vulnerable immigrants, 
including asylum seekers, who must naturalize to obtain legal rights. A 
commenter stated that 2.1 million immigrants are eligible for 
naturalization in the State of California, of whom 1 million 
individuals would be severely impacted by a rise in the cost of an 
application fee and 768,024 live in Los Angeles County. Other 
commenters also provided figures on the numbers of immigrants eligible 
for naturalization in Minnesota, and Washington. Other commenters 
provided similar figures for programs in California, Michigan, Boston, 
Houston, and New York. A commenter cited a Fortune article stating 
that, in 2017, almost 40 percent of naturalization applications 
received a fee waiver.
    Commenters wrote that 9 million permanent residents are eligible 
for citizenship across the United States, citing an Office of 
Immigration Statistics publication, a study by Warren and Kerwin, and a 
Pew Research paper. A few commenters wrote that, of these, 3 million 
are under 150 percent of the FPG, 1 million are between 150 and 200 
percent of FPG, and 1.7 million are between 200 and 300 percent FPG. 
Another commenter cited a 2014 University of Southern California study 
in concluding that over half of naturalization applicants would lose 
access to waivers as a result of the proposed rule.
    Some commenters wrote that without fee waivers, applicants for 
naturalization would take longer to apply or not apply and this would 
also hinder state and local governments' efforts to facilitate 
naturalization. Some commenters stated that fee waivers have been 
essential to increasing naturalization and that they pay for themselves 
many times over. A commenter requested that DHS more thoroughly analyze 
the costs of impeding access to naturalization, which include long-term 
reduced economic and social mobility for impacted populations.
    Response: DHS agrees that the naturalization application is one of 
the forms affected by the limitation of the fee waivers. Fees for other 
applicants and petitioners must increase to recover the cost of 
adjudicating fee-waived applications and petitions. In this final rule, 
DHS limits the availability of fee waivers for Form N-400 to mitigate 
the additional cost burden that other fee-paying applicants must bear. 
This is consistent with the beneficiary-pays principle emphasized 
throughout the NPRM and this final rule. If USCIS continued to accept 
fee waiver requests for Form N-400 under the previous eligibility 
criteria, the fee would be higher than established in this final rule. 
The reduction in the availability of fee waivers for Form N-400 is not 
intended to discourage, deter, or otherwise limit access to 
naturalization for any group, category, or class of individual. In 
response to public comments received on the NPRM, DHS is expanding the 
immigration benefit requests for which it will accept fee waiver 
requests from statutorily protected populations to include Forms N-400, 
N-600, and N-600K, and to certain SIJs and Afghan and Iraqi 
interpreters as described elsewhere in this final rule. DHS believes 
that expanding fee waiver eligibility mitigates concerns that the fee 
increase for Form N-400 unduly burdens or otherwise prevents 
naturalization for these populations.
    DHS acknowledges that the fee for Form N-400 increases in this 
final rule by more than most other forms. The large fee increase for 
Form N-400 is because DHS previously held the fee for Form N-400 below 
the full estimated cost of adjudication. In this final rule, DHS 
emphasizes the beneficiary-pays principle and declines to hold the fee 
for Form N-400 artificially low. DHS believes that increasing the Form 
N-400 fee to the estimated full cost of its adjudication will alleviate 
the increased burden of higher fees placed upon other immigration 
benefits.
    Comment: Some commenters stated that eliminating fee waivers for 
naturalization and other form types most frequently associated with fee 
waiver requests undermines Congressional intent. Commenters stated that 
Congress has called on USCIS to keep the pathway to citizenship 
affordable and accessible, and opposed the proposed elimination of fee 
waivers for applicants who can demonstrate an inability to pay the 
naturalization fee.
    Response: USCIS appreciates the concerns of this recommendation and 
fully considered it before publication. Nevertheless, DHS determined 
that the current trends and level of fee waivers are not sustainable. 
Work that USCIS provides for free or below cost affects other fee-
paying applicants by making their fees higher, so DHS can recover 
USCIS' full cost. DHS is trying to make the USCIS fee schedule more 
consistent with the beneficiary-pays principle. As shown in the 
supporting documentation that accompanies this final rule, the number 
and dollar value of approved fee waiver requests has remained high 
during periods of economic improvement. That indicates that, as the 
economy declines the number of fee waiver requests could increase to a 
level that could threaten the ability of USCIS to deliver programs 
without disruption. DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in 
response to these comments.
    Comment: A few commenters stated that the NPRM violates 
Congressional intent since USCIS has not supplied any data, research, 
or other actual factual evidence to show whether the current 
naturalization fees would be ``a barrier to naturalization for those 
earning between 150 percent and 200 percent FPG,'' let alone the effect 
of the proposal to significantly increase the naturalization fees and 
eliminate fee waivers.
    Response: DHS is unaware of any statute that requires DHS to 
document that the fees it establishes to recover USCIS' costs will not 
be a barrier to naturalization. DHS has complied with the economic 
analysis requirements of Executive Orders. There is no legal 
requirement to comply with language in a Congressional briefing that 
does not become law, aside from cooperation with the Congressional 
oversight function. DHS has carefully considered Congress' view of 
these issues, as well as the statutory and fiscal limitations under 
which USCIS operates and declines to make changes in this final rule in 
response to these comments.

[[Page 46819]]

    Comment: Several commenters noted that without fee waivers many 
naturalized citizens who required waivers to become citizens would not 
have been able to afford to apply for naturalization and that a high 
percentage of applicants currently use or apply for waivers.
    Response: DHS recognizes the commenters' concerns. However, as 
stated elsewhere throughout this final rule, USCIS must recover its 
costs through user fees. DHS does not believe that current high levels 
of fee waiver usage are sustainable. Further, DHS believes that it 
would be equitable for fee-paying applicants to continue to bear the 
high costs of fee waiver usage through the fees that they pay. DHS 
declines to make changes in this final rule in response to these 
comments.
2. Fee Waiver Income Requirements
    Comment: Many commenters opposed restricting the income 
requirements from 150 percent of FPG to 125 percent because such a 
restriction would be unjustified, especially since no estimates were 
provided as to how many people it would impact. Many commenters stated 
that lowering the standard to 125 percent will negatively affect many 
in cities and states across the country who are unable to pay fees and 
still have a very low income. Household income does not take into 
account the dramatically different costs of living throughout the 
country, complex living arrangements (such as mixed-status households 
or households supporting family members in another country), or the 
variety of circumstances that may render individuals unable to pay 
fees. One commenter stated that the income requirement would negatively 
impact many individuals because even those above the 125 percent FPG 
are unable to provide for their daily essentials due to the high cost 
of living in Los Angeles County. A commenter went on to state that the 
income standard should be tied to an inability to pay particular fees 
at the time of application since fee waiver consideration is focused on 
an individual's financial circumstances at that particular point.
    Response: As provided in the NPRM, because of the costs of fee 
waivers, and because the current fee waiver regulations are 
inconsistent with the beneficiary-pays principle, DHS proposed to limit 
fee waivers to immigration benefit requests for which USCIS is required 
by law to consider a fee waiver or where the USCIS Director decides a 
fee waiver should be available. See 8 CFR 106.3.
    As the commenters point out, and as explained in the NPRM, USCIS 
issued policy guidance in 2011 to streamline fee waiver adjudications 
and make them more consistent across offices and form types nationwide. 
See Policy Memorandum, PM-602-0011.1, Fee Waiver Guidelines as 
Established by the Final Rule of the USCIS Fee Schedule; Revisions to 
Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 10.9, AFM Update AD11-26 (Mar. 
13, 2011) (``2011 Fee Waiver Policy''). The 2011 Fee Waiver Policy 
provided that USCIS would generally waive fees for applicants who are 
receiving a means-tested benefit, have a household income at or below 
150 percent of the FPG, or were experiencing financial hardship. The 
2011 Fee Waiver Policy interpreted 8 CFR 103.7(c) regarding what would 
be considered inability to pay and the evidence required. The 2011 Fee 
Waiver Policy established the 150 percent of the FPG income level that 
the commenters recommended retaining, but that policy was not binding 
on USCIS officers and the three criteria were not codified as a 
regulation. DHS proposed in the NPRM to codify an income level based on 
the FPG that would be a binding requirement for future fee waivers.
    DHS recognizes that the FPG are not responsive to differences in 
the cost of living around the nation. However, DHS establishes the fee 
waiver eligibility criterion of household income of less than 125 
percent of FPG in this final rule because it is consistent with the 
income necessary to provide an affidavit of support necessary to 
sponsor an immigrant. See 8 CFR 106.3(c). Furthermore, DHS does not 
generally provide special consideration for residents of a particular 
geographic area.
    DHS believes that these changes will make the fee increase more 
equitable for all immigration benefit requests by requiring fees for 
services to be paid by those who benefit. In addition, DHS believes 
that making these changes to the fee waiver policy will ensure that 
fee-paying applicants do not bear the increasing costs of application 
fees being waived. In response to public comments received on the NPRM, 
DHS is expanding the immigration benefit requests for which it will 
accept fee waiver requests from statutorily protected populations to 
include Forms N-400, N-600, and N-600K. Although DHS acknowledges that 
the rule reduces the number of applicants eligible for fee waivers, DHS 
does not agree that aliens will be prevented from filing application or 
receiving immigrant benefits.
    Comment: A few commenters wrote that ``equity is not a federal 
policy goal'' and USCIS fails to recognize that encouraging exemptions 
and waivers for individuals in vulnerable circumstances or who are 
unable to pay fees would actually advance equity. The commenter stated 
that 125 percent of the FPG is not an appropriate marker to whether an 
individual can afford to pay a large fee on top of normal living 
expenses and so the fee waiver qualification threshold should remain at 
150 percent of poverty level, ``to serve as an apt indicator of whether 
a potential applicant for naturalization or other benefits can afford 
to support him- or herself and, in addition, to pay significant 
application fees of hundreds or thousands of dollars.'' Another 
commenter stated that DHS rationalized that 125 percent is an 
appropriate marker for FPG because it is the minimum required to 
qualify as a sponsor for an intending immigrant. The commenter stated 
that these situations are not comparable because sponsoring an 
immigrant may not cost very much, and sponsored immigrants are 
generally authorized to work and do not actually rely upon sponsors for 
subsistence. The commenter stated that in contrast, when determining 
eligibility for a fee waiver, USCIS must consider whether an individual 
can afford to pay a large fee on top of their normal living expenses, 
and it is therefore appropriate that FPG remain at 150 percent.
    Several commenters provided figures of the numbers of clients they 
serve who are below the 150 percent FPG line and qualify for waivers. A 
commenter specifically calculated the costs that a family at the 150 
percent FPG limit would face living in Boston, writing that fee waivers 
are vital to such families maintaining their immigration status or 
naturalizing.
    One commenter cited a study of 21 cities which showed that 33 
percent of those eligible to naturalize had incomes up to 150 percent 
of FPG. The study also found that 16 percent of LPRs eligible to 
naturalize of Mexican origin have incomes between 150 and 200 percent 
FPG, compared to 8 percent of European-origin immigrants eligible to 
naturalize. The commenter used this data to support their comment that 
the income requirements would reduce or eliminate access to citizenship 
for all but the wealthy and privileged.
    Response: The 150 percent of the FPG threshold currently used for 
fee waiver eligibility is higher than the threshold used in the public 
charge inadmissibility and affidavit of support contexts. DHS has 
decided that limiting fee waivers to households with incomes at or 
below 125 percent of the FPG is appropriate because it would be 
consistent with other determinants of

[[Page 46820]]

low income or financial wherewithal used in USCIS adjudications, such 
as the affidavit of support requirements under INA sections 212(a)(4) 
and 213A, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4) and 1183a. See 8 CFR 106.3(c). DHS 
declines to make changes in this final rule in response to these 
comments.
    Comment: A commenter stated that USCIS should respect the rights of 
veterans to petition for a fee waiver for spouses and children 
regardless of income.
    Response: DHS appreciates the sacrifices of members of the Armed 
Forces and veterans. USCIS charges no Form N-400 fee to an applicant 
who meets the requirements of INA sections 328 or 329 with respect to 
military service as provided by the law. See 8 CFR 106.2(b)(3(c). In 
addition, there is no Form N-600 fee for any application filed by a 
member or veteran of any branch of the U.S. Armed Forces. See 8 CFR 
106.2(b)(63(c). DHS proposed adjustments to USCIS' fee schedule to 
ensure full cost recovery. DHS did not target any particular group, or 
class of individuals or propose changes with the intent to deter 
requests from any immigrants based on their financial or family 
situation or to block individuals from access immigrant benefits. With 
limited exceptions as noted in the NPRM and this final rule, DHS 
establishes its fees at the level estimated to represent the full cost 
of providing adjudication and naturalization services, including the 
cost of relevant overhead and similar services provided at no or 
reduced charge to asylum applicants or other immigrants. This rule is 
consistent with DHS's legal authorities. See INA section 286(m), 8 
U.S.C. 1356(m). DHS proposed changes in fee waiver policies to ensure 
that those who benefit from immigration benefits pay their fair share 
of costs, consistent with the beneficiary-pays principle as described 
in the Government Accountability Office report number GAO-08-386SP. In 
addition, there is no law that requires a fee waiver or exemption for 
spouses or children of members of the Armed Forces or veterans. DHS 
declines to make changes in this final rule in response to these 
comments.
3. Means-Tested Benefits
    Comment: A commenter recommended that USCIS use proof of receipt of 
a means-tested public benefit as evidence to demonstrate inability to 
pay the prescribed fee under the new rule.
    Response: The commenter is requesting that USCIS continue to follow 
guidance that USCIS issued under its previous fee waiver regulations. 
Before 2010, USCIS allowed fee waiver applicants to submit requests in 
a variety of ways and undertook a holistic analysis of the applicant's 
finances to determine inability to pay. 75 FR 58974. In 2010, DHS 
decided that the USCIS fee waiver process would benefit from 
standardization. Id. By the 2010 rule DHS amended 8 CFR 103.7(c) to 
provide, on a discretionary basis, fee waivers for certain services, 
subject to two conditions: (1) The applicant is ``unable to pay'' the 
fee; and (2) a ``waiver based on inability to pay is consistent with 
the status or benefit . . . .'' 8 CFR 103.7(c)(1). DHS also required 
that waiver requests be in writing and state the reasons for and 
provide evidence in support of the claim of inability to pay. Id. at 
103.7(c)(2). After the 2010 rule, DHS developed a new form to 
facilitate the fee waiver process: Request for Fee Waiver, Form I-
912.\49\ See Agency Information Collection Activities: Form I-912; New 
Information Collection; Comment Request, 75 FR 40846 (July 14, 2010). 
USCIS also published the 2011 Fee Waiver Policy providing further 
guidance as to adjudication of fee waiver requests. The 2011 guidance 
provided that as proof of inability to pay under 8 CFR 103.7(c), USCIS 
would accept: (1) Evidence of receipt of a means-tested benefit; (2) 
evidence of household income at or below 150 percent of the FPG; or (3) 
evidence of financial hardship.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ The form is now called Form I-912, Request for Fee Waiver.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the NPRM, DHS proposed multiple changes to the then-existing fee 
waiver regulations, explained our need to and reasoning for doing so, 
and in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, posted the proposed 
revised Form I-912, Request for Fee Waiver, and its instructions in 
this final rule's docket for the public to review and comment on its 
information collection requirements. See 84 FR 62296-62301, and 62356. 
The proposed regulations for fee waivers provided that DHS would 
provide, on a discretionary basis, fee waivers for certain services, 
subject to the following conditions: (1) A waiver of fees would be 
limited to aliens with annual household incomes at or below 125 percent 
of the FPG; (2) a waiver of fees would not be provided to a requestor 
who is seeking an immigration benefit for which he or she: Is subject 
to the affidavit of support requirements under INA section 213A, 8 
U.S.C. 1183a, and is already a sponsored immigrant as defined in 8 CFR 
213a.1, or is subject to the public charge inadmissibility ground under 
INA section 212(a)(4), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4); and (3) a request for a fee 
waiver must be submitted on the form prescribed by USCIS in accordance 
with the form instructions. Proposed 8 CFR 106.3(d); 84 FR 62363.
    DHS is adopting the general fee waiver eligibility guidelines as 
proposed with a clarification. New 8 CFR 106.3. Proposed 8 CFR 
106.3(d)(1) and (d)(2) (not permitting a fee waiver for a requestor who 
is subject to the affidavit of support, already a sponsored immigrant, 
or subject to the public charge inadmissibility ground) are not 
applicable to applicants who are statutorily eligible for fee waivers 
or those additional immigration benefit requests (SIV and certain SIJ 
applicants) that we are making eligible for a fee waiver in this final 
rule. Therefore, DHS removed those limitations from the general fee 
waiver provision and included it in 8 CFR 106.3(b) governing waivers 
provided by the USCIS Director. New 8 CFR 106.3.
    By removing the more ambiguous term ``inability to pay'' in favor 
of more clearly defined, straightforward requirements, DHS is imposing 
on the fee waiver request process greater consistency and equity. 
Receipt of any means-tested benefit would no longer automatically 
satisfy the new regulation's requirements for demonstrating inability 
to pay. USCIS has also considered if means-tested benefits that are 
awarded using 125 percent of the FPG would be acceptable evidence of 
the 125 percent of the FPG household income requirement in addition to 
the other criteria in new 8 CFR 106.3(d). However, implementing that 
criterion would require USCIS to determine the income requirements that 
all jurisdictions across the United States use to determine eligibility 
for each means-tested benefit. In addition, USCIS would be required to 
continually monitor those requirements for any changes by individual 
jurisdictions and programs. Therefore, DHS has determined that such a 
policy would be unnecessarily burdensome for USCIS to administer and 
decided not to revise the Form I-912 instructions to permit any usage 
of a means-tested benefit as evidence for a fee waiver.
    Comment: One commenter noted that using the Paperwork Reduction Act 
to introduce a revised fee waiver form, with new requirements, in 
October 2019 in lieu of using a NPRM and then eliminating fee waivers 
in this rule, was a waste of the public's time to review both 
documents. A few commenters stated that eligibility based on receipt of 
a means-tested benefit was due to be

[[Page 46821]]

eliminated by the revised fee waiver form challenged in City of Seattle 
v. DHS, 3:19-cv-7151-MMC (N.D. Cal., filed Oct. 31, 2019) but the court 
in that case preliminarily enjoined the revised fee waiver form on a 
nationwide basis, thereby affecting USCIS' plans to constrict 
eligibility standards for fee waivers. Other commenters stated that 
USCIS has already eliminated the means-tested benefit criterion for fee 
waivers, which drastically limited access to immigration benefits, and 
that the proposed rule narrows the criteria for fee waivers even 
further and eliminates the financial hardship criterion entirely which 
means 400,666 individuals annually would be detrimentally affected. 
Another commenter stated that changes in Form I-912 and fee waiver 
requirements in the NPRM are an attempt to get around the injunction of 
the 2019 fee waiver rules because it eliminates fee waivers for most 
applicants. The commenter stated that the proposal seeks to restrict 
legal immigration and naturalization for poor and non-white people. 
Another commenter recommended that while the Form I-912 revision is 
enjoined by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of 
California, USCIS should request public comment on a new proposed Form 
I-912 that maintains options to demonstrate qualification through 
receipt of means-tested benefits, financial hardship, or income of up 
to 150 percent of the FPG. The commenter wrote that USCIS is required 
by the injunction to restart the information collection request 
clearance process anew for a revised Form I-912 that conforms to the 
Court's decision. The commenter wrote that the Form I-912 proposed with 
the USCIS's November 14, 2019 NPRM does not meet the Court's 
specifications, and USCIS may not move forward with implementation of 
this revised Form I-912 based on the present notice-and-comment 
process.''
    Response: These comments refer to the effort by USCIS to revise the 
USCIS policy guidance on fee waivers. On September 28, 2018, USCIS 
published a 60-day notice in the Federal Register requesting comments 
on the then-proposed revised Form I-912 and instructions and posted the 
documents for review in docket USCIS-2010-0008 at www.regulations.gov. 
See 83 FR 49120 (Sept. 28, 2018). The revisions to Form I-912, Request 
for Fee Waiver, revised the evidence USCIS would consider in evaluating 
inability to pay, required federal income tax transcripts to 
demonstrate income, and required use of the Form I-912 for fee waiver 
requests. USCIS complied with the Paperwork Reduction Act and the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB (OIRA) approved the 
form changes on October 24, 2019.\50\ On October 25, 2019, USCIS 
published the revised Form I-912 and instructions, along with 
corresponding revisions to the USCIS Policy Manual and a Policy Alert. 
The revised Form and Manual took effect on December 2, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ The approved package is available at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201910-1615-006# (last 
visited Feb. 17, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS did not consider this rulemaking's impact when undertaking the 
Form I-912 revisions that took effect on December 2, 2019, because DHS 
was proposing comprehensive reforms to fee waivers which were not 
certain to occur and the rulemaking was separate and independent of the 
form and policy change that took effect on December 2, 2019. USCIS was 
forgoing hundreds of millions of dollars each year to fee waivers, and 
it decided not to wait for the comprehensive DHS fee rulemaking while 
it continued to forgo increasing amounts of revenue as more fees were 
waived. 84 FR 26138 (June 5, 2019). Nonetheless, on December 11, 2019, 
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California held 
that the Form I-912 revisions that took effect on December 2, 2019 
required notice and comment rulemaking to effectuate, and the revised 
Form I-912, the Policy Manual revisions, and an October 25, 2019 Policy 
Alert announcing the revisions were preliminarily enjoined nationwide. 
See Order Granting Pls.' Mot. for Nationwide Prelim. Inj., City of 
Seattle v. DHS, 3:19-cv-7151-MMC (N.D. Cal., Dec. 11, 2019). By 
stipulation of the parties and as agreed to by the court, that 
injunction will remain in place pending publication of this final rule. 
The injunction in City of Seattle does not impose any requirements on 
subsequent revisions of the Form I-912 nor otherwise affect USCIS's 
ability to move forward with implementation of the Form I-912 revised 
in accordance with the notice-and-comment process completed by this 
rulemaking. In fact, the injunction in City of Seattle contemplates 
that the 2019 fee waiver policy changes were lawful but for compliance 
with the procedures required by the Administrative Procedure Act that 
are met by publication of this final rule.
    Comment: Commenters stated that proving household income through 
USCIS' process is needlessly burdensome, intended to discourage 
applications, and that the fee waiver application process and 125 
percent FPG limit is duplicative with means-testing requirements for 
other government programs where individuals have already passed a 
thorough income eligibility screening by government agencies. Several 
commenters specifically requested maintaining the means-tested benefits 
criterion as it is the least burdensome and most accessible application 
criterion for vulnerable immigrant populations.
    Response: DHS understands that removing the means-tested benefit 
criterion will require people to obtain different documentation than 
they previously would have to establish eligibility for a fee waiver. 
DHS agrees that the burden will increase but has determined that the 
documentation required to establish income is the best approach to 
establish eligibility. DHS does not believe that the burden that will 
be imposed by the new requirements is excessive for a requestor to 
receive the free adjudication of his or her immigration benefit 
request. USCIS is 96 percent funded by fees and must charge fees to 
cover its costs. Although the means-tested benefits criterion will no 
longer be an option under the revised fee waiver regulations, eligible 
applicants may request fee waivers under the criterion of having income 
at or below 125 percent of the FPG. Thus, staff and volunteers at 
nonprofit community organizations should already be familiar with the 
remaining criterion for fee waiver eligibility. DHS has considered the 
burden on applicants and those that provide them aid and determined 
that the benefits of the policy change exceed the potential additional 
burden. DHS disagrees that its fee waiver income requirements are 
duplicative with state means-tested benefit requirements because, as 
stated earlier, many public benefits have different income thresholds 
for eligibility in different states. Therefore, DHS has determined that 
relying on a consistent income threshold and not using a means-tested 
benefits for eligibility will best provide consistency in applying the 
requirements.
4. Public Charge Rule
    Comment: Comments stated that DHS claims that USCIS uses 125 
percent of the FPG as the standard for public charge and affidavit of 
support purposes and cites 8 CFR 212.22(b)(4)(i)(A), but DHS's proposed 
public charge rule is currently enjoined. The commenters state that 
because of court orders, USCIS has not been using 125 percent of the 
federal poverty guidelines as the standard for public charge purposes 
to date, and this rule is an improper attempt to codify the enjoined 
public charge rule.

[[Page 46822]]

    Response: On February 24, 2020, DHS implemented the Inadmissibility 
on Public Charge Grounds Final Rule nationwide after the Supreme Court 
of the United States stayed the last remaining injunction.\51\ In 
addition, the 125 percent of the FPG threshold is not only used in 
public charge inadmissibility determinations, but also is the standard 
by which the sufficiency of an affidavit of support is based, as 
established by Congress under INA section 213A, 8 U.S.C. 1183a. As 
provided in the NPRM, USCIS generally uses 125 percent of the FPG as 
the minimum income threshold to be considered a positive factor in the 
totality of the circumstances in public charge inadmissibility 
determinations as the threshold. Congress also identified 125 percent 
of FPG as a threshold for establishing the sufficiency of the affidavit 
of support under INA section 213A, 8 U.S.C. 1183a. The threshold for 
fee waiver eligibility under previous regulations of 150 percent of the 
FPG was higher than the threshold used in the public charge 
inadmissibility and affidavit of support context. DHS believes limiting 
fee waivers to households with incomes at or below 125 percent of the 
FPG, as set forth in this final rule, and aligning the fee waiver rule 
with the public charge inadmissibility rule and the affidavit of 
support requirements set forth in INA sections 212(a)(4) and 213A, 8 
U.S.C. 1182(a)(4) and 1183a, will best provide consistency in applying 
the income requirements in immigration benefit administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See Wolf v. Cook County, 140 S.Ct. 681 (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Financial Hardship
    Comment: One commenter wrote that the proposed elimination of fee 
waiver eligibility based on extraordinary hardship (sic financial 
hardship) was not explained and is alarming and unjustified. USCIS does 
not acknowledge or explain its apparent decision to cease accepting 
evidence or granting fee waivers related to temporary illness and 
injury, recessions, bankruptcy, or any other of the myriad situations 
that may render qualified people unable to pay fees but that cannot be 
characterized as natural disasters. The commenter wrote that this 
change would prevent deserving individuals from accessing immigration 
and naturalization benefits and violate the principles of due process 
that govern rulemaking and other federal administrative action.
    Response: DHS believes that a provision for financial hardship is 
unnecessary as past fee waivers requested using the financial hardship 
criterion were minimal, accounting for only 1.2 percent of all 
requests. A detailed distribution of the approved Fee Waiver Requests 
can be found in the RIA. See Section D, Tables 5-8. While DHS 
acknowledges that the fee adjustments established in this final rule 
are not insubstantial to an applicant of limited means, DHS does not 
believe that they make immigration benefits inaccessible to low income 
applicants who have financial hardships. DHS is therefore not making 
changes based on this comment.
6. Public Charge Ground of Inadmissibility and Affidavit of Support 
Requirements
    Comment: Several commenters disagreed with USCIS' claim that it 
would be appropriate to restrict household income criteria to 125 
percent FPG to be consistent with the public charge inadmissibility 
final rule and the statutory and regulatory requirement applicable to 
affidavit of support, writing that they are separate and unrelated 
legal concepts. Multiple commenters opposed the proposal to make fee 
waivers unavailable to applicants who are subject to the public charge 
ground of inadmissibility, those who are subject to the affidavit of 
support requirement under INA section 213A, 8 U.S.C. 1183a, and those 
who are already sponsored immigrants. The commenters stated that the 
proposal would disproportionately harm low- and moderate-income 
families, including many immigrant survivors and their children. Many 
commenters stated that most family-sponsored immigrants must supply an 
affidavit of support regardless of income. They stated that, because 
the affidavit of support contract terminates only after specific 
criteria are met (e.g., sponsored immigrant becomes a U.S. citizen, 
dies, or departs the United States), barring these immigrants from 
receiving fee waivers would result in an additional barrier for low-
income immigrants regardless of their actual need and would have a 
disproportionate effect on low-income Asian immigrants and U.S. 
citizens of Asian descent, especially as most Asian immigrants become 
permanent residents through family sponsorship and require affidavits 
of support. A commenter wrote that the proposal will further punish 
people who have the misfortune of poor health, are struggling to 
survive, and have chronic, severe pain. The commenter wrote that such 
individuals are too sick to work full-time and require an affidavit of 
support from family members or friends. A few commenters expressed 
worry that barring fee waivers for individuals subject to the public 
charge ground of inadmissibility would add more strain on an already 
overburdened legal service providers to low-income immigrants, 
resulting in a general decrease in capacity of pro bono services. A few 
commenters stated that there is no burden on USCIS to continue 
processing fee waiver applications for immigrants subject to affidavit 
of support nor any basis to disqualify those subject to affidavits of 
support from receiving fee waivers.
    Response: DHS agrees that, in general, family sponsored immigrants 
are subject to the public charge ground of inadmissibility and are 
required to submit a sufficient affidavit of support under INA section 
213A, 8 U.S.C. 1883a, and therefore may not be eligible to request a 
fee waiver under this final rule. The NPRM generally limited fee waiver 
eligibility to those statutorily eligible for fee waivers, which are 
limited to VAWA, T, U and TPS applicants. Family and employment related 
benefit requests were not generally included as being eligible for fee 
waivers in the NPRM. As discussed in the NPRM, under IIRIRA, certain 
immigrant categories are required to submit an enforceable affidavit of 
support executed by a sponsor.\52\ Although sponsors are not required 
to assist an alien with fees associated with immigration benefits, 
sponsors generally must demonstrate that they are able to maintain the 
sponsored alien at an annual income of not less than 125 percent of the 
FPG.\53\ INA section 213A, 8 U.S.C. 1183a, formalized requirements of a 
legally enforceable affidavit of support, specified who is eligible to 
be a sponsor, which aliens require an Affidavit of Support Under 
Section 213A of the INA, the scope of a sponsor's obligations, and how 
the affidavit may be enforced.\54\ These provisions were intended to 
``encourage immigrants to be self-reliant in accordance with national 
immigration policy.'' \55\ DHS believes it is inconsistent with the 
affidavit of

[[Page 46823]]

support requirements to allow this population to request fee 
waivers.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ See INA sections 212(a)(4) and INA 213A, 8 U.S.C. 
1182(a)(4), and 1183a. See also Div. C, Title V of Public Law 104-
208, 110 Stat. 3009, 3009-670 (September 30, 1996).
    \53\ See INA section 213A. A sponsor who is on active duty 
(other than active duty for training) in the U.S. armed forces and 
who is petitioning for a spouse or child only has to demonstrate the 
means to maintain an annual income equal to at least 100 percent of 
the FPG.
    \54\ See INA section 213A, 8 U.S.C. 1183a. See Section 551 of 
the IIRIRA, Public Law 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (1996).
    \55\ See H.R. Rep. 104-828, at 241 (Sept. 24, 1996) (Conf. 
Rep.).
    \56\ See Div. C, Title V of Public Law 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009, 
3009-670 (September 30, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, the current fee waiver regulation allows people who are 
applying for immigration benefits for which a public charge 
inadmissibility determination is not made--advance permission to enter 
as a nonimmigrant, a waiver for passport and/or visa, adjustment of 
status, or a waiver of the grounds of inadmissibility--to file a fee 
waiver request. See 8 CFR 103.7(c)(4) (stating that certain fees may be 
waived ``only for an alien for which a determination of their 
likelihood of becoming a public charge under section 212(a)(4) of the 
Act is not required at the time of an application for admission or 
adjustment of status'').
    The rule provides that an alien who is subject to the affidavit of 
support requirements under INA section 213A, 8 U.S.C. 1183a, or is 
already a sponsored immigrant as defined in 8 CFR 213a.1 unless the 
applicant is seeking a waiver of the joint filing requirement to remove 
conditions on his or her residence based on abuse; or subject to the 
public charge inadmissibility ground under INA section 212(a)(4), 8 
U.S.C. 1182(a)(4) is not eligible for a fee waiver. See New 8 CFR 
106.3(b). DHS declines to make any changes in this final rule in 
response to these comments.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the proposal would place an 
unnecessarily cumbersome requirement on those who are already receiving 
some form of assistance and require additional assistance in order to 
improve their immigration status. Another commenter stated that many 
survivors of crime and domestic violence would be negatively impacted 
because many survivors receive CalWORKS, a California public benefits 
program.
    A commenter stated that the proposal is unfair and discriminatory 
because it could severely affect the naturalization process based on 
receiving public benefits, even if this occurred years before an 
application for citizenship. The commenter also stated that temporary 
assistance in a time of hardship should not be an opportunity for any 
country to deny its people the path to citizenship.
    Response: This final rule does not prevent individuals from 
requesting or receiving any public benefits, as defined in, PRWORA, 8 
CFR 212.21(b), or other provision, for which they are eligible. 
Further, this final rule does not consider the receipt of public 
benefits as part of the eligibility requirements. Instead, DHS would 
look to the immigrant or nonimmigrant category the alien holds or is 
seeking and their income in order to determine whether he or she 
qualifies to submit a fee waiver request.
    DHS notes that VAWA self-petitioners as defined under INA section 
101(a)(51) and anyone otherwise self-petitioning due to battery or 
extreme cruelty pursuant to the procedures in section 204(a), 8 U.S.C. 
1101(a)(51) and 1154(a), T nonimmigrants, U nonimmigrants, battered 
spouses of A, G, E-3, or H nonimmigrants, battered spouses or children 
of a lawful permanent resident or U.S. citizen as provided under INA 
section 240A(b)(2), and TPS applicants are generally not subject to the 
public charge inadmissibility provision or the affidavit of support 
requirements. Therefore, under this final rule, these applicants are 
not precluded from requesting a fee waiver. See 8 CFR 106.3. 
Furthermore, certain Special Immigrant Juveniles and Afghan and Iraqi 
translators are also not precluded from requesting a fee waiver under 
this final rule, as they are not subject to the public charge 
inadmissibility determination or the affidavit of support 
requirement.\57\ Id. DHS has updated the provision to clarify these 
aliens are not subject to these eligibility requirements. See new 8 CFR 
106.3(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See INA sections 212(a)(4) and 213A,8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4) and 
1183a. See also 8 CFR 212.23(a)(4) and (10).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Multiple commenters said that, because abusive spouses may 
be the sponsor holding the affidavits of support, it was critical to 
keep fee waivers available to those subject to the affidavit of support 
under INA section 213A, 8 U.S.C. 1183a. The commenter wrote that doing 
so would help ensure that immigrant survivors are not compelled to 
return to their abusers to seek immigration benefits.
    Response: An applicant under the VAWA provisions is generally not 
subject to the affidavit of support requirements.\58\ In addition, fee 
waiver requests do not require information regarding the income of an 
abusive spouse. DHS believes that its continued provision of fee 
waivers for VAWA, T, and U categories mitigates any concerns that 
changes to fee waiver eligibility will unduly burden or otherwise harm 
the victims of abusive spouses. See Table 3: Categories and Forms 
Without Fees or Eligible for Fee Waivers. DHS declines to make changes 
in this final rule in response to these comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ See INA section 212(a)(4)(E)(i), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4)(E)(i). 
See also 8 CFR 212.23(a)(20).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Discretionary Fee Waivers
    Comment: Several commenters opposed narrowing discretionary 
authority that would prevent many family-based immigrants from 
receiving fee waivers and would disadvantage recipients of certain 
humanitarian benefits, such as Special Immigrant Juveniles (SIJs) and 
Cuban Adjustment Act applicants.
    Some commenters said the proposed limitations on the Director's 
discretion to grant fee waivers are arbitrary and unsupported by any 
evidence. The commenters stated that no explanation, data, or examples 
were provided indicating why the concern over the Director having too 
much discretion requires changing well-established precedent. Another 
commenter stated that the rule does not provide a basis for the 
guidelines of how the Attorney General shall determine which designated 
group of victims of calamities will be granted access to fee waivers.
    Response: In this final rule, DHS retains the authority in the 
regulations for the Director of USCIS to waive any fee if the Director 
determines that such action is an emergent circumstance, or if a major 
natural disaster has been declared in accordance with 44 CFR part 206, 
subpart B. DHS notes that the Director's discretionary provision has 
never been and is not intended for whole categories of aliens to 
request fee waivers directly to the Director. See 75 FR 58974 
(encouraging those who believe that they have a sufficiently 
sympathetic case or group of cases in any type of benefit request to 
submit a request to their USCIS local office for a waiver under 8 CFR 
103.7(d)). The discretionary provision is meant to provide for discrete 
and limited fee waivers when there are emergent circumstances. See 75 
FR 33464. DHS has further consolidated the Director's discretionary 
provisions as it is not limited by category but is also not intended to 
allow for individual applications from broad categories of individuals. 
In addition the provisions regarding eligibility were consolidated to 
clarified who may not qualify based on the alien being subject to the 
affidavit of support requirements under section 213A of the Act or 
already a sponsored immigrant as defined in 8 CFR 213a.1 (unless the 
applicant is seeking a waiver of the joint filing requirement to remove 
conditions on his or her residence based on abuse), or being subject to 
the public charge inadmissibility ground under section 212(a)(4) of the 
Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4).

[[Page 46824]]

    Further, DHS does not believe that the rule disadvantages 
recipients of humanitarian benefits. For example, DHS believes that the 
imposition of a fee or a lack of a fee waiver does not infringe upon 
the ongoing protections offered by the Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966 
(CAA). The CAA allows Cuban natives or citizens living in the United 
States who meet certain eligibility requirements to apply to become 
lawful permanent residents.\59\ Applicants under the CAA have 
previously paid fees. Under the CAA, a native or citizen of Cuba who 
has been inspected and admitted or paroled into the United States and 
who has been physically present in the United States for at least one 
year may apply for permanent residency in the United States. An alien 
under the CAA submits Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent 
Residence or Adjust Status, and does not need to file a visa petition 
or have an immigrant visa immediately available to him or her.\60\ 
Generally, when an alien has a pending Form I-485, he or she may apply 
for employment authorization by filing a Form I-765, Application for 
Employment Authorization.\61\ For this reason, DHS believes that aliens 
who benefit from the CAA have unique advantages compared to other 
humanitarian populations, such as asylum seekers, who may have to wait 
months or years before being eligible to apply to become a lawful 
permanent resident. The CAA does not prohibit the charging of fees for 
applicants, and DHS believes that the imposition of a fee or a lack of 
a fee waiver does not infringe upon the ongoing protections that the 
CAA affords to qualified individuals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ See https://www.uscis.gov/greencard/caa (last accessed 03/
10/2020).
    \60\ See Public Law 89-732 (1966).
    \61\ See https://www.uscis.gov/greencard/caa (last accessed 03/
10/2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As provided in the NPRM, USCIS will continue to notify the general 
public of eligibility for fee waivers for specific forms under 8 CFR 
106.3 through policy or website updates. Individuals who may qualify 
for such a fee waiver will still need to meet the requirements to 
request a fee waiver as provided in 8 CFR 106.3(b) and (d).
    As discussed above, in response to commenters' concerns, DHS will 
allow petitioners for and recipients of SIJ classification who, at the 
time of filing, have been placed in out-of-home care under the 
supervision of a juvenile court or a state child welfare agency, to 
submit requests for fee waivers for Form I-485 and associated forms, as 
well as Forms N-400, N-600, and N-600K. See Table 3: Categories and 
Forms Without Fees or Eligible for Fee Waivers.
    Comment: A few commenters wrote that, at a minimum, USCIS should 
allow a proactive application process for discretionary fee waivers. 
These would allow individuals to alert USCIS to their need for a waiver 
of an application fee rather than having to wait to receive an 
invitation from USCIS first.
    Response: DHS has clarified the USCIS Director's fee waiver 
provision at 8 CFR 106.3(b) and 106.3(c) in this final rule because it 
was not necessary to have a separate section authorizing the Director 
to waive fees for groups or individuals. See new 8 CFR 106.3(b). 
Proposed 8 CFR 106.3(c) could be used to grant group or individual fee 
waivers, thus proposed 8 CFR 106.3(b) was redundant. As provided in new 
8 CFR 106.3(b), the Director of USCIS may authorize the waiver, in 
whole or in part, of a form fee required by 8 CFR 106.2 that is not 
otherwise waivable under this section, if the Director determines that 
such action is an emergent circumstance, or if a major natural disaster 
has been declared in accordance with 44 CFR part 206, subpart B. New 8 
CFR 106.3(b) authorizes the Director to designate a group eligible for 
fee waivers as appropriate. As previously indicated, DHS notes that the 
Director's discretionary provision has never been and is not intended 
for whole categories of aliens to request fee waivers directly to the 
Director. See 75 FR 58974. Although many applicants may believe they 
personally need a waiver of an application fee, the discretionary 
provision is meant to provide for discrete and limited fee waivers when 
there are emergent circumstances and the other eligibility requirements 
are met. Therefore, DHS is maintaining the provision that individuals 
may not directly submit requests for fee waivers to the USCIS Director.
    Comment: The commenter stated that the proposal to make Form I-765 
fee waivers discretionary for affirmative asylum seekers may cause 
additional burdens for low-income households.
    Response: DHS acknowledges the commenter's concern; however, as 
stated in the NPRM and in this final rule, fee waivers for the Form I-
765 will not be available to asylum seekers. See 84 FR 62296-62301. 
USCIS is continuing to provide a fee exemption for the initial Form I-
765 filing for individuals who were granted asylum (asylees) or who 
were admitted as refugees. Therefore, there is no fee waiver request 
necessary for asylees filing an initial Form I-765. Asylees and 
refugees will generally continue to be required to pay the relevant fee 
for renewal EADs. As indicated previously, DHS has clarified the 
provisions regarding the USCIS Director's discretion as it relates to 
fee waivers in 8 CFR 106.3(b), as the individual provision in the 
proposed 8 CFR 106.3(b) was redundant.
8. Fee Waiver Documentation
    Comment: A commenter recommended that USCIS expand the types of 
documentary evidence accepted in support of fee waiver applications. 
Several commenters stated that applicants should not be required to 
procure additional new documents, such as federal tax transcript, to 
demonstrate household income. The commenters stated that, obtaining a 
transcript would substantially complicate the process of applying for a 
fee waiver because individuals may not have access to a computer and 
several days to six weeks or more may be required to wait on delivery 
via the mail. Some commenters indicated that the proposal creates a 
burdensome new requirement that many applicants will be unable to meet, 
either because it's too difficult to obtain the documentation or 
because they were too poor to file taxes with a foreign government.
    Response: USCIS currently requests copies of income tax returns 
from applicants requesting fee waivers. Tax transcripts are easily 
requested through the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) website or paper 
filing and are free to taxpayers. USCIS cannot accept incomplete copies 
of tax returns or copies that are not signed or submitted to the IRS to 
support fee waiver requests, because they may not validly reflect the 
applicant's household income. USCIS believes that the proposed change 
will reduce its administrative burden for fee waiver processing and 
reduce the number of fee waiver requests that are rejected because of 
improper documentation, inadequate information, and no signatures for 
household members. In terms of the non-filing letter from the IRS, 
USCIS is concerned about not receiving documentation of no-income. 
Therefore, obtaining information from the IRS in transcripts, a W-2, or 
proof of non-filing, if applicable, is sufficient documentation to 
establish the necessary income or no income. DHS believes that, while 
this might place a small additional burden on applicants, the change 
will ultimately benefit applicants by mitigating future rejections and 
ensuring that fees are waived for deserving applicants.
    Comment: A commenter stated the proposed changes would increase the

[[Page 46825]]

inefficiencies in processing fee waiver requests, place an unnecessary 
burden on the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for requests for 
documentation from immigrants, and add burden on USCIS increasing the 
complexity of adjudicating fee waiver requests. Plus, USCIS would need 
to continuously track the IRS transcript request processes.
    Response: As part of its regular operations, the Internal Revenue 
Service (IRS) provides customer service including providing tax 
transcripts. Tax transcripts can be obtained by calling the IRS or 
submitting a request online, through the mail or by fax. As the IRS, 
and other federal, state, and local agencies regularly provide 
information and services to their customers as part of their daily 
operations, the proposed form changes should have a minimal impact on 
them. The Department of the Treasury was provided with the proposed and 
final rule to review, and they did not object to the requirement for 
the tax transcript.
    Comment: A commenter stated that requiring separate fee waiver 
submissions for derivative family members was overly burdensome and 
provided USCIS data to demonstrate that survivors applying for 
humanitarian protections frequently included derivative family members 
in their applications. Many commenters stated that requiring each 
applicant to submit their own form when applying for fee waivers 
imposes a large, duplicative burden on applicants. Commenters 
recommended that family members should be allowed to continue 
submitting a single fee waiver application with all relevant 
information collected in one location. Another commenter said survivors 
applying for humanitarian protections frequently included derivative 
family members in their applications and provided USCIS data to 
demonstrate this fact.
    Response: Over 90 percent of the fee waiver requests filed were for 
individual applicants \62\ and many other forms are already required to 
be submitted individually. Therefore, DHS does not believe that 
requiring Form I-912 for each applicant or petitioner in a household 
will unduly burden applicants. The change will reduce the number of fee 
waiver requests that are rejected for failure to obtain all signatures 
of included family members. DHS has determined that the benefit of 
fewer rejections exceeds the small increase in burden that this change 
may add for a small percentage of fee waiver requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ See Tables 10-11. Distribution of Total Approved Applicants 
per Fee Waiver Request (Form I-912) in the RIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: A commenter recommended that USCIS continue to allow use 
of applicant generated, non-form fee waiver requests and objected to 
option of a written statement being eliminated for Form I-918, Petition 
for U Nonimmigrant Status.
    Response: Adjudicating ad hoc fee waiver requests has proven to be 
difficult for USCIS due to the varied quality and information provided 
in ad hoc letter requests. Form I-912 is easy to complete, and it 
provides standardization that will assist USCIS in our review of 
requests. In addition, there is no filing fee for Form I-918. 
Therefore, DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in response 
to this comment and will require submission of Form I-912 to request a 
fee waiver.
9. Cost of Fee Waivers
    Comment: Many commenters stated that DHS' application of the 
beneficiary-pays principle is arbitrary, capricious, unsupported, and 
unjustified. Commenters indicated that restricting the income 
requirements from 150 percent of FPG to 125 percent is unjustified, 
especially because DHS did not estimate how many people the change 
would affect. Multiple commenters opposed the beneficiary-pay model as 
it would not be a fair or just system, writing that it ignores the 
inequities that exist across incomes and that the ability-to-pay model 
has been working for years. A commenter wrote that DHS' justification 
that the use of fee waivers haves increased in a good economy was 
faulty, writing that DHS cited statistics for USCIS fee waivers from FY 
2008 to 2011--a period of economic recession. Another commenter said 
that DHS' argument that fee waivers have become too costly to sustain 
fails to account for recent fee increases or indicate whether fee 
waiver volume has changed. The commenter wrote that fee waivers between 
2016 and 2017 did not increase and the NPRM does not acknowledge the 
recent decline in fee waivers in FY 2018.
    Response: DHS explained in the NPRM that fee waivers had increased 
to unmanageable levels and that DHS had to do something to curtail the 
amount of free services being provided by USCIS. In prior years, USCIS' 
fees have given significant weight to the ability-to-pay principle and 
shifted the costs of certain benefit requests to other fee payers. In 
the FY 2016/2017 fee rule, DHS noted that the estimated annual forgone 
revenue from fee waivers and exemptions has increased markedly, from 
$191 million in the FY 2010/2011 fee review to $613 million in the FY 
2016/2017 fee review.\63\ See 81 FR 26922 and 73307. In the FY 2016/
2017 NPRM, DHS estimated that the increase in fee waivers accounted for 
9 percent of the 21 percent weighted average fee increase. See 81 FR 
26910. In the same NPRM, DHS provided notice that in the future it may 
revisit the USCIS fee waiver guidance with respect to what constitutes 
inability to pay under 8 CFR 103.7(c). See 81 FR 26922.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ Since USCIS includes a projection for fee waivers/fee 
exemptions when setting its fees to recover full cost, it does not 
forgo revenue unless the total dollar amount of actual fee waivers/
fee exemptions exceeds the projected amount that was included in the 
fee setting process. The dollar amount of actual fee waivers/fee 
exemptions in excess of the projected amount included in the fee 
setting process is considered foregone revenue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this final rule, DHS is aligning USCIS' fees more closely to the 
beneficiary-pays principle. Without the changes to fee waiver policy 
implemented in this final rule, fees would increase by a weighted 
average of 30 percent, which is 10 percent more than in the fee 
schedule implemented in this final rule. In an effort to mitigate the 
total weighted average fee increase and preserve equitable distribution 
of costs for adjudication and naturalization services, DHS declines to 
make changes in this final rule in response to the comment.
    Comment: Some commenters stated that USCIS' justification to make 
the fee schedule more equitable with the beneficiary-pays approach 
fails to consider the effect on applicants or benefits resulting from 
fee waivers. A few commenters stated that setting fees at full cost 
recovery would be inadequate as it does not take into account the 
benefits side of the equation, such as the added earnings of 
citizenship relative to prior earnings as a legal immigrant. The 
commenters stated that including benefits would show that all costs are 
indeed paid and covered.
    A few commenters wrote that USCIS has taken actions that increase 
operating costs (e.g., extreme vetting, re-interviewing individuals, 
enhanced background checks, decrease in staffing) which the department 
now seeks to pass onto the public via the beneficiary-pays principle 
and by eliminating fee waivers.
    Response: Consistent with historical practice, this final rule sets 
fees at a level to recover the estimated full operating costs of USCIS, 
the entity within DHS that provides almost all immigration adjudication 
and

[[Page 46826]]

naturalization services. See Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 
107-296, sec. 451, 116 Stat. 2142 (Nov. 26, 2002) (6 U.S.C. 271). The 
statute authorizes recovery of the full costs of providing immigration 
adjudication and naturalization services. As provided in the NPRM and 
RIA, the fees account for all anticipated operational costs and 
adjudicative actions based on the best information available at the 
time USCIS conducted the FY 2019/2020 fee review.
    DHS considered the effects of the revised fee schedule on 
applicants and petitioners, as documented in the RIA, Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), SEA and relevant sections of this final 
rule. As noted elsewhere in this preamble, DHS is not required to 
conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the impacts on all applicants of 
each change in a fee or change in USCIS fees or fee-related 
regulations. As stated elsewhere in this preamble,\64\ DHS is required 
by OMB Circular A-4 to include all total projected costs, benefits, and 
transfers annualized and monetized over a specified implementation 
period, which for this final rule is 10 years. The final rule intends 
to merely recover the estimated full cost to USCIS of providing 
immigration adjudication and naturalization services, including 
services provided without charge to asylum applicants and other 
immigrants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \64\ Section IV A, Statutory and Regulatory Requirements, 
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and Executive 
Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and 
Executive Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling 
Regulatory Costs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, this rule sets fees to offset USCIS costs to provide 
immigration adjudication and naturalization services at an adequate 
level. DHS anticipates that applicants and petitioner will consider the 
potential benefits, including the potential for increased earnings as 
noted by the commenter, weigh those benefits against the cost of 
applying, including the fee, and decide if the benefits outweigh the 
costs. DHS believes that many LPRs will determine that the benefits of 
naturalization, including the prospect of additional earnings, exceed 
the cost of the fee for Form N-400.
    Comment: Another commenter wrote that there are errors and a lack 
of supporting documentation in the NPRM. They stated that this lack of 
information made it impossible to verify or understand calculations 
that USCIS relies on to justify the proposed changes to the fee 
waivers. The commenter provided the following examples and criticisms:
     ``In the FY 2019/2020 fee review, USCIS determined that 
without changes to fee waiver policy, it would forgo revenue of 
approximately $1,494 million.''--supporting document states foregone 
revenue for 2017 was $367,243,540.
     ``The proposed fee schedule estimates $962 million forgone 
revenue from fee waivers and fee exemptions.''--no supporting 
documents.
     ``The difference in forgone revenue is $532 million.''--no 
supporting documents.
     ``Without changes to fee waiver policy, fees would 
increase by a weighted average of 31 percent, which is 10 percent more 
than in the proposed fee schedule.''--no supporting documents.
     ``As shown in the supporting documentation for this rule, 
the number and dollar volume of fee waiver requests and foregone 
revenue has trended upward during periods of economic improvement. That 
indicates that, should the economy worsen, the number of fee waiver 
requests will increase to a level that could threaten the ability of 
USCIS to deliver programs without disruption.''--While there is 
supporting documentation for this statement, its meaning is unclear as 
no analysis is given comparing the fee waiver usage to economic 
performance.
     ``In the FY 2016/2017 fee rule, DHS noted that the 
estimated annual forgone revenue from fee waivers and exemptions has 
increased markedly, from $191 million in the FY 2010/2011 fee review to 
$613 million in the FY 2016/2017 fee review.''
     USCIS miscalculated the surcharge needed to add onto other 
fees to make up for lost revenue.
    Response: All examples cited by the commenter do not directly 
impact fee calculations. Rather, they are byproduct estimates of 
multiple operational data elements including fees, workload receipts, 
and fee-paying receipts. Additional information on the historical 
dollar value of approved fee waiver requests is located in the 
supporting documentation that accompanies this final rule. 
Additionally, DHS used the best available information at the time it 
conducted the FY 2019/2020 fee review to calculate fees and does not 
calculate a surcharge to add onto other fees. Instead, it estimates the 
total cost of performing USCIS' anticipated workload by form and 
divides those costs by the estimated fee-paying volume for each form.
    Regarding the commenter's question about the volume of fee waiver 
requests increasing during periods of a good economy, as indicated in 
the NPRM, DHS determined that the current trends and level of fee 
waivers are not sustainable. As shown in the supporting documentation 
that accompanies this final rule, the number and dollar value of 
approved fee waiver requests has remained high during periods when the 
U.S. economy was improving. As the economy worsens, the number of fee 
waiver requests could increase to a level that could threaten the 
ability of USCIS to deliver programs without disruption. DHS declines 
to make changes in this final rule in response to these comments.
    Comment: One commenter wrote that USCIS data is incomplete as it 
only shows fee waiver trends through FY 2017 and requested the data on 
fee waiver approval rates for the past two fiscal years be released.
    Response: The NPRM contained information USCIS had available at the 
time it conducted the FY 2019/2020 fee review. It provides more than 
adequate data upon which to base the fee waiver regulatory changes made 
in this final rule. However, in response to the commenter and to 
demonstrate that fee waiver levels remain high, DHS has included FY 
2018 and FY 2019 fee waiver data in the supporting documentation that 
accompanies this final rule for informational purposes. DHS has also 
included the actual dollar value of approved fee waiver requests for FY 
2013-FY 2019.
10. Changes to Form I-912, Request for Fee Waiver
    Comment: One commenter recommended that USCIS revert to and retain 
the previous version of Form I-912 (03/13/2018 edition).
    Response: DHS declines to revert to the previous version of the 
form as this final rule establishes revised criteria for eligibility. 
The Form I-912 version submitted with this final rule incorporates the 
relevant provisions.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that USCIS restore helpful 
language in instructions and forms that clarifies that applicants need 
only meet one of multiple possible grounds of qualification for a fee 
waiver and clarify that applicants only need to provide documentation 
for one basis. A commenter also noted that the proposed Form I-912 
contains provisions that are difficult to understand, citing the 
request for applicants to include ``a receipt number'' (Part 1, 
Question A) as an example. One commenter recommended that Part 1. 
Question 1.A's instruction should be changed to, ``[i]f available, 
provide the receipt number'' as the applicant may not yet have a 
receipt number.

[[Page 46827]]

    Response: DHS clarified the provision regarding the basis of 
eligibility for a fee waiver by indicating that the applicants should 
select the basis for qualification. DHS added a clarification to the 
form to indicate that the receipt number is only required if the 
applicant has already been provided with a receipt number.
    Comment: One commenter stated that Part 1, ``Question 1.B's new 
guidelines allowing fee waivers for those impacted by a disaster are 
unclear. The form states in Part 1 that in order to be eligible, these 
applicants must have an annual household income at or below 125 percent 
of the FPG. They must then provide information about their income in 
Part 3, discussed in more detail below. However, in Part 3, number 11 
they are asked to provide information about their expenses, debt, or 
losses incurred in the disaster. It is unclear why this additional 
information is needed, if the applicant has already been required to 
document their income at or below 125 percent of the FPG. This 
information request does not fit into the eligibility guidelines based 
on income and is not relevant to USCIS' adjudication. We recommend 
either deleting item 11 in Part 3, or expanding the eligibility 
guidelines to include financial hardship for those impacted by a 
disaster who are unable to document low income. The same commenter 
later noted that ``Question #11 is redundant, as stated above, and we 
recommend that it be deleted.''
    Response: DHS agrees that an applicant or petitioner impacted by a 
disaster who is otherwise eligible for a fee waiver would only need to 
provide documentation of income at or below 125 percent of the FPG and 
would not need to provide evidence of expenses, debt, or losses 
incurred in the disaster. DHS has removed the additional question from 
the form.
    Comment: One commenter stated that Part 3 asks for gross income, 
but neither the form nor the instructions define the term. `Gross 
income' needs to be explained, especially for those who are not able to 
simply refer to the ``gross income'' line on their tax return. We 
recommend that USCIS define `gross income' on the form just below the 
heading for Part 3 and in the corresponding instructions. The commenter 
also recommends that Part 3., Question 6 explicitly instruct applicants 
where to find their gross income.
    Response: Gross income includes wages, dividends, capital gains, 
business income, retirement distributions as well as other income 
without any adjustments.\65\ This clarification has been added to Form 
I-912 instructions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ See IRS, Definition of Adjusted Gross Income, available at 
https://www.irs.gov/e-file-providers/definition-of-adjusted-gross-income (last visited March 7, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One commenter recommended increasing the chart in Part 3., 
Question 4 from four (4) spaces total for listing household members to 
six (6) spaces, along with instructions above the chart for what to do 
if the applicant needs more spaces. Alternatively, they also recommend 
providing the chart again in Part 7. for those who need more space to 
list household members.
    Response: Requestors should use the Additional Information section 
if more space is required. DHS is not modifying the form in response to 
this comment. Adding additional charts or rows will unnecessarily 
increase the form length.
    Comment: Commenters recommended explicitly instructing applicants 
that they need to attach a copy of their federal income tax 
transcripts.
    Response: DHS has added an additional form instruction to indicate 
that requestors should provide income tax return transcripts.
    Comment: One commenter stated that Part 3., Question 10 ``is a 
catch-all for describing special circumstances. Applicants could easily 
miss it. We recommend adding a new item number after 10 for those who 
have no income or are homeless to describe their circumstances, e.g., 
`[i]f you have no income and/or are homeless, you may use this space to 
provide additional information.' ''
    Response: To limit the burden on applicants, DHS will not be adding 
a question. However, question 10 has been updated to clarify that the 
space may be used for additional information which may include a 
statement about lack of income. Although a homeless person without 
income would generally qualify for a fee waiver based on income at or 
below 125 percent of the FPG, being homeless does not make an applicant 
eligible for a fee waiver.
11. Suggestions
    Comment: A few commenters suggested alternatives to narrowing the 
requirements for fee waivers and changing their standards of evidence 
including limiting fee waivers allowed for specific applications (for 
example the first 25,000 fee waivers for Form I-90), have a lottery for 
fee waivers (for example: For those paying with credit card they can be 
entered in a lottery and if chosen the application is free, if not, 
then the card will be charged); offer fee reductions; and lower the 
threshold to 150 percent or 175 percent instead. A few commenters 
stated that partial fee waivers, with mechanisms such as reduced fees, 
sliding scale fee schedules, and family caps, should be used to 
facilitate applications from low- and middle-income immigrants. Several 
commenters wrote that USCIS should retain the previous fee waiver 
eligibility criteria.
    Response: DHS recognizes that filing fees are a burden for some 
people of limited financial means. However, as previously stated, the 
cost of fee waivers and reduced fees are borne by all other fee payers, 
because they must be transferred to those who pay a full fee to ensure 
full cost recovery. DHS believes that it is more equitable to base fees 
on the beneficiary-pays principle. Thus, USCIS takes a relatively 
careful position with respect to transferring costs from one applicant 
to another through the expansion of fee waiver eligibility and 
discounting fees. To set fees at various levels based on income, as 
suggested by the commenter, would require deviation from the underlying 
fee-setting methodology and require some of the costs for those 
applications to be reassigned to other benefit requests. Therefore, DHS 
did not incorporate a reduced fee, sliding scale, or family cap in this 
final rule or the other suggestions provided by commenters.
    Comment: Others suggested USCIS set a higher limit of at least 200 
percent instead of 125 percent FPG.
    Response: DHS will not adopt the suggestion to increase the income 
requirement to 200 percent of the poverty line. As previously 
discussed, DHS selected the 125 percent of the FPG threshold as it is 
consistent with the income threshold in other areas related to 
immigration benefit adjudication, the public charge inadmissibility 
rule, and affidavit of support requirements under INA section 213A, 8 
U.S.C.1183a, and 8 CFR 212.22(b)(4).

F. Comments on Fee Exemptions

    Comment: One commenter opposed USCIS' proposal to remove most fee 
exemptions and to formalize limits to its discretion to provide fee 
exemptions. The commenter stated that USCIS failed to provide any 
rationale to justify this regulatory constraint. The commenter said 
narrowing the regulatory authority of the Director of USCIS to receive 
requests and waive fees for a case or specific class of cases would 
unnecessarily tie the hands of future policymakers. The commenter also 
stated that it is unclear how this

[[Page 46828]]

authority would be exercised and how USCIS would adequately publicize 
any such exercise of discretion.
    Response: DHS authorized the USCIS Director to approve and revoke 
exemptions from fees or provide that the fee may be waived for a case 
or class of cases that is not otherwise provided in 8 CFR 103.7(c) in 
2010. See old 8 CFR 103.7(d); 75 FR 58, 961, 58990. Since then, that 
provision has been implemented effectively without providing publicly 
available guidance for how a person may request that the Director 
exercise that authority for an individual who feels like he or she is 
worthy of special consideration by the Director. USCIS receives several 
million fee-paying requests per year and to permit an individual to 
request a fee waiver from the Director using authority that may only be 
delegated to one other person could result in an unmanageable level of 
requests. USCIS has approved waiver eligibility and group exemptions in 
the case of natural disasters or significant USCIS errors. DHS 
explained in the proposed rule that it was concerned that the current 
authority provides too much discretion to a future Director to expand 
fee exemptions and waivers beyond what may be fiscally sound and 
shifting burden to just a few fee payers. In the 2010 fee rule, DHS 
stated that it thought the limits that it was imposing in that rule on 
fee waivers would ensure that fee waivers are applied in a fair and 
consistent manner, that aliens who are admitted into the United States 
will not become public charges, and that USCIS will not shift an 
unreasonable amount of costs to other fee-paying benefit requests.\66\ 
Unfortunately, that goal was not achieved, and as stated in the NPRM, 
the current level of fee waivers is not sustainable. See 84 FR 62300. 
Thus, prescribing a limit in the regulations on the ability of future 
Directors to waive or exempt fees on a discretionary basis was 
determined to be necessary. Nevertheless, based on the use of 8 CFR 
103.7(d) by Directors since 2010, the restrictions are consistent with 
the relief that has been provided; thus new 8 CFR 106.3(b) and (c) is 
not a major departure from how that provision has been applied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ 75 FR 58973.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 4 below provides a list of filing fee exemptions as provided 
in the rule. See new 8 CFR 106.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \67\ In general, USCIS exempts a fee for an application or 
request to replace a document based on USCIS error.
    \68\ Some supplemental forms may not have fees as the fees are 
part of the main form, including Form I-130A, Supplemental 
Information for Spouse Beneficiary, Form I-485 Supplement J, 
Confirmation of Bona Fide Job Offer or Request for Job Portability 
Under INA Section 204(j), Form I-539A Supplemental Information for 
Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status.
    \69\ If more than one Form I-600 is filed during the Form I-600A 
approval period on behalf of beneficiary birth siblings, no 
additional fee is required.
    \70\ No additional fee for a Form I-800 is required when filing 
for children who are birth siblings.
    \71\ Re-registration applicants must still pay the biometric 
services fee.

                                       Table 4--Filing Fee Exemptions \67\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Reason for        Final rule          Statutory or
           Form \68\             Eligibility category     filing  (if       regulation      regulatory authority
                                                          applicable)         section          if applicable
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I-90, Application to Replace    Applicant who has      N/A.............  8 CFR             8 CFR 264.5(a).
 Permanent Resident Card.        reached his or her                       106.2(a)(1).
                                 14th birthday and
                                 the existing card
                                 expires after his or
                                 her 16th birthday.
I-102, Application for          For nonimmigrant       Initial Filing..  8 CFR             8 CFR 106.3(e)(5)--
 Replacement/Initial             member of the U.S.    ................   106.2(a)(2)(i).   Agreement between
 Nonimmigrant Arrival-           Armed Forces.         Initial Filing..  ................   U.S. government and
 Departure Document.            For a nonimmigrant                       8 CFR              other nations.
                                 member of the North                      106.2(a)(ii).    8 CFR 106.3(e)(5)--
                                 Atlantic Treaty                                            Agreement between
                                 Organization (NATO)                                        U.S. government and
                                 armed forces or                                            other nations.
                                 civil component.
                                For nonimmigrant       Initial Filing..  8 CFR             8 CFR 106.3(e)(5)--
                                 member of the                            106.2(a)(ii).     Agreement between
                                 Partnership for                                            U.S. government and
                                 Peace military                                             other nations.
                                 program under the
                                 Status of Forces
                                 Agreement.
I-129CW, Petition for a CNMI-   For filing Form I-     N/A.............  8 CFR             8 CFR 106.3(e)(5)--
 Only Nonimmigrant               129CWR, Semiannual                       106.2(a)(4)(B)(   Agreement between
 Transitional Worker.            Report for CW-1                          iii).             U.S. government and
                                 Employers.                                                 other nations.
I-129F, Petition for Alien      For a K-3 spouse as    N/A.............  8 CFR             Previous regulations
 Fianc[eacute](e).               designated in 8 CFR                      106.2(a)(5)(ii).  at 8 CFR
                                 214.1(a)(2) who is                                         103.7(b)(1)(i)(K).
                                 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 Travel   Applicants who filed   Any application.  8 CFR             Required by
 Document.                       USCIS Form I-485 on                      106.2(a)(7)(iv).  regulations in
                                 or after July 30,                                          effect at the time
                                 2007, and before                                           the request was
                                 October 2, 2020 and                                        filed.
                                 paid the Form I-485
                                 fee.
                                Applicants for         Any application.  8 CFR             National Defense
                                 Special Immigrant                        106.2(a)(7)(iv).  Authorization Act
                                 Status based on an                                         for Fiscal Year
                                 approved Form I-360                                        2008, Public Law 110-
                                 as an Afghan or                                            181 (Jan 28, 2008)
                                 Iraqi Interpreter,                                         and Omnibus
                                 or Iraqi National                                          Appropriations Act,
                                 employed by or on                                          2009 Public Law 111-
                                 behalf of the U.S.                                         8 (Mar. 11, 2009).
                                 Government or Afghan
                                 National employed by
                                 the U.S. Government
                                 or the International
                                 Security Assistance
                                 Forces (``ISAF'').
I-360 Petition for Amerasian,    A petition    Any application.  8 CFR             Policy based on INA
 Widow(er), or Special           seeking                                  106.2(a)(16).     section 245(l)(7).
 Immigrant.                      classification as an
                                 Amerasian;.
                                 A self-
                                 petition for
                                 immigrant
                                 classification as an
                                 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
                                 classification; 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.
                                 Government or Afghan
                                 National employed by
                                 the U.S. Government
                                 or the International
                                 Security Assistance
                                 Forces (``ISAF'')..
Form I-485, Application to      Applicants for         Any application.  8 CFR             National Defense
 Register Permanent Residence    Special Immigrant                        106.2(a)(17)(ii   Authorization Act
 or Adjust Status.               Status based on an                       i).               for Fiscal Year
                                 approved Form I-360                                        2008, Public Law 110-
                                 as an Afghan or                                            181 (Jan 28, 2008)
                                 Iraqi Interpreter,                                         and Omnibus
                                 or Iraqi National                                          Appropriations Act,
                                 employed by or on                                          2009 Public Law 111-
                                 behalf of the U.S.                                         8 (Mar. 11, 2009).
                                 Government or Afghan
                                 National employed by
                                 the U.S. Government
                                 or the International
                                 Security Assistance
                                 Forces (``ISAF'').
                                Applicants filing as   Any application.  ................  Previous 8 CFR
                                 refugees under INA                                         103.7(b)(1)(i)(U)(3)
                                 section 209(a).                                            .

[[Page 46829]]

 
I-485 Supplement A, Adjustment  When the applicant is  N/A.............  8 CFR             INA section 245(i).
 of Status under Section         an unmarried child                       106.2(a)(17)(iv
 245(i).                         less than 17 years                       ).
                                 of age, when the
                                 applicant is the
                                 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 or     For an appeal or       Any application.  8 CFR             National Defense
 Motion.                         motion for denial of                     106.2(a)(14)(ii   Authorization Act
                                 a petition for a                         ).                for Fiscal Year
                                 special immigrant                                          2008, Public Law 110-
                                 visa from an                                               181 (Jan 28, 2008)
                                 individual for a                                           and Omnibus
                                 special immigrant                                          Appropriations Act,
                                 status as an Afghan                                        2009 Public Law 111-
                                 or Iraqi                                                   8 (Mar. 11, 2009).
                                 Interpreter, or
                                 Iraqi or Afghan
                                 National employed by
                                 the U.S. Government
                                 or the International
                                 Security Assistance
                                 Forces (``ISAF'').
I-539, Application to Extend/   Nonimmigrant A, G,     ................  8 CFR             8 CFR 106.3(e)(5)--
 Change Nonimmigrant Status.     and NATO.                                106.2(a)(19).     Agreement between
                                                                                            the U.S. government
                                                                                            and other nations.
I-589, Application for Asylum   Applications filed by  ................  8 CFR             Public Law 110-457,
 and for Withholding of          unaccompanied alien                      106.2(a)(20).     122 Stat. 5044
 Removal.                        children who are in                                        (2008).
                                 removal proceedings.
I-600, Petition to Classify     First Form I-600       ................  8 CFR             Previous 8 CFR
 Orphan as an Immediate          filed for a child on                     106.2(a)(21)(i).  103.7(b)(1)(i)(Y),
 Relative \69\.                  the basis of an                                            (Z).
                                 approved Application
                                 for Advance
                                 Processing of an
                                 Orphan Petition,
                                 Form I-600A, during
                                 the Form I-600A
                                 approval or extended
                                 approval period.
I-600A/I-600 Supplement 3,      Filed in order to      ................  8 CFR             Previous 8 CFR
 Request for Action on           obtain a first                           106.2(a)(23)(i)   103.7(b)(1)(i)(Y),
 Approved Form I-600A/I-600.     extension of the                         (A).              (Z).
                                 approval of the Form
                                 I-600A or to obtain
                                 a first time change
                                 of non-Hague
                                 Adoption Convention
                                 country during the
                                 Form I-600A approval
                                 period.
I-765, Application for          Refugee..............  Initial EAD.....  8 CFR             Policy.
 Employment Authorization.      Paroled as refugee...  Initial EAD.....   106.2(a)(32)(ii  Policy.
                                                                          )(B).
                                                                         8 CFR
                                                                          106.2(a)(32)(ii
                                                                          )(B).
                                Asylee...............  Initial EAD.....  8 CFR             Policy.
                                                                          106.2(a)(32)(ii
                                                                          )(C).
                                N-8 or N-9             Initial EAD.....  8 CFR             8 CFR 106.3(e)(5)--
                                 nonimmigrant.                            106.2(a)(32)(ii   Agreement between
                                                                          )(G).             the U.S. government
                                                                                            and another nation
                                                                                            or nations.
                                Victim of severe form  Initial EAD.....  8 CFR             Policy based on INA
                                 of trafficking (T-1                      106.2(a)(32)(ii   section 245(l)(7).
                                 nonimmigrant).                           )(D).
                                Victim of qualifying   Initial EAD.....  8 CFR             Policy based on INA
                                 criminal activity (U-                    106.2(a)(32)(ii   section 245(l)(7).
                                 1 nonimmigrant).                         )(E).
                                Dependent of certain   Initial EAD.....  8 CFR             Based on 106.3(e)(5)--
                                 government and        Renewal EAD,       106.2(a)(32)(ii   An agreement between
                                 international          Replacement EAD.  )(F).             the U.S. government
                                 organizations, or                       8 CFR              and another nation
                                 NATO personnel.                          106.2(a)(32)(iv   or nations.
                                                                          )(C).
                                Taiwanese dependent    Initial EAD,      N/A.............  8 CFR 106.3(e)(5)--An
                                 of Taipei Economic     Renewal EAD,                        agreement between
                                 and Cultural           Replacement EAD.                    the U.S. government
                                 Representative                                             and another nation
                                 Office TECRO E-1                                           or nations.
                                 employees.
                                VAWA Self-Petitioners  Initial EAD.....  8 CFR             Policy based on INA
                                 as defined in                            106.2(a)(32)(ii   section 245(l)(7).
                                 section                                  )(I).
                                 101(a)(51)(D) of the
                                 Act (Applicant
                                 adjusting under the
                                 Cuban Adjustment Act
                                 for battered spouses
                                 and children
                                 (principal) who has
                                 a pending adjustment
                                 of status
                                 application (Form I-
                                 485)).
                                VAWA Self-Petitioners  Initial EAD.....  8 CFR             Policy based on
                                 as defined in                            106.2(a)(32)(ii   through INA
                                 section                                  )(I).             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 pending
                                 adjustment of status
                                 application (Form I-
                                 485)).
                                VAWA Self-Petitioners  Initial EAD.....  8 CFR             Policy based on INA
                                 as defined in                            106.2(a)(32)(ii   section 245(l)(7).
                                 section                                  )(I).
                                 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  Initial EAD,      8 CFR             Public Law 110-181
                                 Immigrant Status       Renewal EAD,      106.2(a)(32)(ii   (Jan 28, 2008) and
                                 based on an approved   Replacement EAD.  )(J).             Public Law 111-8
                                 Form I-360 as an                                           (Mar. 11, 2009).
                                 Afghan or Iraqi
                                 Translator or
                                 Interpreter, Iraqi
                                 National employed by
                                 or on behalf of the
                                 U.S. Government, or
                                 Afghan National
                                 employed by or on
                                 behalf of the U.S.
                                 government or
                                 employed by the
                                 International
                                 Security Assistance
                                 Forces (``ISAF'').
                                An applicant who       Initial EAD,      8 CFR             Required by
                                 filed USCIS Form I-    Renewal EAD,      106.2(a)(32)(ii   regulations in
                                 485 on or after July   Replacement EAD.  )(A).             effect when form was
                                 30, 2007 and before                                        filed.
                                 [INSERT EFFECTIVE
                                 DATE OF 2018/2019
                                 FEE RULE] and paid
                                 the Form I-485
                                 filing fee.
                                Principal VAWA Self-   Initial EAD.....  8 CFR             Policy based on INA
                                 Petitioners who have                     106.2(a)(32)(ii   section 245(l)(7).
                                 approved petitions                       )(H).
                                 pursuant to section
                                 204(a) of the Act.
                                Any current            Initial EAD,      8 CFR             Required by
                                 Adjustment of Status   Renewal EAD,      106.2(a)(32)(iv   regulations in
                                 or Registry            Replacement EAD.  )(A).             effect when form was
                                 applicant filed for                                        filed.
                                 adjustment of status
                                 on or after July 30,
                                 2007, and before
                                 [INSERT EFFECTIVE
                                 DATE OF 2018/2019
                                 FEE RULE] and paid
                                 the appropriate Form
                                 I-485 filing fee.
                                Request for            Replacement EAD.  8 CFR             8 CFR 106.3(e)(6).
                                 replacement                              106.2(a)(32)(ii
                                 Employment                               i).
                                 Authorization
                                 Document based on
                                 USCIS error.
I-765V, Application for         Any applicant........  N/A.............  8 CFR             Policy based on INA
 Employment Authorization for                                             106.2(a)(32)(v).  section 245(l)(7).
 Abused Nonimmigrant Spouse.
I-800, Petition to Classify     The first Form I-800   Initial Filing..  8 CFR             8 CFR
 Convention Adoptee as an        filed for a child on                     106.2(a)(33)(i).  103.7(b)(1)(i)(JJ),
 Immediate Relative \70\.        the basis of an                                            (LL).
                                 approved Application
                                 for Determination of
                                 Suitability to Adopt
                                 a Child from a
                                 Convention Country,
                                 Form I-800A, during
                                 the Form I-800A
                                 approval period.
Form I-800A Supplement 3,       Filed in order to      N/A.............  8 CFR             8 CFR
 Request for Action on           obtain a first                           106.2(a)(35)(i)   103.7(b)(1)(i)(JJ)(1
 Approved Form I-800A.           extension of the                         (A).              ).
                                 approval of the Form
                                 I-800A or to obtain
                                 a first time change
                                 of Hague Adoption
                                 Convention country
                                 during the Form I-
                                 800A approval period.

[[Page 46830]]

 
I-821, Application for          Any applicant........  Re-registration.  8 CFR 106.2(a)..  INA section
 Temporary Protected Status                                                                 245(l)(7).
 \71\.
I-821D, Consideration of        Any requestor........  ................  8 CFR             Policy decision based
 Deferred Action for Childhood                                            106.2(a)(38).     on DHS et al. v.
 Arrivals.                                                                                  Regents of the Univ.
                                                                                            of Cal. et al., No.
                                                                                            18-587 (S.Ct. June
                                                                                            18, 2010).
I-914, Application for T        Any applicant........  N/A.............  8 CFR             Policy but based on
 Nonimmigrant Status.                                                     106.2(a)(45).     INA section
                                                                                            245(l)(7).
I-918, Petition for U           Any applicant........  N/A.............  8 CFR             Policy but based on
 Nonimmigrant Status.                                                     106.2(a)(46).     INA section
                                                                                            245(l)(7).
N-336, Request for a Hearing    An applicant who has   N/A.............  8 CFR             See INA secs.
 on a Decision in                filed an Application                     106.2(b)(2).      328(b)(4),
 Naturalization Proceedings      for Naturalization                                         329(b)(4).
 (Under Section 336 of the       under sections 328
 INA).                           or 329 of the Act
                                 with respect to
                                 military service and
                                 whose application
                                 has been denied.
N-400, Application for          An applicant who       N/A.............  8 CFR             See INA secs.
 Naturalization.                 meets the                                106.2(b)(3).      328(b)(4),
                                 requirements of                                            329(b)(4).
                                 sections 328 or 329
                                 of the Act with
                                 respect to military
                                 service.
N-565, Application for          Application is         N/A.............  8 CFR             Policy based on 8 CFR
 Replacement Naturalization/     submitted under 8                        106.2(b)(5)(ii).  106.3(e)(6).
 Citizenship Document.           CFR 338.5(a) or
                                 343a.1 to request
                                 correction of a
                                 certificate that
                                 contains an error.
Form N-600, Application for     Member or veteran of   N/A.............  8 CFR             Based on National
 Certificate of Citizenship.     any branch of the                        106.2(b)(6).      Defense
                                 U.S. Armed Forces.                                         Authorization
                                                                                            provisions.
Other--Claimant under section   Claimant.............  N/A.............  8 CFR             INA 289.
 289 of the Act.                                                          106.2(c)(9).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. EAD (Form I-765) Exemption
    Comment: A commenter stated that DHS should not charge a fee for 
applications for employment authorization for individuals granted 
withholding of removal, indicating that it violates United States 
treaty obligations under Article 17 of the Refugee Convention. 
Individuals who have been granted withholding of removal have been 
found by an immigration judge to meet the legal definition of a 
refugee, and are authorized to remain lawfully in the United States for 
as long as that status continues, citing to INA section 241(b)(3), 8 
U.S.C. 1231(b)(3); 8 CFR 1208.16, 1208.24. The commenter indicated that 
the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that withholding of removal is 
the mechanism by which the United States implements its obligation 
under Article 33 of the Refugee Convention to ensure that refugees are 
not returned to a place where they will face persecution, citing to INS 
v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 440-41 (1987). The commenter wrote 
that just as much as asylees, individuals granted withholding of 
removal have a right, under Article 17(1) of the Refugee Convention, to 
obtain authorization to work on the most favorable terms that the 
United States allows to nationals of a foreign country. The commenter 
also indicated that Australia only charges the equivalent of 25 U.S. 
dollars--half of what DHS proposes to charge for asylum applications.
    Another commenter said the imposition of a fee for work 
authorization for those individuals who have been granted withholding 
of removal is in conflict with the U.S. legal obligations. The 
commenter said such individuals have an urgent, recognized humanitarian 
need to live and work in the United States, and therefore, USCIS should 
continue its historic practice of exempting these individuals from work 
authorization fees.
    Response: DHS is continuing to provide a fee exemption for the 
initial Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, for 
individuals who were granted asylum (asylees) or who were admitted as 
refugees, consistent with Article 17(1) of the 1951 Convention relating 
to the Status of Refugees (as incorporated in the 1967 Protocol 
relating to the Status of Refugees). See 84 FR 62302; 8 CFR 
106.2(a)(32)(ii)(B). Consistent with past practice, asylees and 
refugees submitting a Form I-765 for EAD renewals will generally be 
required to pay the relevant fee. See 8 CFR 106.2(a)(32).
    However, DHS is not providing a fee exemption for initial requests 
for an EAD for individuals granted withholding of removal. See 84 FR 
62301. Fees associated with access to protection and work authorization 
do not jeopardize United States compliance with its non-refoulement 
obligations under Article 33 of the 1951 Refugee Convention. The United 
States ensures compliance with non-refoulement obligations not through 
the asylum process, but through the withholding of removal provisions, 
currently codified at section 241(b)(3) of the INA. See INS v. Stevic, 
467 U.S. 407 (1984). USCIS uses the Form I-589 solely to adjudicate 
affirmative applications for asylum. It is immigration judges, within 
the Department of Justice, who evaluate withholding of removal claims 
in the context of removal proceedings before them. The asylum process 
``does not correspond to Article 33 of the 1951 Convention, but instead 
corresponds to Article 34'' of the 1951 Refugee Convention, which 
provides that party states ``shall as far as possible facilitate the 
assimilation and naturalization of refugees.'' See INS v. Cardoza-
Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 441 (1987) (quotation marks omitted). As the 
Supreme Court has recognized, Article 34 is ``precatory'' and ``does 
not require [an] implementing authority actually to grant asylum to all 
those who are eligible.'' Id. Further, although the United States is a 
party to the 1967 Refugee Protocol, which incorporates both Articles 33 
and 34 of the 1951 Refugee Convention, the Protocol is not self-
executing. See, e.g., Stevic, at 428 n.22. It is the withholding 
statute at INA section 241(b)(3) and the asylum statute at INA section 
208 that, respectively, constitute the U.S. implementation of these 
treaty obligations. Nothing in either of these two provisions precludes 
the imposition of a filing fee for asylum applications or work 
authorization for those granted withholding of removal. Imposition of 
asylum application and work authorization filing fees are fully 
consistent with United States domestic implementing law and Article 17 
of the 1951 Refugee Convention, which relates to refugees engaging in 
employment. See Weinberger v. Rossi, 456 U.S. 25, 34 (1982) (noting the 
general presumption that United States law conforms to U.S. 
international treaty obligations). DHS has further clarified the 
immigrant categories eligible for fee exemptions and clarified which 
renewal and

[[Page 46831]]

replacement EAD are eligible for fee exemptions. See new 106.2(a)(32).
2. TPS
    Comment: Another commenter stated that fee exemption limitations 
would be especially harmful to TPS applicants. The commenter added that 
USCIS is planning to charge TPS applicants a separate biometric service 
fee, even though the proposal bundles that cost for every other 
category of benefit applicant. The commenter concluded by saying TPS 
applicants would be required to pay $570 to obtain TPS protections and 
begin to earn an income, which is unaffordable.
    Response: In this final rule, DHS removes the Form I-765 fee 
exemption in 8 CFR 244.6(b) for TPS if the individual is an initial TPS 
registrant and is under 14 years of age or over 65 years of age, and 
DHS establishes a biometric services fee of $30 for TPS applicants and 
re-registrants. As we stated in the NPRM, DHS is removing the fee 
exemption because application fees from other form types have always 
been used to fund the costs of processing fee-exempt filings. 
Continuing to exempt these populations from paying associated fees 
would result in the costs of their requests being borne by the other 
proposed fees. Thus, DHS determined that initial TPS registrants under 
14 years of age or over 65 years of age should pay for their own EAD.
    The biometric services fee that TPS applicants and re-registrants 
must pay is changed from $85 to $30, a reduction of $55 per filing. 
This $30 fee, which will be required regardless of age, reflects the 
cost of providing biometric services to TPS applicants and re-
registrants. See new 8 CFR 244.17(a). This biometric services fee will 
partially offset the increase in the fee or the removal of the fee 
exemption for Form I-765, Application for Employment authorization, so 
that the total cost of applying for Temporary Protected Status and 
requesting employment authorization for those who would not have been 
exempt from the Form I-765 fee is increasing from $545 \72\ to $630 for 
initial TPS applicants.\73\ The cost of re-registering for TPS and 
requesting employment authorization will increase from $495 \74\ to 
$580.\75\ DHS notes that TPS applicants and re-registrants may request 
fee waivers. See 8 CFR 106.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ Total of $545 equals $50 for Form I-821 plus $85 biometric 
services fee plus $410 for Form I-765.
    \73\ Total of $630 equals $50 for Form I-821 plus $30 biometric 
services fee plus $550 for Form I-765.
    \74\ Total of $495 equals $85 biometric services fee plus $410 
for Form I-765.
    \75\ Total of $580 equals $30 biometric services fee plus $550 
for Form I-765.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The commenter correctly noted that DHS did not incorporate the cost 
of biometrics into the cost of Form I-821, Application for Temporary 
Protected Status. In this final rule, DHS incorporates the cost of 
providing biometric services into the underlying fee for most 
applications and petitions. However, the maximum fee for Form I-821, 
Application for Temporary Protected Status is set in legislation at $50 
for initial TPS applicants and $0 for re-registrants. See INA section 
244a(c)(1)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(c)(1)(B). Therefore, DHS is not able to 
increase the fee for Form I-821 and cannot incorporate the cost of 
biometrics into the form fee. Thus, DHS maintains a separate biometric 
services fee for TPS registrants and re-registrants and requires the 
biometric services fee for re-registrants under age 14 to recover the 
full cost of providing such services. New 8 CFR 106.3(a)(37)(iii) and 
244.17(a).
    DHS declines to make changes in this final rule based on this 
comment. DHS also notes that 8 CFR 244.6(b) is updated to be consistent 
with new 8 CFR 106.2 and 106.3 in relation to the Form I-765 fees for 
TPS.

G. Comments on Specific Fees

1. Fees for Online Filing
    Comment: A few 545 suggested that, rather than just raising the 
fees, USCIS should focus on processing times and becoming more 
efficient, stating that the process is ``severely paper intensive'' and 
could benefit from a more streamlined electronic process. One commenter 
cited a 2005 report from DHS Office of the Inspector General (OIG) 
which found that USCIS information technology (IT) systems were 
primarily paper-based and duplicative, and that USCIS' ability to 
process immigration benefits was inefficient. Another commenter stated 
that USCIS has done little to shift to digital applications despite 
prior fee hikes. One commenter said paper filing is extremely laborious 
for petitioners, and that many of the concerns that led USCIS to 
propose higher fees and beneficiary limits could be solved by 
implementing electronic filing. Another commenter outlined the benefits 
of moving to electronic process, including cost savings and the ability 
for ``essential workers to arrive on time.'' One commenter stated that 
USCIS has failed to deliver promised improvements to its online filing 
abilities and other modernization initiatives that would result in more 
streamlined operations. The same commenter stated that in 2019, legal 
service providers still reported many challenges in utilizing USCIS 
online filing systems, and that modernization continues to be pushed on 
to USCIS customers even to the detriment of customer service. A 
commenter wrote that they were concerned about USCIS moving to online 
filing based on their experiences with the Department of State's 
National Visa center; they were frustrated by software glitches and 
processing issues (e.g., lost documents, erroneous file rejection, lack 
of information after lengthy waits on hold) which the commenter said 
should be addressed before fees are raised. One commenter stated if 
USCIS wants to save money, it should stop requiring an endless flow of 
paperwork. The commenter provided a list of forms that businesses in 
the CNMI must fill out when new employees are hired and stated that the 
redundancy wasted both their and USCIS' time and resources. The 
commenter referred to a bill from Congressman Sablan that would give 
long-term CW Visa personnel permanent status and stated their hope that 
there will not be constant paperwork required for those requests.
    Response: On March 13, 2017, the President signed Executive Order 
13781, entitled ``Comprehensive Plan for Reorganizing the Executive 
Branch.'' \76\ The order instructed the Director of OMB to propose a 
plan to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of 
the Executive Branch. The resulting June 2018 OMB Report, ``Delivering 
Government Solutions in the 21st Century'' recognized that an 
overarching source of government inefficiency is the outdated reliance 
on paper-based processes and prioritized the transition of Federal 
agencies' business processes and recordkeeping to a fully electronic 
environment.\77\ The report noted that Federal agencies collectively 
spend billions of dollars on paper management, including the 
processing, moving, and maintaining of large volumes of paper records 
and highlighted the key importance of data, accountability, and 
transparency.\78\

[[Page 46832]]

Even more significantly, it cites USCIS' electronic processing efforts 
as an example of an agency initiative that aligns with the prioritized 
reforms.\79\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ E.O. 13781, 82 FR 13959 (Mar 16, 2017).
    \77\ OMB, Delivering Government Solutions in the 21st Century: 
Reform Plan and Reorganization Recommendations 18 (2018), available 
at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Government-Reform-and-Reorg-Plan.pdf.
    \78\ Id. at 100.
    \79\ Id. at 101-02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS understands that, while USCIS has embraced technology in 
adjudication and recordkeeping, it remains bound to the significant 
administrative and operational burdens associated with paper 
submissions. The intake, storage, and handling of paper require 
tremendous operational resources, and the information recorded on paper 
cannot be as effectively standardized or used for fraud and national 
security, information sharing, and system integration purposes. 
Technological advances have allowed USCIS to develop accessible, 
digital alternatives to traditional paper methods for handling 
requests. Every submission completed online rather than through paper 
provides direct and immediate cost savings 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.
    As various online functions are developed, USCIS makes them 
available to the public, providing the option of engaging with USCIS 
either online or on paper. DHS recognizes that, if presented with 
optional new technology, people adopt new practices at varying 
rates.\80\ In this case, the complexity of the immigration benefit 
request system may exacerbate the tendency toward the status quo. Those 
familiar with paper-based forms and interactions may feel there is no 
reason to change a method that has worked for them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \80\ Brian Kennedy & Cary Funk, Pew Research Group, 28 percent 
of Americans are `strong' early adopters of technology (July 12, 
2016), available at http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/12/28-of-americans-are-strong-early-adopters-of-technology/; Charlie 
Wells, The Wall Street Journal, Forget Early Adopters: These People 
are Happy to Be Late (Jan. 26, 2016), available at https://www.wsj.com/articles/forget-early-adopters-these-people-are-happy-to-be-late-1453827437.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS agrees that transitioning to e-processing for benefit requests 
is an important step in improving the service and stewardship of USCIS 
and to promote the objectives of the Government Paperwork Elimination 
Act, E-Government Act, and E.O. 13781.\81\ Therefore, and in response 
to the public comments, USCIS has calculated the amount of upfront cost 
savings that it recognizes from an online versus paper filing in the 
current environment and determined that it saves approximately $7 per 
submission. To encourage the shift of those capable of filing online 
into the electronic channel and increase the usage of USCIS e-
processing for those forms for which online filing is currently 
available, DHS will set the fees for online filing at an amount $10 
lower than the fees established in this final rule for filing that form 
on paper. New 8 CFR 106.3(d).\82\ See Table 5: Fees for Online Filing 
for a comparison of paper and online filing fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ See President's Management Council, Executive Office of the 
President, President's Management Agenda 7 (2018), available at 
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/ThePresidentsManagementAgenda.pdf.
    \82\ U.S. Customs and Border Protection accepts USCIS Forms I-
192 and I-212 online. Available at https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/e-safe (last viewed Mar. 27, 2020). However, 
USCIS has no data on the cost of online filing with CBP. Therefore, 
this $10 online fee reduction applies to USCIS forms submitted to 
USCIS only.

                                         Table 5--Fees for Online Filing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Online  filing   Paper  filing
                   Immigration benefit request                          fee             fee         Difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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                  1,725           1,735              10
 Proceedings....................................................
N-400 Application for Naturalization............................           1,160           1,170              10
N-565 Application for Replacement Naturalization/Citizenship                 535             545              10
 Document.......................................................
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 this final rule to ensure it 
recovers the estimated full cost of providing immigration adjudication 
and naturalization services. USCIS' cost baseline reflected in this 
final rule accounts for the costs of intake and adjudication of 
applications received online and on paper. To provide for full cost 
recovery, DHS adjusts the fees for filing applications on paper when 
online filing is available to be higher than those fees would be in the 
absence of the lower fees for online filing. The increased revenue 
anticipated from the higher fees for those forms when filed on paper 
will offset the reductions in revenue anticipated from the lower fees 
for online filing. USCIS will further evaluate the effects of these 
changes in future biennial fee reviews.
    As for the comments directed at the Department of State (DOS) 
online processing, USCIS has no control over the efficacy of DOS 
systems. DHS may learn from the DOS issues, however, and will, of 
course, work to minimize any glitches.
    Comment: Some commenters wrote that switching to online filing 
would create a barrier to immigrants without access to technology, and 
the option should exist to choose between e-filing and paper 
submissions.
    Response: USCIS does not require that any immigration benefit 
request be filed online. Filing on paper remains a valid option. 
However, this final rule specifies that forms currently eligible for 
online filing will be $10 more if filed on paper.
    Comment: A few commenters recommended USCIS maintain the current 
fees for processing Form I-129 petitions for H-2A beneficiaries until 
the online Electronic Immigration System (ELIS) can be established and 
USCIS can conduct a robust analysis to more accurately determine an 
appropriate fee schedule consistent with Federal guidelines for user 
fees.
    Response: USCIS must recover its full cost of providing immigration 
adjudication and naturalization services. DHS adjusts the fees for 
forms that are currently eligible for online filing to be $10 lower if 
filed online than the fee for the same forms filed on paper to reflect 
the known cost-savings to USCIS of receiving an application 
electronically. DHS declines to delay adjusting the fee for Form I-
129H2A

[[Page 46833]]

because USCIS must recover its full costs.
    DHS does not provide for a lower online filing fee for Form I-
129H2A in this final rule. As described above, DHS is increasing the 
fees for filing an application on paper above the level it would 
otherwise establish when the application is also eligible for online 
filing. This will provide for full cost recovery by USCIS. However, 
because online filing is not yet available for Form I-129H2A, DHS 
cannot increase the fee for a paper filing to offset the anticipated 
reduction in revenue from a lower fee for online filing and still 
provide for full cost recovery. If DHS raised the fee for filing Form 
I-129H2A on paper in anticipation of future online filing and a lower 
fee for filing online, USCIS would recover revenue in excess of its 
estimated full cost of adjudication until such time as online filing 
and a lower online filing fee are available. Thus, DHS cannot establish 
lower fees for online filing for Form I-129H2A, or any other 
applications for which online filing is not yet available, and still 
provide for full cost recovery. DHS may consider a lower fee for Form 
I-129H2A if filed online in future rulemakings if Form I-129H2A is 
available for online filing.
2. Biometric Services Fee
    Comment: One commenter questioned why USCIS would forego 
approximately $220,884,315 in biometric services fee revenue. The 
commenter added that the NPRM allows for biometric services fees for 
TPS applicants and those filing EOIR forms; therefore, there should 
continue to be a fee for this service. The commenter concluded that if 
DHS implements this proposal, it will be confusing for applicants, 
attorneys, and government staff to implement and it will lead to delays 
in proper filing of applications and petitions. The same commenter 
recommended that USCIS use the biometric services fee to supplement 
fraud investigations or consider raising this fee in order to provide 
additional revenue.
    Response: The commenter misunderstands DHS's approach to recovering 
the estimated full cost of providing biometric services. Although DHS 
eliminates the separate biometrics service fee of $85 for many 
application types in this final rule, it establishes fees for most 
forms to reflect the estimated full cost of adjudication, including the 
cost of biometric services that are typically associated with that 
form. Thus, DHS will continue to recover the cost of providing 
biometric services, but it will do so by adjusting form fees to reflect 
the total cost of an adjudication, including providing biometric 
services. DHS will not forego any revenue associated with the biometric 
services fee because of this change.
    DHS believes that this change in its method of recovering the cost 
of biometric services will provide benefits to applicants and USCIS. 
Most applicants and petitioners will no longer need to determine if 
they must submit a separate biometric services fee in addition to the 
fee for their request. DHS believes that this will reduce confusion 
among requestors and decrease rejections for incorrect fees. Fewer 
rejections for incorrect fees should increase administrative efficiency 
for USCIS.As provided in new 8 CFR 103.17, DHS is also establishing a 
separate biometric services fee for additional requests for which it 
could not include the costs to USCIS of administering biometric 
services in the ABC model used for the NPRM. First, DHS codified 
revised 8 CFR 208.7(a)(1)(i), which requires that biometrics be 
submitted for an application for employment authorization from an 
applicant for asylum or to renew such an EAD. See Asylum Application, 
Interview, and Employment Authorization for Applicants, 85 FR 38532, 
38626 (June 26, 2020); new 8 CFR 208.7(a) (1)(i). That rule takes 
effect on August 25, 2020. Second, on February 19, 2020, USCIS 
implemented the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) 
long-term resident status program. It was created by the Northern 
Mariana Islands Long-Term Legal Residents Relief Act. 48 U.S.C. 
1806(e)(6).\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ See, CNMI Long-Term Resident Status, available at https://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/cnmi-long-term-resident-status 
(last reviewed/updated Feb. 19, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Applicants must file Form I-955, Application for CNMI Long-Term 
Resident Status, together with Form I-765, Application for Employment 
Authorization, by August 17, 2020. When the CNMI long-term resident 
status program was established, USCIS required that a biometric 
services fee be submitted with the Form I-765.\84\ Because the CNMI 
long-term resident program and fee NPRM were under development 
simultaneously, DHS was unable to include the cost of biometric 
services for CNMI long-term resident program in the ABC model for the 
NPRM. Therefore, the fee for Form I-765 does not include the costs for 
that service. DHS proposed new 8 CFR 103.17 in contemplation of the 
need for a separate fee in the future if biometric services was 
required by regulations or policy, but where the costs had not been 
considered in setting the benefit request fee. As a result, and 
consistent with the actions taken for TPS, EOIR forms, and in 
accordance with new 8 CFR 103.17, DHS requires that CNMI long-term 
resident applicants and applicants for asylum who are applying for 
employment authorization submit a $30 biometric services fee with their 
Form I-765. 8 CFR 106.2(a)(32)(i)(A), (B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \84\ See USCIS Form I-765, Application for Employment 
Authorization, page 23 (stating, ``Special Instructions for 
Applicants for Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) 
Long-Term Resident Status--(c)(37). All applicants under this 
category must pay the biometric services fee of $85. The biometric 
services fee and the filing fee for the I-765 application cannot be 
waived.''). Available at https://www.uscis.gov/i-765.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One commenter opposed a separate biometric services fee 
for TPS applicants, stating that USCIS is breaching Congress's $50 cap 
on TPS filing by imposing a separate biometric fee.
    Response: The commenter is correct in stating that the fee for Form 
I-821, Application for Temporary Protected Status, is statutorily 
limited to $50 for initial TPS applicants and $0 for re-registrants. 
See INA section 244a(c)(1)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1254a(c)(1)(B). However, the 
commenter is incorrect in stating that charging TPS applicants and re-
registrants a separate biometric services fee constitutes a breach of 
any statute. DHS has specific statutory authority to collect ``fees for 
fingerprinting services, biometric services, and other necessary 
services'' when administering the TPS program. See 8 U.S.C. 1254b.
    Before this final rule, all TPS applicants and re-registrants aged 
14 years and older were subject to the $85 biometric services fee, in 
addition to any applicable fees for Forms I-821 and I-765. Therefore, 
adjusting the biometric services fee for TPS applicants and re-
registrants to $30 represents a $55 reduction in the biometric services 
fee that these individuals may pay. DHS also notes that TPS applicants 
and re-registrants may apply for fee waivers based on eligibility 
criteria established by USCIS.
    In this final rule, DHS removes the Form I-765 fee exemption in 8 
CFR 244.6(b) for TPS if the individual is an initial TPS registrant and 
is under 14 years of age or over 65 years of age, and DHS establishes a 
biometric services fee of $30 for TPS applicants and re-registrants. As 
we stated in the NPRM, DHS is removing the fee exemption because fees 
from other form types have always been used to fund the costs of 
processing fee-exempt filings. Continuing to exempt these populations

[[Page 46834]]

from paying associated fees would result in the costs of their requests 
being borne by the other proposed fees. Thus, DHS determined that 
initial TPS registrants under 14 years of age or over 65 years of age 
should pay their own Form I-765 fee and biometric services fee. The 
biometric services fee that TPS applicants and re-registrants must pay 
is changed from $85 to $30, a reduction of $55 per filing. This $30 
fee, which will be required regardless of age, reflects the cost of 
providing biometric services to TPS applicants and re-registrants. See 
new 8 CFR 244.17(a).
    DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in response to the 
comment.
    Comment: A few commenters stated that including a biometrics 
screening and fee for children under 14 is unnecessary and that it is 
inappropriate to charge a single fee for Form I-485 that includes the 
cost of biometrics to both adults and children under 14 years of age 
who do not submit biometric information. A few commenters stated that 
imposing a biometric services fee where USCIS does not capture 
biometric data would deter families from entering the United States as 
a unit.
    Response: As explained previously, DHS will expand the collection 
of biometric information for TPS re-registrants under the age of 14, 
remove the biometrics fee exemption from 8 CFR 244.17(a), and revise 
the form instructions for Form I-821 to require a $30 biometrics 
service fee from every TPS registrant regardless of age. See 84 FR 
62303 and 62368. This change assigns the costs of TPS applications and 
re-registrations to those who benefit from them. DHS uses biometrics 
beyond criminal history background checks to include identity 
management and verification in the immigration lifecycle. Therefore, 
biometrics will be collected without age limitation, although it may be 
waived at DHS's discretion.
    DHS also acknowledges that this final rule increases the fees for 
children under 14 years old who file an I-485 concurrently with a 
parent filing an I-485 by eliminating the reduced I-485 child fee. This 
final rule establishes the fee for Form I-485, Application to Register 
Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, at $1,130 for all applicants.
    The commenters correctly wrote that the Form I-485 fee established 
in this final rule includes the average cost of biometric services 
associated with processing those applications. The inclusion of 
biometric services reduces the average cost of Form I-485 and the final 
fee established in this final rule. Processing a given application may 
be more or less costly than processing another application of the same 
type because of the evidence and other factors that adjudicators may 
consider. Therefore, DHS establishes its fees, unless otherwise noted, 
at a level sufficient to recover the estimated full cost of 
adjudication. DHS calculated the Form I-485 fee to reflect the full 
cost of adjudication, including the average cost of biometric services 
associated with those applications.
    DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in response to 
these comments.
3. Genealogy Fees, Forms G-1041, Genealogy Index Search Request, and G-
1041A, Genealogy Records Request
    Comment: Numerous commenters generally opposed increasing fees for 
genealogy search and records requests. Other commenters, many 
identifying themselves as professional genealogists and/or individual 
family genealogists, opposed the proposed increased fees, stating that 
they oppose the fee increase for the following reasons:
     No other government record or research request fees are 
close to the proposed increased costs.
     The 500 percent fee hike is unjustified, especially after 
fees tripled 3 years ago.
     The NPRM did not present data or specifics to substantiate 
the costs. DHS cannot claim such fees are necessary to cover costs when 
USCIS did not provide cost analysis to support the claim. The proposed 
fees for G-1041 and G-1041A are arbitrary and capricious.
     The nature of genealogical research often requires broad 
investigation, requiring several search and record requests.
    Some commenters stated that the reasoning presented in the NPRM 
does not make sense, and expressed doubt that the cost of providing 
these services could possibly have risen enough in 3 short years to 
justify an increase of this magnitude, including:
     Workload volume submitted in Tables 1 and 5 are the same 
and do not indicate any increase in workload after the increase in fee 
schedules;
     Table 4 shows a combined total increase of only 7,200 
requests in the last three years;
     Table 24 shows how costs will be reduced to the agency by 
decreasing the administrative burden through electronic versions of 
records;
     The proposal provides no real basis of comparison of real 
costs;
     DHS does not currently have enough data to estimate the 
effects for small entities; and
     The expected use in the next fiscal year shows almost no 
impact to USCIS.
    Response: DHS recognizes commenters' concerns regarding the scope 
of the fee increases for Forms G-1041 and G-1041A in the NPRM. The 
proposed increase reflected changes in USCIS' methodology for 
estimating the costs of the genealogy program to improve the accuracy 
of its estimates. In response to public comments on the proposed 
genealogy fee increases, USCIS further refined the methodology used to 
estimate genealogy program costs. Based on the refined methodology, 
this final rule establishes a fee for Form G-1041, Genealogy Index 
Search Request, when filed online as $160 and $170 when filed on paper. 
Using the same methodology refinement, DHS establishes a fee for Form 
G-1041A, Genealogy Records Request, when filed online as $255 and $265 
when filed by paper.
    INA section 1356(t)(1) authorizes DHS to set the genealogy fee for 
providing genealogy research and information services at a level that 
will ensure the recovery of the costs of providing genealogy services 
separate from other adjudication and naturalization service's fees. 
USCIS must estimate the costs of the genealogy program because it does 
not have a discrete genealogy program operating budget. Nor does USCIS 
discretely identify and track genealogy program expenditures. The same 
office that researches genealogy requests, the National Records Center, 
also performs other functions, such as FOIA operations, retrieving, 
storing, and moving files. In the FY 2016/2017 fee rule, DHS estimated 
the costs of the genealogy program indirectly using projected volumes 
and other information. The projected costs included a portion of 
Lockbox costs, genealogy contracts, and other costs related to the 
division that handles genealogy, FOIA, and similar USCIS workloads. See 
81 FR 26919. This estimation methodology underestimated the total cost 
to USCIS of processing genealogy requests by not fully recognizing 
costs associated with the staff required to process genealogical 
requests. Therefore, other fees have been funding a portion of the 
costs of the genealogy program, and DHS is correcting that in this 
rule.
    In FY 2018, USCIS incorporated the genealogy program into the 
National Records Center (NRC). This change enabled USCIS to revise its 
cost estimation methodology to incorporate a proportional share of the 
NRC's operating costs based on the staffing devoted to the genealogy 
program. DHS estimated the costs of the genealogy program using this 
methodology for the first time in its FY 2019/2020 fee review

[[Page 46835]]

and subsequently proposed to base the fees for Forms G-1041 and G-1041A 
on these revised cost estimates. DHS did not apply cost reallocation to 
the fees for Forms G-1041 and G-1041A. DHS believes that these revised 
cost estimates and fees reflect more accurately the true costs to USCIS 
of operating the genealogy program than the previous indirect 
estimation methodology.
    As requested by public comments received on the NPRM, USCIS 
examined the proposed genealogy fees, and decided to further refine its 
cost estimation for the genealogy program. For this final rule, USCIS 
reviewed the costs attributable to the NRC to identify those that 
directly support the genealogy program. USCIS determined that some NRC 
costs do not directly support the genealogy program and are not 
attributable to Forms G-1041 and G-1041A. USCIS removed the non-
attributable costs to the genealogy program from its cost estimates for 
Forms G-1041 and G-1041A. USCIS maintained in its genealogy program 
cost estimates a proportional share of NRC overhead costs based on the 
number of staff at the NRC supporting the genealogy program. Thus, 
USCIS reduced its estimate of the genealogy program's total cost by 
$0.9 million. In this final rule, DHS establishes the fee for Form G-
1041, Genealogy Index Search Request, when filed online as $160, the 
fee for a paper filed G-1041 as $170, the fee for Form G-1041A, 
Genealogy Records Request, when filed online as $255, and the fee for a 
paper filed G-1041A as $265 to reflect its revised, lower cost 
estimates directly attributable to the USCIS genealogy program. To the 
extent that DHS will no longer recover a full proportionate share of 
the NRC's costs via fees for Forms G-1041 and G-1041A, USCIS will 
recover those costs through the fees assessed for other immigration 
benefit requests.
    DHS appreciates the public's feedback on the USCIS genealogy 
program and has implemented changes in this final rule in response to 
these comments.
    Comment: Some commenters claimed that taxpayers have already paid 
to acquire, manage, and store these records. Taxpayers already support 
the government substantially and should not be charged for access to 
records.
    Response: DHS understands the commenters' concerns regarding the 
potential for duplicative payment. However, USCIS does not receive 
taxpayer funds for the genealogy program, nor do taxes pay for the 
acquisition, management, or storage of records in USCIS' custody. 
Therefore, DHS must recover the estimated full cost of the genealogy 
program, including managing and storing records, via USCIS' fee 
schedule.
    When DHS receives a request for genealogical records, it must 
identify whether USCIS possesses relevant records, retrieve, and review 
them for release where appropriate. These activities incur costs beyond 
the general costs of record management and storage that DHS 
incorporates into other immigration benefit request fees via the 
Records Management activity. USCIS estimates the costs of the genealogy 
program via the Research Genealogy activity, as shown in the Cost 
Objects section of the supporting documentation that accompanies this 
final rule. Therefore, DHS establishes fees for Forms G-1041 and G-
1041A to recover these additional costs. DHS has explicit authority to 
recover the costs of providing genealogical services via genealogy 
fees. See 8 U.S.C. 1356(t).
    DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in response to 
these comments.
    Comment: Some commenters opposing the fee increase focused on 
income and ability-to-pay, such as the following:
     The increased fees would be far beyond the financial means 
of most average Americans and make it impossible for genealogists and 
families to make and pay for requests. Only the rich and wealthiest 
would be able to access these records.
     Many individuals doing genealogy research tend to be older 
and on limited income.
     A few commenters said that 2018 data from the Federal 
Reserve Board indicated that the proposed increased fees would place 
access to Federal public records beyond the financial capabilities of 
an estimated 40 percent of Americans. Many commenters stated that 
records should be easily obtainable to all and not used to generate 
revenue for the government.
    Response: DHS recognizes the concerns of commenters and 
acknowledges the substantial increase in the fees for Forms G-1041 and 
G-1041A. In response, USCIS refined its cost estimation methodology for 
the genealogy program as described above. In this final rule, DHS 
establishes the fee for Form G-1041, Genealogy Index Search Request, 
when filed online as $160, the fee for a paper filed G-1041 as $170, 
the fee for Form G-1041A, Genealogy Records Request, when filed online 
as $255, and the fee for a paper filed Form G-1041A as $265 to reflect 
its revised, lower cost estimates for operating the USCIS genealogy 
program.
    In this final fee rule, DHS emphasizes the beneficiary-pays 
principle. Consistent with its approach to most other fees addressed in 
this final rule, DHS establishes the fees for Forms G-1041 and G-1041A 
at a level that reflects the estimated full cost of providing those 
services. DHS does not establish these fees to limit access to 
genealogical records, and they do not augment government tax revenue. 
DHS declines to require other individuals filing immigration benefit 
requests to subsidize users of the genealogy program.
    Comment: Multiple commenters stated that the proposed fee increases 
for record requests seems to be a punishment for citizens who want 
access to ancestors' records. Multiple individuals stated that USCIS 
would be ``holding them hostage'' by demanding exorbitant and 
unjustified fees to access documents on immigration ancestors. The 
commenters wrote that these records should already be publicly 
accessible under the law.
    Response: DHS rejects the characterization of the proposed fees as 
a way to punish or hold hostage individuals who seek records related to 
their ancestors via the USCIS genealogy program. In this final rule, 
DHS establishes the fees for Forms G-1041 and G-1041A at a level 
sufficient to recover the estimated full cost of providing access to 
genealogical records, as provided for by law. See INA section 286(t), 8 
U.S.C. 1356(t). DHS is not motivated by any other consideration and 
declines to make changes in this final rule in response to these 
comments.
    Comment: One commenter stated that USCIS most likely has indices of 
all files in digital form, therefore the time required to type a name 
into a computer, read the result, and email it to the requester is a 
matter of minutes and the salary and benefits of the employees do not 
justify a fee of $240. A few commenters stated that USCIS should 
publish the figures for the ``actual out-of-pocket costs'' of searching 
indices and providing copies of records found and the estimate of the 
number of requests likely to be processed so that the public can judge 
whether the fees are appropriate to the cost of providing the service.
    Response: DHS acknowledges that USCIS possesses indices of many 
different types and series of records. These indices aid USCIS in 
efficiently identifying records that may be related to a given 
genealogical request. However, to fulfill genealogical records 
requests, USCIS incurs costs beyond identifying records that may be 
relevant

[[Page 46836]]

to a particular inquiry. In addition to identifying relevant records, 
USCIS must retrieve the relevant records and manually review them 
before release to ensure compliance with federal privacy statutes. In 
addition to these direct costs, USCIS also incurs overhead costs 
associated with storing and managing the records, including relevant 
facilities costs. In this final rule, DHS estimates the total cost, 
including applicable indirect costs, of completing Form G-1041, 
Genealogy Index Search Request, to be $160 when filed online and the 
total cost of completing a paper Form G-1041, Genealogy Index Search 
Request, to be $170. Therefore, DHS establishes the fee for Form G-1041 
as $160 when filed online and a paper filed Form G-1041 as $170. In 
this final rule, DHS estimates the total cost, including applicable 
indirect costs, of completing Form G-1041A, Genealogy Records Request, 
to be $255 when filed online and the total cost of completing a paper 
Form G-1041A, Genealogy Records Request, to be $265. Therefore, DHS 
establishes the fee for Form G-1041A as $255 when filed online and the 
fee for a paper filed Form G-1041A as $265.
    Comment: Many commenters stated that it was vital to be able to 
obtain records and family artifacts held in files about their 
ancestors' immigration to the United States and path to becoming 
Americans. A commenter stated that the records provide information that 
genealogists often cannot find in any other extant record. Some 
commenters said public access and researching genealogy helps educate 
themselves, their children, and other generations on important parts of 
immigration history, such as the Chinese Exclusion Act and the 
Holocaust. Multiple commenters wrote ``an informed and educated 
citizenry is essential for our democracy to continue to prosper.'' A 
few commenters said studies show that children perform better in school 
if they know about their ancestors. A few commenters wrote that 
genealogy research is an integral part of the Church of Jesus Christ of 
Latter-day Saints and the proposed increase in fees would be a burden 
to those of that faith. Some commenters said that Daughters of the 
American Revolution and Native Americans search records to confirm 
applications for memberships. Ancestral history projects research 
American slaves brought to South Carolina and Virginia. A fee increase 
would negatively affect legitimate organizations that keep detailed, 
complete, and accurate records of American history and would forestall 
efforts to complete the histories of minority citizens. A few 
commenters stated that USCIS genealogy records contain information no 
longer found in Europe, where the Nazis destroyed records during World 
War II.
    Response: DHS recognizes the importance of genealogical records and 
the connections they can provide to immigrant ancestors. In this final 
rule, DHS establishes the fees for Forms G-1041 and G-1041A at a level 
sufficient to recover the estimated full cost of providing access to 
genealogical records, as provided for by law. See INA section 286(t), 8 
U.S.C. 1356(t). The fees established in this final rule are intended to 
recover the estimated full cost of providing genealogical record 
services and are not motivated by any other consideration. DHS declines 
to make changes in in this final rule in response to these comments.
    Comment: Several commenters wrote that the information provided is 
essential as part of an application process to those pursuing dual 
citizenship.
    Response: DHS recognizes the value of genealogical records to 
individuals who are pursuing dual citizenship. However, as an agency 
funded primarily through user fees, USCIS must recover the full cost of 
the services it provides. Consistent with the beneficiary-pays 
principle emphasized throughout this final rule, DHS declines to 
require other immigration benefit requestors to subsidize individuals 
requesting genealogical services from USCIS. DHS declines to make 
changes in this final rule in response to these comments.
    Comment: A few individuals stated that affordable access to 
genealogy is important to helping determine genetic medical problems 
and allowing family members to take proactive precautions that foster 
improved public health as well as substantial cost-savings by federal 
and state financial medical services.
    Response: DHS recognizes that individuals may value and request 
genealogical records for many different reasons. However, DHS is not 
aware of any data demonstrating the monetary value of health 
information that may be derived from such records. Consistent with the 
beneficiary-pays principle emphasized throughout this final rule, DHS 
declines to require other immigration benefit requestors to subsidize 
individuals requesting genealogical services from USCIS. DHS declines 
to make changes in this final rule in response to these comments.
    Comment: Several commenters stated that the proposed fees are far 
from advancing the goals of the USCIS Genealogy Program and instead 
would likely be the demise of the program. Some commenters wrote that 
the proposed increase in fees would price-out and prevent researchers 
from accessing records, significantly reducing the number of requests 
for documents, and essentially closing down USCIS' Genealogy Program. 
Many commenters stated that the proposed increase in fees appears 
intentionally designed to put an end to people using the Genealogy 
Program. Numerous commenters addressed how the hefty charges for the 
initial research, regardless of whether USCIS identified any records, 
would be by itself a substantial deterrent to genealogical research.
    Response: DHS acknowledges the substantial increase in fees for 
Forms G-1041 and G-1041A in this final rule. In this final rule, DHS 
established the fees for Forms G-1041 and G-1041A to recover the 
estimated full cost to USCIS of providing genealogical services. In 
setting these fees, DHS is not motivated by any other consideration. 
DHS does not intend to discourage individuals from requesting 
genealogical records, to deter genealogical research, or to eliminate 
the USCIS genealogy program. DHS declines to make changes in this final 
rule in response to these comments.
    Comment: Many commenters wrote that the proposed change would be in 
violation of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Some further 
commented that the proposed fees are inexplicable given that USCIS 
often directs a majority of requests to the FOIA program for 
processing. Several commenters questioned how there could be a charge, 
other than standard FOIA fees, if the information is available via 
FOIA. Some commenters wrote that a charge of $240 to simply search an 
index is unacceptably high compared to standard DHS cost and timeframes 
for FOIA requests because this fee would equal 6 hours of searching the 
Master Index, when index searches should usually be able to be 
completed in an hour or less, undercutting the intent of the FOIA.
    Response: There is no conflict between the Freedom of Information 
Act and DHS' operation of the USCIS genealogical program. Nor is USCIS 
constrained in establishing fees for its genealogical services to the 
levels established under FOIA. USCIS formerly processed requests for 
historical records under USCIS' Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)/
Privacy Act (PA) program but the demand for historical records grew 
dramatically. Because the records were not subject to FOIA exemptions, 
that

[[Page 46837]]

process was not the most suitable for genealogy request. See 
Establishment of a Genealogy Program; Proposed rule, 71 FR 20357-20368 
(April 20, 2006). The genealogy program was established to relieve the 
FOIA/PA program from burdensome requests that require no FOIA/PA 
expertise, place requesters and the Genealogy staff in direct 
communication, provide a dedicated queue and point of contact for 
genealogists and other researchers seeking access to historical 
records, and cover expenses through fees for the program. and, reduce 
the time to respond to requests. Id at 20364. In this final rule, DHS 
establishes the fees for Forms G-1041 and G-1041A at levels sufficient 
to recover the estimated full cost of providing access to genealogical 
records, as provided for by law. See INA section 286(t), 8 U.S.C. 
1356(t). In this final rule, using the refined methodology described 
above, DHS estimates the total cost, including applicable indirect 
costs, of completing Form G-1041, Genealogy Index Search Request, to be 
$160 when filed online and the total cost of completing a paper Form G-
1041, Genealogy Index Search Request, to be $170. Therefore, DHS 
establishes the fee for Form G-1041 as $160 when filed online and a 
paper filed Form G-1041 as $170. In this final rule, DHS estimates the 
total cost, including applicable indirect costs, of completing Form G-
1041A, Genealogy Records Request, to be $255 when filed online and the 
total cost of completing a paper Form G-1041A, Genealogy Records 
Request, to be $265. Therefore, DHS establishes the fee for Form G-
1041A as $255 when filed online and the fee for a paper filed Form G-
1041A as $265.
    DHS appreciates the commenters' concerns regarding differences 
between the FOIA process and the genealogical index search and records 
request processes. Before 2017, the USCIS staff who processed FOIA 
requests also processed some genealogical records requests, 
particularly records from 1951 or later. However, USCIS moved the 
genealogical program to the NRC in 2017. Since that time, dedicated 
USCIS genealogical staff process all genealogical records requests. 
Commenters are mistaken in stating that the genealogy program sends 
appropriately filed genealogy requests through the FOIA process. DHS 
acknowledges that both FOIA requests and genealogical records requests 
are subject to review under the Privacy Act of 1974 to ensure that 
USCIS does not inappropriately release information to third parties. 
However, USCIS' genealogy program is distinct from the FOIA program and 
the fees DHS establishes for Forms G-1041 and G-1041A reflects the 
estimated full cost of only the USCIS genealogy program. DHS declines 
to make changes in this final rule in response to these comments.
    Comment: Numerous commenters stated that USCIS needs to comply with 
its own retention schedules and send appropriate records to NARA, as 
required by law. Multiple commenters wrote that requests for documents, 
such as A-files, visa and registry files, and alien registration forms, 
should already be at NARA per law and for a minimal cost. Some 
commenters wrote that NARA could manage records more efficiently, 
accessed more freely, and reproduced more economically, as preserving 
and providing access to historical records of the federal government is 
one of NARA's core missions and areas of expertise. Many commenters 
requested information on USCIS' plan and timeline to move all the 
records to NARA for release.
    Response: DHS acknowledges that many records in USCIS' possession 
are due to be transferred to NARA under its existing records retention 
schedules. USCIS strives to adhere to its records retention schedules 
and transfer files to NARA expeditiously when records are eligible for 
transfer. Unfortunately, issues such as incomplete/non-existent file 
indices or other operational difficulties may inhibit and delay such 
transfers. USCIS works with NARA to address all such issues and expects 
to transfer more files to NARA in the near future. DHS agrees that NARA 
is the appropriate repository for permanently retained records. DHS 
declines to make any changes in this final rule in response to these 
comments.
    Comment: Many commenters stated that implementation of increased 
fees should not occur without careful explanation and discussion of 
alternatives. Several commenters suggested alternatives, including 
rolling back or reducing fees for record requests, aligning an increase 
with inflation rates, charging less for family genealogy, allowing NARA 
to provide free or much lower cost access to the files, digitizing all 
documents and allowing access on-line, transferring records to an 
appropriate repository, and/or limiting USCIS holdings to non-
historical records. A commenter suggested that all pre-1948 indices and 
records be copied to NARA, following a federal government census rule 
that information can be disclosed after 72 years. A few commenters 
wrote that encouraging requests via electronic submissions for index 
searches and documents, as stated in the proposed rule, and 
digitization of records is worthy, as it should result in lower fees, 
greater efficiency, and ease of use, not the reverse.
    Response: DHS appreciates and agrees with the commenters' reasoning 
that filing index search requests and records request online increases 
efficiency and, all else equal, reduces the cost to USCIS of providing 
the associated services. To reflect these reduced costs, in this final 
rule, DHS implements a fee of $160 for Form G-1041, Genealogy Index 
Search, when filed online and a fee of $170 for a paper filed Form G-
1041. Similarly, DHS implements a fee of $255 for Form G-1041A, 
Genealogy Records Request, when filed online and a fee of $265 for a 
paper filed Form G-1041A. The difference between the fee for a form 
filed online and a form filed on paper represents the estimated 
reduction in cost to USCIS of providing the relevant service.
    DHS also appreciates commenters' suggestions to reduce the fees for 
record requests. As described above, in response to public comments 
received on its NPRM, USCIS further refined its cost estimation 
methodology for the genealogy program. These refinements reduced the 
estimated cost of the USCIS genealogy program by $0.9 million, leading 
to a commensurate reduction in the fees for Forms G-1041 and G-1041A 
from the levels proposed in the NPRM.
    DHS evaluated alternatives to increasing the genealogy fees. 
Unfortunately, alternative approaches such as increasing the fees for 
Forms G-1041 and G-1041A by the rate of inflation would not enable 
USCIS to recover the estimated full cost of providing genealogical 
services. Such an approach would require other immigration benefit 
requestors to subsidize the USCIS genealogy program. As stated 
elsewhere, consistent with the beneficiary-pays principle emphasized 
throughout this final rule, DHS declines to require other immigration 
benefit requestors to subsidize the USCIS genealogy program.
    Comment: A couple of commenters suggested other changes to the 
proposed fees, including basing the cost on the number of pages and 
time for staff to prepare the records for transmission as well as using 
some of the new funds to fix problems that exist with managing records 
at USCIS (e.g., losing indexes or records, staffing issues). A few 
commenters wrote that if a search returns no information, then USCIS 
should not charge a fee or should issue a partial refund.
    Response: DHS understands the commenters' suggestions. However,

[[Page 46838]]

USCIS must recover the cost of its operations through user fees. DHS is 
setting the fees for Form G-1041 and G-1041A at levels that represent 
the estimated full cost to USCIS of providing genealogical services. 
These fees represent the estimated average cost of completing an index 
search or a records request. USCIS does not track or differentiate the 
costs incurred based on the number of pages of documents involved in a 
request, nor does USCIS track the time each individual genealogy 
request requires. Charging a la carte fees as suggested would be 
burdensome to administer because we would need to track the time spent 
on every request and invoice for payment. That system would not 
function properly, or efficiently or provide for full cost recovery. 
DHS declines to adopt the commenters' suggestion to establish the fees 
for Forms G-1041 and G-1041A using this method.
    Furthermore, DHS incurs costs associated with index searches and 
records requests regardless of whether DHS ultimately identifies 
relevant records that can be provided to the requestor. Refunding the 
fee for Form G-1041 and G-1041A that do not result in records or 
information provided to the requestor would defy the principles of full 
cost recovery. DHS declines to require other applicants and petitioners 
to subsidize the cost of processing Forms G-1041 and G-1041A when those 
requests do not identify information for release to the requestor.
    Comment: Several commenters suggested repealing the tax cuts 
implemented by President Trump that resulted in a substantial budget 
deficit instead of implementing the proposed increase in fees.
    Response: The USCIS genealogy program is funded by user fees, 
consistent with statutory authority. See INA section 286(t), 8 U.S.C. 
1356(t). DHS is adjusting the fees for Forms G-1041 and G-1041A to 
reflect USCIS' estimated full cost of providing the relevant services.
    Comment: One commenter said that although immigration fees should 
not increase, non-immigration related genealogical search fees should 
increase to recover those costs.
    Response: DHS thanks the commenter for their input but declines to 
adopt the recommendation. DHS is adjusting the fees for Forms G-1041 
and G-1041A to reflect USCIS' estimated full cost of providing the 
relevant services.
4. Form I-90, Application To Replace Permanent Resident Card
    Comment: A commenter stated that the $40 reduction would not lead 
to any real financial relief to LPRs who want to apply for 
naturalization when the citizenship fees will increase by 83 percent. 
The commenter stated that, due to long processing times, many 
citizenship applicants must, for all practical purposes, pay the fees 
for both Forms I-90 and N-400, which total $1,585, in order to keep 
green cards up to date. The commenter said it failed to see how this 
``miniscule'' reduction in Form I-90 fees helps the agency accomplish 
its goals.
    Response: In this final rule, DHS adjusts the fee for Form I-90, 
Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card, to $405 when filed 
online and the fee for a paper filed Form I-90 to $415. Most applicants 
for Form I-90 must pay the current $455 fee plus an $85 biometric 
services fee, thus making the total current fees $540. These amounts 
represent USCIS' estimated full cost adjudicating Form I-90, including 
the cost of providing similar services without charge to asylum 
applicants and other immigrants. In setting these fees, DHS intends to 
achieve full cost recovery for USCIS, as provided in law, while 
emphasizing the beneficiary-pays principle of user fees. DHS is not 
motivated by any other consideration in establishing these fees, thus, 
we did not consider any interplay between the fees for Forms I-90 and 
N-400 in the NPRM, nor do we in the final rule. The new fee for Form I-
90 of $405 when filed online represents a $50 decrease from the 
previous fee of $455. The new fee for a paper filed Form I-90 of $415 
represents a $40 decrease from the previous fee of $455. The new fees 
include the cost of biometric services, thus making the total decrease 
$135 when filed online or $125 when filed on paper. These adjustments 
reflect efficiencies USCIS has achieved in adjudicating Form I-90, 
thereby reducing the estimated cost of adjudication. The lower fee for 
Form I-90 when filed online reflects the estimated cost savings to 
USCIS of receiving the application online. These fee adjustments are 
intended to ensure that the fees accurately reflect the estimated full 
cost of adjudication. DHS declines to make any adjustments in response 
to this comment.
    Comment: Another commenter said, by not only increasing the N-400 
fee but also reducing the Form I-90 fee, the proposed rule would 
further discourage Form N-400 applicants from naturalizing and 
obtaining the full benefits of citizenship for both themselves and our 
nation. Similarly, another commenter said decreasing the Form I-90 fee 
while increasing the Form N-400 fee appears to be a conscious policy 
decision by USCIS to keep LPRs from applying for U.S. citizenship.
    Response: DHS acknowledges that this final rule establishes 
increased fees for Form N-400 ($1,160 if filed online and $1,170 if 
filed on paper) while reducing the fees for Form I-90 ($405 if filed 
online and $415 if filed on paper) DHS does not intend to discourage 
naturalization and is not motivated by any consideration other than 
achieving full cost recovery while emphasizing the beneficiary-pays 
principle in establishing these fees. DHS declines to make any changes 
in this final rule in response to these comments.
    Comment: A commenter said that the Form I-90 fee decrease is 
puzzling considering the current processing and adjudication of the 
corresponding benefits. The commenter said a simple renewal of a 
permanent resident card currently takes up to 11 months, wondered why 
issuing a new card takes that long, and it seems unlikely that these 
processing times will improve with a decreased fee.
    Response: DHS acknowledges that USCIS' processing times for Form I-
90 have exceeded it goals. However, USCIS has achieved efficiencies in 
adjudicating Form I-90 that have reduced the relative cost per 
adjudication. Thus, in this final rule DHS implements a fee for Form I-
90, Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card, of $405 when filed 
online and a $415 fee for a paper filed Form I-90. DHS appreciates the 
implication that it may charge more for Form I-90, but to maintain 
consistency with full cost recovery. DHS declines to make any 
adjustments in this final rule in response to this comment.
5. Form I-131, Application for Travel Document, Refugee Travel 
Documents
    Comment: A commenter stated that comparing Form I-131, Application 
for Travel Document, to a passport to set the fee for refugee travel 
documents is inappropriate because passports are valid for 10 or 5 
years versus the 1 year for the Refugee Travel Document. The commenter 
recommended that refugee travel documents be valid for longer than a 
year for this reason and because other countries often require that 
travel documents be valid for 6 months beyond the expected period of 
stay. Furthermore, the commenter stated that adult U.S. passport 
renewals do not include a $35 execution fee, implying that DHS should 
not consider the execution fee in establishing the fee for a refugee 
travel document.
    Response: DHS declines the commenter's request to extend the 
validity length of refugee travel documents (RTD). DHS did not propose

[[Page 46839]]

changes to the validity length of the RTD that is codified at 8 CFR 
223.3(a)(2) and, besides the commenter, we do not think the public 
would think that an increase to the validity length of an RTD would be 
a subject open for public comment in a rule dealing primarily with 
fees. The fee for an RTD is linked to the fee for a passport because 
Article 28 of the 1951 U.N. Convention Relating to the Status of 
Refugees (``1951 Refugee Convention''), and the 1967 U.N. Protocol 
Relating to the Status of Refugees ''the 1967 Refugee Protocol''), 
which, by reference, adopts articles 2 through 34 of the 1951 Refugee 
Convention, requires state parties to issue documents for international 
travel to refugees lawfully staying in their territory and that fees 
charged for such documents shall not exceed the lowest scale of charges 
for national passports. See United Nations Protocol Relating to the 
Status of Refugees, Jan. 13, 1967, 19 U.S.T. 6223, 606 U.N.T.S. 267 
1967 Refugee Protocol. Consistent with past practice, DHS is increasing 
the fee for Form I-131, Application for Travel Document, when 
requesting a refugee travel document by $10, the amount of increase in 
the cost of a U.S. passport to $145 for adults and $115 for children. 
However, the term of an approved RTD is not related to that of a 
passport, and it will not be changed in this rule.
6. Form I-131A, Application for Travel Document (Carrier Documentation)
    Comment: A few commenters opposed the fee increase for Form I-131A. 
One of these commenters questioned why the fee is being increased by 
$435, or 76 percent, when USCIS would only have to reimburse the 
Department of State (DOS) with $385 to replace lost documents. A 
commenter asked if DHS had considered the effect of this ``massive'' 
fee increase on a vulnerable population. Some commenters claimed DOS 
would not have to be reimbursed if USCIS international offices had not 
been closed.
    Response: DHS acknowledges that the $1,010 fee established in this 
final rule for Form I-131A, Application for Travel Document (Carrier 
Documentation), represents a substantial increase of $435 relative to 
the previous fee. Consistent with full cost recovery and the 
beneficiary-pays principle emphasized throughout this final rule, the 
new fee of $1,010 represents USCIS' estimated full cost of adjudicating 
Form I-131A, including the cost of providing similar services to asylum 
applicants and other immigrants without charge, at the time of USCIS' 
FY 2019/2020 fee review.
    Before Form I-131A was published, USCIS had completion rate data 
specific to providing carrier boarding documents. However, DHS did not 
use that completion rate data to establish a separate Form I-131A fee 
when it published Form I-131A. Instead, DHS set the Form I-131A fee to 
be the same as for other travel documents. Establishing Form I-131A and 
requiring fee payment using Pay.gov standardized requirements that were 
somewhat different or informal before the creation of Form I-131A. 
While not discussed in the FY 2016/2017 fee rule, DHS believed that the 
standardized Form I-131A might reduce the completion rate, and the 
cost, of the workload. When USCIS conducted its FY 2019/2020 fee 
review, it separated completion rate data for Forms I-131 and I-131A 
and proposed separate fees. At this point, Form I-131A existed for 
several years, so the completion rate data reflect the standardized 
process. Thus, we are setting a more accurate fee to reflect the full 
cost of adjudicating Form I-131A. The final fee for Form I-131A 
reflects the cost of USCIS processing, including the costs of USCIS 
reimbursement to DOS for action taken on behalf of USCIS. At the time 
of its FY 2019/2020 fee review, USCIS did not yet have sufficient 
information regarding office closures and the transfer of 
responsibilities between USCIS and the DOS to accurately reflect 
anticipated changes in the average cost of adjudicating Form I-131A. 
Thus, any potential cost savings related to the reduction in the number 
of offices USCIS maintains abroad are not included in this final rule. 
USCIS will incorporate all newly available information in its next fee 
review.
    Commenters who claimed that USCIS would not need to reimburse the 
Department of State had it maintained its previous international 
presence are mistaken. USCIS reimburses DOS for all work performed on 
its behalf. This includes work performed on behalf of USCIS in 
locations where USCIS is not present and in locations where USCIS has 
an office. As USCIS has never had a presence in all countries where an 
individual may need to file Form I-131A, DOS has always adjudicated 
some Forms I-131A on behalf of USCIS. Altering USCIS's international 
presence did not change this operational necessity. DHS declines to 
make any changes in this final rule in response to these comments.
    Comment: A commenter wrote that DHS failed to apprise stakeholders 
of its reasoning for the substantial increase to the Form I-131A fee. 
The commenter added that there is no justification for charging LPRs 
for the privilege of returning to their homes, jobs, and families.
    Response: DHS disagrees with the commenter's assertion that DHS 
failed to explain or justify the fee increase for Form I-131A. In the 
NPRM, DHS explained that in the FY 2016/2017 fee review, USCIS 
calculated a single fee for Forms I-131 and I-131A. See 84 FR 62306 
(Nov. 14, 2019). DHS clarified that in the FY 2019/2020 fee review, 
USCIS calculated a separate fee for Form I-131A to reflect differences 
between Form I-131 and Form I-131A, including the fact that Form I-131A 
is adjudicated abroad, where costs are typically greater than the cost 
of adjudicating an equivalent form domestically. This differentiation 
between Form I-131 and Form I-131A is consistent with the beneficiary-
pays principle of user emphasized throughout the NPRM and this final 
rule, as it ensures that the fee an applicant pays better reflects the 
estimated full cost to USCIS of adjudicating the application. DHS 
declines to make changes in this final rule in response to the comment.
    Comment: One commenter claimed these new fees are an attempt 
prevent LPRs from becoming U.S. citizens.
    Response: DHS rejects the claim that its decision to adjust the fee 
for Form I-131A to $1,010 is motivated by any consideration other than 
USCIS achieving full cost recovery. The fee of $1,010 represents USCIS' 
estimated full cost of adjudicating Form I-131A, including the cost of 
providing similar services to asylum applicants and other immigrants 
without charge, at the time of USCIS' FY 2019/2020 fee review. DHS 
declines to make changes in this final rule in response to this 
comment.
7. Form I-192, Application for Advance Permission To Enter as a 
Nonimmigrant
    Comments: A commenter said it did not oppose a fee increase 
associated with Form I-192 but wrote that the fee increase is quite 
high for an application fee that, if approved, grants entry to the U.S. 
for a relatively short time. The commenter said the proposal would cost 
Canadian citizens $1,400 on average and questioned whether USCIS was 
considering increasing the duration of authorized presence in the U.S. 
to a minimum of 5 years and a maximum of 10 years.
    Many commenters suggested that the $485 or 52 percent increase for 
fees related to visa applications for victims of crime and victims of 
trafficking in persons is ``outrageous.'' A commenter wrote that the 
proposal to raise the Form I-192 fee defeats the purpose of

[[Page 46840]]

the U-visa, which protects victims of crime. The commenter wrote that 
raising fees to make this protection inaccessible to victims of crime 
runs counter to Congress' intent to provide protection to such victims 
for ``compelling humanitarian and public policy/safety reasons.'' 
Another commenter stated that the $485 increase for Form I-192 was 
particularly steep for U nonimmigrant status petitioners who often have 
medical bills related to being victims of crimes and who may not work 
before the submission of the application.
    A few commenters said that raising the fee for Form I-192 may make 
it harder, if not impossible, for survivors of crime to petition for U 
nonimmigrant status. One commenter suggested that because survivors of 
domestic violence often have suffered financial abuse and survivors of 
human trafficking often have suffered financial exploitation, they will 
likely be unable to pay the fees.
    A commenter indicated that the increase in the filing fee for Form 
I-192, combined with the elimination of a fee waiver for this form, 
would effectively eliminate a statutorily available waiver of 
inadmissibility for many applicants and prevent those inadmissible 
immigrants from obtaining status.
    Multiple commenters stated that the NPRM ignores the fact that many 
applicants for survivor-based relief must also file ancillary forms 
that do have fees, including Form I-192.
    Response: DHS acknowledges a considerable increase of the fee for 
Form I-192, Application for Advance Permission to Enter as a 
Nonimmigrant. The new fee established in this final rule represents the 
estimated full cost of adjudication. \85\ See INA section 286(m), 8 
U.S.C. 1356(m). As with other USCIS fees, the fee amount is derived 
from the cost to USCIS of providing the relevant service; the fee is 
not related to the duration of the benefit received. Therefore, DHS did 
not evaluate potential changes in the duration of authorized presence 
as part of this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \85\ In accordance with INA section 286(m), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m), 
USCIS total costs include the cost of similar services provided 
without charge to asylum applicants and other immigrants, which 
encompass fee exemptions, waivers, and setting fees below the amount 
suggested by the model. Throughout the remainder of this rule, when 
USCIS refers to the estimated full costs of adjudication, in the 
interest of the economy of words and improving readability, that 
term includes the cost of services provided without charge to asylum 
applicants and other immigrants in accordance with the INA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS recognizes the commenters' concerns regarding vulnerable 
populations, particularly applicants for T nonimmigrant status and 
petitioners for U nonimmigrant status, who use Form I-192. Consistent 
with its commitment to preserve access to required fee waivers for 
populations identified in statute, the fee for Form I-192 will remain 
waivable for those seeking T and U nonimmigrant status, provided that 
those applicants file Form I-912, Request for Fee Waiver and 
demonstrate that they meet the requisite criteria for approval. See 8 
CFR 106.3. DHS believes that maintaining access to fee waivers for 
these populations mitigates any concerns that the fee increase for Form 
I-192 would limit access to protections.
    DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in response to 
these comments.
    Comment: Another commenter stated that most of its clients who are 
pursuing T or U nonimmigrant status must file supplemental forms that 
often have very high fees, including Form I-192. The commenter 
indicated that most of the issues disclosed require very little, if 
any, further adjudication from USCIS, and, therefore, the fee is 
unnecessary and unfair.
    Response: USCIS data also indicates that most aliens pursuing T and 
U nonimmigrant status must file Form I-192. Those aliens may request a 
fee waiver. DHS disagrees that Form I-192 requires little effort by 
USCIS. USCIS evaluates the evidence regarding the inadmissibility 
charges present (immigration violations, criminal issues, potential 
fraud, etc.) and the alien's responses and evidence provided to address 
those charges. Depending on the number of inadmissibility grounds and 
complexity of the individual filing, those adjudications may require 
considerable time and resources.
    In many cases, aliens file Form I-192 with U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection, which adjudicates those filings. In the NPRM, DHS explained 
that USCIS had incorporated cost and workload volume information from 
CBP into its cost model to determine a single fee for Form I-192 that 
reflects the estimated full average cost of adjudicating Form I-192 for 
CBP and USCIS. See 84 FR 62321.
    DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in response to the 
comment.
    Comment: One commenter stated that Form I-192 was created to 
encourage eligible individuals to complete the immigrant visa process 
abroad, promote family unity, and improve administrative efficiency.
    Response: Form I-192, Application for Advance Permission to Enter 
as a Nonimmigrant, is not part of the immigrant visa process. It 
appears that the commenter may have confused Form I-192 with Form I-
601A, Application for Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver. DHS 
declines to make changes in this final rule in response to the comment.
8. Form I-193, Application for Waiver of Passport and/or Visa
    Comment: One commenter said that the proposed 377 percent fee 
increase for Form I-193 is ``startling.'' Another commenter stated that 
the 377 percent increase is ``outrageous'' given the time and effort 
required to fill out and adjudicate the form with just one page of 
content. The commenter also stated that a small number of applicants 
use the form to travel, usually in extenuating circumstances beyond the 
control of the applicant. As such, it is unlikely that there would be a 
high incidence of fraud or abuse to justify such a fee increase. The 
commenter also said that it is unreasonable to expect applicants to pay 
the $2,790 fee on the spot.
    Response: DHS acknowledges a substantial increase in the fee for 
Form I-193. In its NPRM, DHS explained that USCIS incorporated cost and 
workload volume information from CBP into its ABC model to determine a 
single fee for Form I-193 that reflects the estimated full average cost 
of adjudicating Form I-193 for CBP and USCIS. See 84 FR 62321. CBP 
adjudicates most filings of Form I-193 and incurs a majority of the 
costs associated with adjudication. As documented in the NPRM, in FY 
2017 CBP incurred an estimated $18.0 million in costs to adjudicate 
filings of Form I-193. This final rule establishes the fee for Form I-
193 at a level sufficient to recover the full average estimated cost of 
adjudication for both USCIS and CBP.
    DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in response to 
these comments.
9. Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion
    Comment: A commenter stated that increasing the fee for Form I-290B 
places U-visa petitioners at risk of not being able to exercise their 
due process rights and threatens their ability to appeal or reopen 
their petition. Another commenter recommended that USCIS fully refund 
the filling fee for Form I-290B if the agency determines, after 
adjudicating, that the underlying petition denial was the result of 
clear USCIS error.
    Response: DHS recognizes the importance of maintaining access to 
Form I-290B to ensure that individuals have the ability to appeal or 
file a

[[Page 46841]]

motion to reopen or reconsider a decision. In recognition of this, DHS 
deviated from the beneficiary-pays principle to transfer some of the 
costs for adjudicating Form I-290B to all other fee payers. The 
proposed fee for Form I-290B was far below the estimated cost to USCIS 
of processing I-290B filings, an increase of only 5 percent. See 84 FR 
62293. In this final rule, DHS adjusts the fee for Form I-290B from 
$675 to $700, an increase of approximately 3.7 percent. Furthermore, in 
the NPRM, DHS clarified that Form I-290B would remain fee-waivable for 
VAWA self-petitioners, applicants for T nonimmigrant status and 
petitioners for U nonimmigrant status, petitioners, and T nonimmigrant 
status applicants. See 84 FR 62297. DHS believes that maintaining 
access to fee waivers for vulnerable populations mitigates any concerns 
that the fee increase for Form I-290B would limit access for protected 
categories of individuals.
    In general, USCIS does not refund a fee or application regardless 
of the decision on the application. There are only a few exceptions, 
such as when USCIS made an error which resulted in the application 
being filed inappropriately or when an incorrect fee was collected.
    DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in response to 
these comments.
10. Form I-360, Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant
    Comment: Multiple commenters opposed the proposed fee increase for 
Form I-360, stating that it would harm the ability of religious 
organizations to petition for their workers. Commenters stated that 
this would impact the non-profit organizations associated with these 
religious workers and the communities that they support.
    Response: DHS recognizes the importance of maintaining access to 
Form I-360 for individuals and organizations. In recognition of this, 
DHS proposed in the NPRM to deviate from the beneficiary-pays 
principle, transfer some of the costs for adjudicating Form I-360 to 
all other fee payers, and hold the fee for Form I-360 far below the 
estimated full cost to USCIS of processing I-360 petitions, proposing 
to increase the fee by only 5 percent. See 84 FR 62293. The fee to 
recover full cost would have exceeded $5,500.\86\ Such a high fee would 
place an unreasonable burden on petitioners. In this final rule, DHS 
adjusts the fee for Form I-360 from $435 to $450, an increase $15 or 
approximately 3.4 percent as discussed in the proposed rule. DHS 
declines to make changes in this final rule in response to these 
comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ See the FY 2019/2020 Immigration Examinations Fee Account 
Fee Review Supporting Documentation in the docket for more 
information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

11. Form I-485, Application To Register Permanent Residence or Adjust 
Status
a. Debundling Interim Benefits
    Comment: Multiple commenters wrote that the proposed debundling of 
interim benefits led to excessive fees. Many commenters stated that the 
steep increase in fees, along with the elimination of waivers will make 
adjustment of status unattainable for many low-income and working-class 
people. A few commenters said this change would create a catch-22 where 
immigrants with low income can afford to apply to adjust but cannot 
afford to seek employment authorization. A commenter stated that the 
proposed change would force highly skilled workers to pay $1,075 more 
for dual-intent visas than H-1B or L-1 dual-visa applicants. Other 
comments wrote that charging fees for concurrently filed ancillary 
Forms I-765 and I-131 with Adjustment of Status applications, along 
with renewals, would create a perverse incentive for USCIS to delay 
interim benefit and Form I-485 adjudications in order to receive 
additional funds. A few commenters wrote the proposed changes would 
force immigrants out of the legal immigration system. Other commenters 
added that this change could contribute to family separation. A 
commenter claimed USCIS ignores the fact that children will need to 
have a travel authorization, and therefore will still need to file Form 
I-131 for advance parole. One commenter stated this change will deny 
immigrants the path to citizenship. Another commenter said USCIS' 
purpose is an attempt to discourage families from being able to afford 
to apply for legal permanent residence.
    Response: DHS acknowledges the total cost increase for adjustment 
of status applicants who request interim benefits. The fees DHS 
establishes in this final rule accurately reflect the estimated full 
cost of adjudicating those applications, including the cost of 
providing similar services to asylum applicants and other immigrants 
without charge. USCIS did not realize the operational efficiencies 
envisioned when it introduced bundled filings for interim benefits and 
adjustment of status applications, which was implemented to address the 
same commenter accusation of a revenue incentive. See 72 FR 4894 
(stating, ``This creates the perception that USCIS gains by processing 
cases slowly.''). USCIS has no data to indicate that it takes less time 
to adjudicate interim benefits bundled with an I-485 than it does to 
adjudicate standalone I-131 and I-765 filings. Therefore, DHS declines 
to adopt the commenters' recommendation to continue bundled adjustment 
of status filings; this final rule eliminates bundling.
    Individuals applying for adjustment of status are not required to 
request a travel document or employment authorization. With bundled 
interim benefits, individuals may have requested interim benefits that 
they did not intend to use because it was already included in the 
bundled price. Debundling allows individuals to pay for only the 
services actually requested. Thus, many individuals may not pay the 
full combined price for Forms I-485, I-131, and I-765.
    DHS and USCIS are not profit-seeking entities. Neither benefit from 
delays in Form I-485 adjudications that may result in individuals 
filing for additional interim benefits. USCIS would use any revenue 
received to fund immigration adjudication services and minimize future 
fee increases.
    After adjusting the results of the FY 2019/2020 fee review to 
account for removal of the ICE transfer, exclusion of the DACA renewal 
fee, and other changes, DHS establishes the fee for Form I-131, 
Application For Travel Document, as $590 and the fee for Form I-765, 
Application for Employment Authorization as $550.
b. Form I-485 Child Fee
    Comment: Some commenters opposed this provision because of its 
effect on families and children. A commenter said this NPRM would 
burden families who would be required to pay an increased total cost 
for multiple concurrent adjustments and create barriers for low-income 
and working-class individuals. Another commenter said this change would 
have a negative effect of children and youth, either delaying their 
ability to unite with family or deterring it completely.
    Response: DHS acknowledges a substantial increase in the fee for 
Form I-485 for child applicants who are under 14 years old and are 
filing with at least one parent. Consistent with the beneficiary-pays 
principle of user fees emphasized throughout this final rule, DHS 
adjusts the fee for all Forms I-485, except those filed by refugees, to 
$1,130 to reflect the estimated full cost of adjudication. This fee 
represents an increase of $380 relative to the previous fee of $750. 
DHS declines to make

[[Page 46842]]

changes in this final rule in response to these comments.
    Comment: A commenter cited USCIS' justification for removal of the 
reduced fee for children because processing them is not distinguished 
by age. The commenter stated that, if the completion rate is influenced 
by time to adjudicate (e.g., conduct background checks), this would 
likely be shorter for children. The commenter said USCIS has not 
provided data or analysis to address this concern, and that this an 
extreme hike for a small portion of applications.
    Response: USCIS used the data available at the time when it 
conducted the FY 2019/2020 fee review to determine the fee for Form I-
485. USCIS does not have data to support the commenter's contention 
that that the time required to adjudicate a Form I-485 (i.e., the 
completion rate) is less for a child's application than for an adult's 
application, because USCIS data does not separate Form I-485 
adjudications by the age of the applicant. See 84 FR 62305 and 81 FR 
73301. Therefore, USCIS calculated the estimated average cost of 
adjudicating all Forms I-485. In this final rule, DHS adjusts the fee 
for all Forms I-485, except those filed by refugees, to $1,130 to 
reflect the estimated full cost of adjudication.
    DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in response to the 
comment.
c. Form I-485 Reduced Fee for Asylees
    Comment: Multiple commenters highlighted the cost to asylum 
applicants and asylees of filing Form I-589, Form I-765, and if granted 
asylum, Form I-485 to adjust status. A commenter stated, ``Regarding 
asylee Form I-485 applications, this proposed rule would cause a 
significant harm to be placed on those who have come to the United 
States after fleeing persecution in their country of origin. After 
waiting years for an asylum interview and sometimes more than a year 
after that interview for a grant of asylum, an asylee should not have 
any additional obstacles placed on their path to obtaining a green 
card, which they will use to show their lawful presence and employment 
authorization. This proposed change is an unnecessary impediment to 
asylees' integration in our society and economy.'' Another commenter 
wrote that the elimination of fee waivers for adjustments of status, 
including asylees, runs counter to the intent of Congress and will 
create a significant barrier that will prevent many asylees from 
regularizing their immigration status. Another commenter reiterated 
that the high fees for Form I-485 and ancillary benefits and the 
elimination of fee waivers will make adjustment of status unattainable 
for many low-income and working class people, particularly asylees. The 
commenter stated that increasing the overall cost of adjustment of 
status would undermine family unity and prevent many low-income 
individuals from becoming permanent residents.
    Response: DHS recognizes the additional burden placed on asylum 
applicants with the introduction of a $50 fee for Form I-589 in this 
final rule. Therefore, DHS establishes in this final rule a reduced fee 
of $1,080 for Form I-485 when filed by an individual who has been 
granted asylum after having paid the $50 fee for Form I-589 as a 
principal applicant. See new 8 CFR 106.2(a)(16)(ii). The reduced fee 
will be available to otherwise qualifying individuals regardless of 
whether USCIS or EOIR ultimately granted the asylum claim. DHS 
reiterates, as it did in the NPRM and this final rule, that DHS does 
not intend to deter asylum applications with the introduction of the 
$50 fee for Form I-589. DHS believes that effectively refunding the 
Form I-589 fee for approved asylees when they adjust will ensure that 
individuals with legitimate asylum claims do not experience a net 
increase in cost through the time they adjust status to that of lawful 
permanent resident as a result of the new fee for Form I-589.
    DHS provides in this final rule that only one Form I-485 reduced 
fee filing will be available per Form I-589 fee paid. This approach 
ensures that USCIS will only provide a single $50 discount for each 
Form I-589 filing that ultimately results in a grant of asylum, meaning 
that the total value of fee reductions available to Form I-485 
applicants will match the value of Form I-589 fees collected from those 
applicants. DHS makes the reduced fee available only to the principal 
applicant on an approved Form I-589 for which the $50 fee was paid. The 
reduced fee Form I-485 may not be transferred from the principal 
applicant to derivatives listed on the same Form I-589 or to other 
derivative beneficiaries. If DHS provided all individuals granted 
asylum the opportunity to file Form I-485 with a reduced fee, the 
ultimate value of the fee reductions could exceed the value of the 
revenue generated from the Form I-589 fee, resulting in a net cost to 
USCIS that must be passed on to other fee payers. Similarly, DHS 
provides that an individual qualifying for the Form I-485 reduced fee 
may file Form I-485 only once utilizing the reduced fee. If USCIS 
accepts a Form I-485 filed with the reduced fee and subsequently denies 
the application, that applicant may reapply as permitted but will not 
qualify for the reduced fee on any subsequent filing. This ensures that 
the value of the fee reductions will not exceed the value of the Form 
I-589 fees paid by the affected applicants. If USCIS rejects a Form I-
485 filed by an asylee with a reduced fee, the applicant will not have 
used their single reduced fee filing, and the applicant may reapply and 
qualify for the reduced fee.
    DHS did not change its cost projections, volumes forecasts, or 
revenue anticipated from Form I-485 in this final rule in response to 
the introduction of the reduced fee for Form I-485. DHS does not 
anticipate receiving any Form I-485 filings during the FY 2019/2020 
biennial period for this fee rule that are eligible for the reduced 
fee. This reflects the fact that asylum applicants will begin to pay 
the $50 fee for Form I-589, a pre-requisite to qualify for the reduced 
fee Form I-485, as of the effective date of this final rule. Those 
asylum applicants must have their claims adjudicated and approved 
before becoming eligible to adjust status one year after their asylum 
claim was granted. Thus, DHS does not anticipate any reduced fee Form 
I-485 filings until more than 1 year after the effective date of this 
final rule. Furthermore, because DHS anticipates no reduced fee filings 
during FY 2019/2020, USCIS anticipates no costs during FY 2019/2020 
associated with charging less than the estimated full cost of 
adjudication of Form I-485 that must be reallocated to other fee-paying 
applicants. Therefore, no fees increase in this final rule as a result 
of the introduction of the reduced fee Form I-485, and the fee for Form 
I-485 would remain $1,130 even in the absence of the reduced fee. USCIS 
will evaluate the Form I-485 reduced fee in future fee reviews using 
all available data at that time, consistent with its evaluation of all 
other fees.
d. Other Form I-485 Comments
    Comment: A commenter said USCIS' proposed changes to Supplement A 
to Form I-485 have no justification. The commenter said USCIS proposes 
removing from the Supplement A form the instruction that there is no 
fee for certain persons. The commenter stated that USCIS is making it 
even more difficult for applicants to identify the few instances where 
they are not obligated to pay large fees. The commenter wrote that the 
change would obfuscate the fact that some individuals are exempted from 
paying the fee by statute, leading fewer people to apply because they 
would erroneously believe they must pay the fee. The commenter

[[Page 46843]]

also wrote that the provision creates a way for USCIS to re-investigate 
granted adjustments under INA section 245(i), 8 U.S.C. 1255(i), going 
back more than 20 years, resulting in potentially stripping lawful 
permanent residents of their status.
    Response: DHS erroneously stated in the NPRM that it proposed 
deleting text from Form I-485, Supplement A, related to those 
categories of adjustment applicants who are not required to pay the 
$1,000 sum. No such text appears on the form itself, but rather is 
found in the instructions. DHS will retain the language concerning the 
exceptions from paying the INA section 245(i), 8 U.S.C. 1255(i) sum in 
the Instructions for Form I-485 Supplement A, and in the rule.
    Comment: A commenter recommended phasing in the increased Form I-
485 fee over several years. A commenter recommended that the validity 
period of employment authorization and advance parole for dependent 
children also be increased from 1 to 2 years.
    Response: In this final rule, DHS adjusts the fee for all Form I-
485 applications, except those filed by refugees, to $1,130 to reflect 
the estimated average full cost of adjudication. DHS declines to adopt 
the commenter's suggestion of phasing in the increased fee over time, 
because USCIS would not be able to achieve full cost recovery during 
the phase-in period. DHS also declines to adopt the recommendation to 
extend the validity period of employment authorization and advance 
parole for dependent children.
    Comment: A commenter opposed deleting language regarding 245(i) 
penalty fee exemptions from the regulations.
    Response: In this final rule, DHS includes language in 8 CFR 
106.2(a)(17) detailing the categories of applicants for adjustment of 
status under INA section 245(i), 8 U.S.C. 1255(i) who are not required 
to submit the $1,000 sum per the statute.
    Comment: One commenter said that the increased fee for the Form I-
485, when considered in combination with the separate fees for the Form 
I-765 and Form I-131, will have negative impacts on industries that use 
the Employment-Based Third Preference Unskilled Workers (Other Work) 
category, such as meat/poultry processers, home healthcare providers, 
hospitality/lodging employees.\87\ The commenter assumes that the rate 
of pay for workers in those industries is not as high as in other 
fields and the fees represent a larger percentage of those worker's 
wages.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ See USCIS, Employment-Based Immigration: Third Preference 
EB-3, available at https://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/permanent-workers/employment-based-immigration-third-preference-eb-3 
(last reviewed/updated March 27, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The NPRM emphasizes the beneficiary-pays principle. DHS 
believes that a single fee for Form I-485 will reduce the burden of 
administering separate fees and better reflect the estimated full cost 
of adjudication. By making the filing fee equal for all applicants, 
whether they are family-based or employment-based, the cost of 
adjudication for the benefit of each individual applicant will be 
sustained by that applicant, and other applicants are not burdened with 
subsidizing the cost of adjudication. In this final rule, DHS adjusts 
the fee for all Form I-485 applications, except those filed by refugees 
and certain Special Immigrants, to $1,130 to reflect the estimated 
average full cost of adjudication. See 8 CFR 106.2(a)(17)(iii).
    Requiring fees paid for each renewal of interim benefits, such as 
employment or travel authorization, also aligns with the beneficiary-
pays principal by preventing other applicants from being burdened with 
fees for benefits they do not wish to receive or subsidizing fees for 
benefits for which they do not apply. The fee increases associated with 
Form I-485 and interim benefits are not exclusive to employment-based 
applicants and therefore are not adjusted based on the filing category 
or rate of pay of workers.
    DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in response to the 
comment.
12. Form I-526, Immigrant Petition by Alien Investor
    Comment: A commenter said the fee review for EB-5 forms, such as 
Form I-526, failed to meet the objectives of ensuring USCIS has 
adequate resources and to recover the full operating costs of 
administering the national immigration benefits system. The commenter 
said the fee increase for Form I-526 was too low to balance the 
workload increase reported by USCIS and would not reverse the current 
``critically inadequate'' service associated with this form. The 
commenter also said the fee increase was too low given that this fee is 
paid by affluent immigrant investors ``who value time.'' The commenter 
cited USCIS data to demonstrate that the processing time associated 
with Form I-526 had increased since 2016 and wrote that time spent 
processing this application was likely to increase due to the EB-5 
Immigrant Investor Program Modernization regulation that went into 
effect on November 21, 2019. See 84 FR 35750. The commenter wrote that 
the 9 percent increase in the fee for this form suggests that USCIS 
considers the 3-4-year processing time for this form to be acceptable. 
However, the commenter also wrote that USCIS' projected workload volume 
for Form I-526 was ``three times too high'' considering data from 2018-
2019. The commenter said the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program 
Modernization regulation would dampen demand for use of this form and 
suggested that the number of form receipts for 2020 would be less than 
the 5,000 average annual receipts from 2018-2019. The commenter wrote 
that due to this overestimation of the number of Form I-526 receipts, 
the fee analysis ``overestimates revenue and underestimates receipt 
fees needed to cover costs.'' The commenter said that if the number of 
Form I-526 receipts is closer to 4,000, the $16 million in revenue 
would not provide enough financial resources to cover costs and provide 
adequate service. The commenter suggested that USCIS had failed to 
consider the future workload associated with ``thousands'' of Form I-
526 submissions that are still pending from previous years in its fee 
analysis, and that the agency should account for ``an environment of 
long backlogs and falling receipts'' in revising the fee for this form. 
The commenter reiterated that the current processing time for this form 
was far too long and stated that the agency should consider targeting 
more reasonable processing times for this form, such as the 240-day 
target recently suggested in the U.S. Senate. Another commenter wrote 
that USCIS had overestimated the workload volume associated with Form 
I-526.
    Response: In its fee reviews, USCIS evaluates the estimated cost of 
processing all incoming workloads to determine the fees necessary to 
recover full cost. USCIS does not consider the cost of processing 
existing pending workloads in setting fees, as setting fees on that 
basis would place the burden of funding the processing of previously 
received applications and petitions on future applicants. Thus, DHS 
declines to include the cost of all pending Form I-526 workload in this 
analysis and final rule.
    DHS acknowledges that USCIS' volume projections for Form I-526 in 
the FY 2019/2020 fee review substantially exceed the receipts in FY 
2018 and FY 2019. As with other forms, USCIS created its volume 
projections for Form I-526 using the best information available at the 
time it conducted the FY 2019/2020 fee review. The commenter is

[[Page 46844]]

correct in stating that if USCIS has overestimated the receipt volume 
for Form I-526, then it has also overestimated the amount of revenue 
that the revised Form I-526 fee will generate. Such a scenario would 
also imply that USCIS had overestimated the total amount of costs to be 
recovered, as fewer staff would be necessary to adjudicate the newly 
received Forms I-526. However, it is possible that, as the commenter 
contends, if USCIS overestimated the anticipated volume of Form I-526 
filings, it underestimated the Form I-526 fee that would be necessary 
to recover the full cost of adjudication. USCIS will review and 
reevaluate all fees during its next biennial fee review. If USCIS 
determines that the fee is insufficient to recover full cost, DHS may 
adjust the fee through a future rulemaking.
    DHS acknowledges that current processing times for Form I-526 
extend far beyond its processing time goals. DHS believes that 
adjusting USCIS fees to provide for full cost recovery constitutes the 
best means of addressing resource constraints that have led to growth 
in pending caseloads. DHS declines to make changes in this final rule 
in response to the comment.
Form I-539, Application To Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status
    Comment: A commenter opposed the proposed fee increase for Form I-
539 because it would pose a financial burden to clients who are 
survivors of violence and U nonimmigrants.
    Response: DHS acknowledges that this final rule increases the fee 
for Form I-539 to $390 if filed online and $400 if filed on paper. 
However, DHS disagrees with the commenter's assertion that the fee 
increase for Form I-539 would unduly burden U nonimmigrants. In its 
NPRM, DHS clarified that those seeking or holding T and U nonimmigrant 
status would remain eligible to apply for fee waivers for Form I-539 
and other associated forms. See 84 FR 62297. DHS believes that 
maintaining access to fee waivers for these vulnerable populations 
mitigates any concerns that the increase in the fee for Form I-539 
would limit access for protected categories of individuals. DHS 
declines to make changes in this final rule in response to the comment.
13. Form I-589, Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal Fee
    Comment: Multiple commenters generally opposed charging asylum 
applicants a fee. Commenters stated:
     DHS should not expect people fleeing harm and in need of 
protection to pay a fee.
     These individuals often have few economic resources, the 
few resources that they do have are necessary for survival.
     They should not endure the added burden of a fee to gain 
asylum and other immigration services.
     Asylum seekers joining family in the United States are 
often financially dependent on their family members, and an asylum fee 
would create an additional burden on their families.
     Asylum should not be based on an applicant's socio-
economic status.
     Fees would be detrimental to survivors of torture, 
impacting their mental health and well-being by obstructing access to 
live and work in the United States.
     A $50 fee would further endanger asylum seekers' health 
and safety.
     DHS should consider asylum seekers' humanity and suggested 
that the rule dehumanized the issue.
     Commenters rejected the notion that those seeking asylum 
represent a cost that the nation must recoup.
     If the revenue from these fees were being used to 
assistance to those seeking asylum, they would be less opposed to the 
fee increases.
     DHS did not provide adequate justification for charging an 
asylum fee.
    Response: DHS acknowledges the humanitarian plight of legitimate 
asylum seekers. In recognition of the circumstances of many of these 
applicants, DHS establishes a $50 fee for Form I-589 for most 
applicants (unaccompanied alien children in removal proceedings who 
file Form I-589 with USCIS are not required to pay the fee). DHS 
expects that charging this fee will generate some revenue to offset 
adjudication costs, but DHS is not aligning the fee with the 
beneficiary-pays principle, because the estimated cost of adjudicating 
Form I-589 exceeds $50. As DHS stated in its NPRM, it does not intend 
to recover the full cost of adjudicating asylum applications via the 
Form I-589 fee. See 84 FR 62318. Instead, DHS establishes a $50 
application fee to generate some revenue to offset costs. DHS will 
recover the additional costs of asylum adjudications (via cost 
reallocation) by charging other fee-paying applicants and petitioners 
more, consistent with historical practice and statutory authority. See 
INA section 286(m), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m). DHS does not intend to discourage 
meritorious asylum claims or unduly burden any applicant, group of 
applicants, or their families.
    In the NPRM, DHS provided substantial justifications for 
establishing an asylum application fee. DHS explained that USCIS has 
experienced a continuous, sizeable increase in the affirmative asylum 
backlog over the last several years. DHS explored ways to alleviate the 
pressure that the asylum workload places on the administration of other 
immigration benefits and determined that a minimal fee would mitigate 
fee increases for other immigration benefit requests. See 84 FR 62318. 
DHS estimated the cost of adjudicating Form I-589 and considered asylum 
fees charged by other nations. DHS also considered the authority 
provided in INA section 208(d)(3), various fee amounts, whether the fee 
would be paid in installments over time or all at once, if the fee 
would be waivable, and decided to establish a minimal $50 fee.
    As stated in the NPRM, DHS believes that the fee can be paid in one 
payment, would generate revenue to offset costs, and not be so high as 
to be unaffordable to an indigent applicant. See 84 FR 62319. Further, 
DHS has provided the advance notice of and the reasons for the change 
in its longstanding policy as required by the APA. This change will 
only apply prospectively to asylum applications filed after the 
effective date of this final rule.
    Nevertheless, as a result of the concerns raised by commenters, DHS 
is providing in this final rule that Form I-485 filed in the future for 
principal asylum applicants who pay the Form I-589 fee of $50 and are 
granted asylum and apply for adjustment of status will pay a fee that 
is $50 less than other Form I-485 filers. See new 8 CFR 
106.2(a)(17)(ii). DHS will provide only one reduced fee per Form I-589 
filing fee paid. If a Form I-485 filing with a $50 reduced fee is 
denied, USCIS will not accept future discounted I-485 filings from the 
same applicant. That is because DHS anticipates a one-to-one 
relationship between the fees collected and discounts provided. If an 
approved principal asylee were to file multiple Forms I-485 with the 
reduced fee, it could illogically result in the $50 fee for Form I-589 
causing a net revenue loss to USCIS. DHS will not deviate from its 
primary objective of this final rule to set fees at a level necessary 
to recover estimated full cost by allowing multiple I-485 reduced fee 
filings. Unaccompanied alien children in removal proceedings who filed 
Form I-589 with USCIS, and thus did not pay the $50 Form I-589 fee, are 
not eligible to file Form I-485 with the reduced fee.
    Comment: Additional commenters on the asylum fee generally opposed 
the

[[Page 46845]]

proposed fees for asylum indicating that the proposal runs counter to 
U.S. ideals, and stated:
     The United States has no precedent in international law to 
charge for asylum, the fee does not support the humanitarian interests 
of the United States, would be against the values of the United States 
and Congressional intent, and our moral and constitutional obligation 
to provide sanctuary to those who need it.
     The United States would become one of only four countries 
to charge such a fee if DHS implemented the proposal.
     Processing asylum requests is a fundamental right 
guaranteed by international agreements to which the United States 
adheres.
     The United States should endeavor to resolve, rather than 
exacerbate, humanitarian crises and the U.S. is required under domestic 
and international law to provide refuge to people fleeing violence and 
seeking protection in the United States.
     Significant changes to the conditions of asylum services 
should be carried out by Congress, and not through administrative 
processes.
     Charging a fee for asylum requests is discrimination and 
an attempt to block legal immigration of people of color and/or non-
wealthy backgrounds.
     The right to seek and to enjoy asylum from persecution is 
enshrined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights 
of 1948 and supported by the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of 
Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.
     The United States is obligated to accept asylum seekers 
under international and domestic law, and therefore should not refuse 
asylum seekers because of an inability to pay the fee. Thus, the 
proposed asylum fees would be a dereliction of legal duty and violate 
the 1951 Refugee Convention, which prevents signatory countries from 
taking any action that would ``in any matter whatsoever'' expel or 
return a refugee to a place where his or her life or freedom would be 
threatened.''
     The creation of an asylum fee suggests that the United 
States will shy away from international problems rather than confront 
them.
     One commenter said that under the Universal Declaration of 
Human Rights, the United States is obligated by international law to 
accept refugees and accord them certain rights and benefits, such as 
access to courts.
     A fee for asylum violates the INA and that Congress did 
not intend to authorize fees for asylum applicants, but instead 
intended that the cost services to asylum seekers should be paid by 
fees from the IEFA.
    Response: DHS disagrees with commenters' assertions that an asylum 
fee violates the INA, that there is no precedent in international law 
for charging a fee for asylum applications, and that charging a fee is 
discriminatory and against the values, morals, and Constitution of the 
United States. DHS also disagrees that the United States is required to 
provide asylum to those fleeing violence and seeking protection, as the 
United States' non-refoulement obligations are met by the statutory 
withholding of removal provisions at INA section 241(b)(3). Asylum is a 
discretionary benefit available to those who meet the definition of a 
refugee and who are not otherwise ineligible.
    Although the United States is a party to the 1967 U.N. Protocol 
Relating to the Status of Refugees (``1967 Refugee Protocol''), which 
incorporates Articles 2 through 34 of the 1951 U.N. Convention Relating 
to the Status of Refugees (``1951 Refugee Convention''), the Protocol 
is not self-executing. See INS v. Stevic, 467 U.S. 407, 428 n.22 
(1984). The asylum statute at INA section 208 and withholding of 
removal statute at INA section 241(b)(3) constitute the U.S. 
implementation of international treaty obligations related to asylum 
seekers. The asylum provisions of the INA do not preclude the 
imposition of a filing fee for asylum applications. INA section 
208(d)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(3) specifically authorizes the Attorney 
General to impose a fee for the consideration of an asylum application 
that is less than the estimated cost of adjudicating the application.
    Furthermore, DHS believes that the asylum fee may arguably be 
constrained in amount, but a fee is not prohibited by the 1951 Refugee 
Convention, 1967 Refugee Protocol, United States constitution, or 
domestic implementing law. Article 29(1) of the 1951 Refugee Convention 
and the 1967 Refugee Protocol, as incorporated by reference, refers to 
the imposition of fees on those seeking protection, and limits ``fiscal 
charges'' to not higher than those charged to nationals of a given 
country for similar services, but does not bar the imposition of such 
fiscal charges. The $50 fee is reasonably aligned with the fees charged 
to United States nationals for other immigration benefit requests. 
Thus, a $50 fee for asylum applications is in line with international 
and domestic law.
    DHS also considered the asylum fees charged by other nations, 
including Australia, Fiji, and Iran. A $50 fee is in line with the fees 
charged by these other nations. DHS further believes that the $50 fee 
would not require an applicant to spend an unreasonable amount of time 
saving to pay the fee.
    DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in response to 
these comments.
    Comment: With regard to the Form I-589 fee and the fee for an 
initial Form I-765 filed by an asylum applicant, commenters stated:
     Asylum seekers should not have to pay for an asylum 
application or an associated work permit because they are not 
authorized to work for months once in the United States and would have 
no way of earning money to pay for the fees.
     Asylum seekers in detention, who earn at most $1 a day 
would have no way to pay the $50 fee.
     Asylum seekers are not allowed to work more than 4 hours a 
day and are thus unable to pay increased fees.
     Asylum seekers who are poor or need to ``quickly flee 
situations of peril or harm'' would be harmed by the asylum fee 
proposal, and that such individuals would not be able to earn enough 
money to pay asylum fees once in detention.
     Asylum seekers are often minors with no means to support 
themselves and therefore cannot afford an asylum fee.
    Response: DHS acknowledges the commenters' concerns about asylum 
seekers' ability to pay the fees for the asylum application and 
associated EAD. DHS considered the effect of the fees on asylum seekers 
and believes the fees would not impose an unreasonable burden on 
applicants or prevent asylum seekers from seeking protection or EAD. 
DHS also acknowledges that the Trafficking Victims Protection 
Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) of 2008, provides a range of protections 
for unaccompanied alien children. As such, DHS excluded unaccompanied 
alien children in removal proceedings, a particularly vulnerable 
population, from the imposition of the $50 asylum application fee.
    The services that USCIS provides at no cost or below cost impacts 
the final fees imposed on other fee-paying applicants. However, DHS 
seeks to make the USCIS fee schedule more equitable for all applicants 
and petitioners in this final rule. Therefore, DHS declines to make 
changes in this final rule in response to these comments.
    Comment: One commenter stated that asylum seekers provide services 
to the United States, such as investments in their education and pay 
taxes, that DHS

[[Page 46846]]

should consider before increasing asylum fees. Several commenters 
stated that DHS should not raise asylum fees because asylum seekers are 
important to the U.S. economy and workforce.
    Response: DHS acknowledges that asylum seekers invest in their 
educations and pay taxes like other immigrants do. When considering 
whether to increase or establish new fees, including fees for asylum 
seekers, USCIS examined its recent budget history, service levels, and 
immigration trends, and also assessed anticipated costs, revenue, and 
operational demands. USCIS has experienced a continuous, sizeable 
increase in the affirmative asylum backlog and explored ways to 
alleviate the pressure that the asylum workload places on USCIS. As 
stated in the NPRM, DHS does not intend to recover the estimated full 
cost of adjudicating asylum applications via the Form I-589 fee. 84 FR 
62318. DHS will recover the additional costs of asylum adjudications 
(via cost reallocation) by charging other fee-paying applicants and 
petitioners more for other types of applications.
    DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in response to the 
comment.
    Comment: Many commenters addressed gender-based violence as a 
reason for women and girls fleeing their countries of origin to seek 
asylum in the United States. Another commenter stated that an asylum 
fee will disproportionately impact women and minorities. Several 
commenters discussed domestic violence survivors who rely on asylum 
status and work authorization for protection. Some commenters said that 
young people flee sexual and physical violence, and even torture. One 
commenter said survivors often have no support systems in the U.S. and 
therefore face homelessness and economic hardship, which are two of the 
three most urgent and prevalent systemic challenges, confronting 
immigrant women in the U.S. A couple of commenters said the asylum 
seekers who flee domestic violence are often eligible for asylum as 
well as other types of humanitarian immigration benefits, such as U 
nonimmigrant status. In certain instances, it makes sense for survivors 
to apply for different types of relief simultaneously as they may get 
access to work authorization faster under one type of relief, which, in 
turn, can help them avoid being financially dependent on their abuser. 
Therefore, the commenter said an asylum fee may force survivors to 
choose between different types of immigration relief to their 
detriment. A commenter discussed rates of gender-based violence in El 
Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Venezuela, and China and concluded that 
sexual violence survivors seeking asylum in the U.S. are often doing so 
as a last resort because there is little hope of finding protection and 
safety from their abusers and assailants in their home countries. 
Therefore, an asylum fee would make it virtually impossible for the 
most vulnerable immigrant survivors of horrific domestic and sexual 
abuse to live free from the violence of their abusers. A commenter 
discussed the gender-based and gang violence that causes people to flee 
their countries and claimed that the $50 asylum fee would serve to 
enable smugglers and traffickers to pay the fees for asylum seekers to 
extort their help in smuggling enterprises.
    Response: DHS recognizes the challenges that gender-based violence 
survivors face when fleeing from the violence of their abusers. This 
final rule establishes the Form I-589 fee at only $50 because DHS 
believes it is not an unreasonable amount. DHS disagrees that the fee 
forces applicants to choose between applying for different forms of 
relief or protection and enables smugglers and traffickers to extort 
applicants. DHS does not believe that establishing an asylum 
application fee of $50 unduly burdens or harms any applicants. DHS 
carefully assessed the costs associated with the adjudication of asylum 
applications and other types of immigration benefit requests and 
concluded that the $50 fee for asylum applications is warranted. The 
approximate cost of adjudicating an asylum application is $366. A $50 
fee is well below the full cost of adjudicating the application. 
Moreover, the asylum application fee is in line with international 
treaty obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention, as incorporated 
by reference in the 1967 Refugee Protocol, and domestic implementing 
law.
    DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in response to 
these comments.
    Comment: One commenter stated that USCIS is promising the same 
inadequate service it has been providing in the past few years and is 
asking immigrant and refugee families to pay more to not get their 
applications processed. The commenter stated that the proposal to 
charge for asylum applications contradicts the 2005 Notice of 
Adjustment of the Immigration Benefit Application Fee Schedule which 
states, ``fees collected from persons filing immigration benefit 
applications and petitions are deposited into the Immigration 
Examinations Fee Account and are used to fund the full cost of 
providing immigration benefits, including the full cost of providing 
benefits such as asylum and refugee admission for which no fees are 
assessed.''
    Response: DHS acknowledges the concerns of the commenter related to 
delays in the processing of applications. DHS has experienced a 
continuous, sizeable increase in the affirmative asylum backlog over 
the last several years. One of the ways in which DHS seeks to alleviate 
the pressure of the increasing workload on the administration of 
immigration benefits is to charge a $50 fee for asylum applications. 
The fee will generate some revenue to help offset costs. As far as the 
2005 notice is concerned, it described the asylum fee requirements, but 
does not preclude the establishment of a fee.
    DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in response to the 
comment.
    Comment: Some commenters wrote that they question the statutory 
authority to charge a fee to asylum applicants. Commenters stated that 
United States is obligated to accept asylum seekers under international 
and domestic law, and therefore should not refuse asylum seekers 
because of an inability to pay the fee. One commenter wrote that 
charging an asylum fee would have global consequences effecting the 
standard of care and rule of law in humanitarian protections. Comments 
stated that the United States has no precedent in international law to 
charge for asylum, a fee for asylum applications is discriminatory, and 
a fee for asylum is against the values of the United States.
    Response: DHS recognizes the vulnerable situations of many 
individuals who apply for asylum. DHS considered all of the points the 
commenters raised when deciding to establish an asylum application fee. 
INA section 208(d)(3), 1158(d)(3) specifically authorizes the Attorney 
General to impose a fee for the consideration of an asylum application 
that is less than the estimated cost of adjudicating the application. 
As stated in the NPRM, DHS considered the authority provided in INA 
section 208(d)(3), whether the fee would be paid in installments or 
over time, and various fee amounts. DHS decided to establish a $50 fee 
because it could be paid in one payment, would generate some revenue to 
offset costs, and not be so high as to be unaffordable to even an 
indigent alien. 84 FR 62320. Thus, the lack of resources that asylum 
applicants possess and the burdens that they face contributed to DHS's 
decision to establish a minimal $50 fee.

[[Page 46847]]

    Furthermore, DHS disagrees that there is no precedent in 
international law for charging an asylum application fee. DHS believes 
that the asylum application fee may arguably be constrained in amount, 
but a fee is not prohibited by the 1951 U.N. Convention Relating to the 
Status of Refugees (``1951 Refugee Convention''), 1967 U.N. Protocol 
Relating to the Status of Refugees (``1967 Refugee Protocol''), United 
States constitution, or domestic implementing law. Article 29(1) of the 
1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Refugee Protocol, as incorporated 
by reference, refers to the imposition of fees on those seeking 
protection, and limits ``fiscal charges'' to not higher than those 
charged to nationals of a given country for similar services, but does 
not bar the imposition of such fiscal charges. The $50 fee is 
reasonably aligned with the fees charged to United States nationals for 
other immigration benefit requests.
    Comment: One commenter stated that if asylum seekers have to pay 
for their own initial Employment Authorization Document (EAD), it is 
likely that asylees will not apply for an EAD, which may be used 
against them when USCIS adjudicates their asylum application.
    Response: DHS infers that the commenter is suggesting that asylum 
applicants will pursue unauthorized employment rather than pay the Form 
I-765 fee to lawfully obtain an EAD, and that will result in USCIS 
denying their application because they worked in the U.S. without 
authorization. DHS expects that asylum applicants will not pursue such 
an option and instead find a lawful way to pay the fee. As DHS noted in 
the NPRM, initial applicants with pending claims of asylum are a large 
workload volume for USCIS. In this final rule, DHS emphasizes that the 
person receiving the benefit should pay the fee. While DHS appreciates 
the need for asylum seekers to obtain lawful employment while their 
applications are pending, Congress has made it clear that fees 
primarily fund USCIS. After analyzing the costs of EADs for asylum 
applicants and considering the other factors raised by the commenters, 
DHS maintains its position that asylum applicants should pay the fee 
for the initial and renewal EADs.
    Comment: Some commenters wrote that the fee for asylum applications 
would cause the U.S. to break its treaty obligations and contradicts 
the intent of the 1980 Refugee Act. Some commenters agreed and more 
specifically stated that the proposal would conflict with Congressional 
intent to offer humanitarian assistance to those fleeing persecution 
regardless of national origin, race, age, gender, or financial status. 
A commenter said requiring asylum applicants to pay a fee violates the 
principle of non-refoulement because it would likely result in the 
expulsion of potential refugees merely on the basis of their financial 
status, and since the imposition of the asylum application fees would 
also be a barrier to apply for relief under the Convention Against 
Torture, it also conflicts with U.S. treaty commitments. Multiple 
commenters indicated an inability to pay the proposed fee would hinder 
asylum seekers' ability to apply for asylum and gain needed protection, 
thereby forcing asylum seekers to return to their country of origin to 
face further persecution and even death. A commenter wrote that the 
asylum fee proposal would increase the number of cases sent to 
immigration courts because individuals would not have the funds to pay 
for asylum applications. A few commenters stated that the unprecedented 
fee would restrict life-saving access to the legal system.
    A commenter provided a lengthy comment on the 1951 Refugee 
Convention and the Refugee Act of 1980, stating that courts have 
interpreted the federal regulations establishing the asylum process and 
the INA as creating a constitutionally protected right to petition the 
United States for asylum. This in turn triggers the safeguards of the 
Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The commenter said, because the 
proposed fee would operate as complete bar to some asylum seekers' 
ability to exercise their constitutionally protected right to petition 
for asylum, it violates the guarantee of due process that accompanies 
that right. The commenter stated that the rule should therefore be 
rejected. The commenter also said DHS has also failed to consider 
Article 32 of the 1951 Refugee Convention, which provides that refugees 
shall be expelled only pursuant to a decision reached in accordance 
with due process of law. The commenter said the United States cannot 
recognize the right to apply for asylum as a component of due process 
for the purposes of its own Constitution while contending that Article 
32 of the 1951 Refugee Convention can be satisfied without such a 
guarantee. Similarly, the commenter said DHS neglects Article 3's 
guarantee of equal protection by facially discriminating among refugees 
based on wealth and disparately affecting refugees based on national 
origin or race. Another commenter spoke of several court cases that set 
due process and equal protections precedent for asylees: (1) Mathews v. 
Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), (2) Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 19 
(1956), (3) Smith v. Bennett, 365 U.S. 708 (1961), and (4) Burns v. 
State of Ohio, 360 U.S. 252, 258 (1959).
    Some commenters pointed to the 1994 asylum reform initiative, which 
sought to impose a $130 fee on asylum applicants but was withdrawn 
following extraordinary opposition from the public. The argument that 
won then is applicable now, the commenter wrote, and that charging for 
an asylum application is contrary to United States international 
obligations to permit refugees to seek asylum in the United States and 
in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1158(a)(1).
    Several commenters noted that the vast majority of signatories to 
the 1951 Refugee Convention or 1967 Refugee Protocol do not charge an 
asylum fee. Multiple commenters wrote that the U.S. would become just 
the fourth nation to charge fees for asylum. Similarly, a commenter 
said only three countries currently charge a fee for asylum because 
such a policy is ``universally considered'' dangerous, discriminatory, 
and wrongheaded. Similarly, several comments stated that the United 
States has been a world leader in refugee protection for a long time 
and wrote that if the U.S. begins charging fees for asylum, other 
nations may choose to follow suit. The commenters described this 
outcome as ``disastrous'' given the increasing need for refugee 
resettlement worldwide. A commenter wrote that imposing a fee for 
asylum seekers is not feasible and would break with international 
precedent by denying such individuals access to ``a universal human 
right.'' A commenter suggested there was a global consensus for 
rejecting fees for refugees and asylum seekers and wrote that any 
additional barriers to asylum adjudication could result in ``even more 
deaths.'' Another commenter expounded on this point and questioned why 
USCIS neglected to discuss why most nations do not charge fees for 
asylum. The commenter also requested that USCIS ``investigate the 
context of migration'' in the nations that do charge fees for asylum, 
and said that, of these, only Australia was another ``Western'' nation. 
One commenter stated that charging a fee for asylum would place the 
U.S. ``in the same position as countries that abuse human rights'' and 
would contravene the work the U.S. has done to become a leader in 
refugee protection. A few commenters said that a fee for Form I-589 
would make the United States the first, and only, country to charge 
asylum applicants to

[[Page 46848]]

access protection with no possibility of fee waiver.
    One commenter wrote that Australia's direct cash assistance to 
asylum seekers has no equivalent in the United States. Another 
commenter added that Australia, whose policies towards asylum seekers 
have garnered international criticism, charges half of what DHS 
proposes to charge for asylum applications. A commenter noted that the 
United States will now have harsher asylum regulations than Iran, whose 
policies allow asylum seekers to obtain a fee waiver.
    Response: DHS disagrees that the establishment of an asylum 
application fee is in violation of United States international treaty 
obligations, the principle of non-refoulement, and domestic 
implementing law. Although the United States is a party to the 1967 
Refugee Protocol, which incorporates Articles 2 through 34 of the 1951 
Refugee Convention, the Protocol is not self-executing. See, e.g., 
Stevic, at 428 n.22. The asylum statute at INA section 208 and 
withholding of removal statute at INA section 241(b)(3) constitute the 
U.S. implementation of international treaty obligations related to 
asylum seekers. DHS believes that the asylum application fee may 
arguably be constrained in amount but is not prohibited by the 1951 
U.N. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (``1951 Refugee 
Convention''), 1967 U.N. Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees 
(``1967 Refugee Protocol''), United States constitution, or domestic 
implementing law. Article 29(1) of the 1951 Refugee Convention, and as 
incorporated by reference in the 1967 Refugee Protocol, refers to the 
imposition of fees on refugees, and limits ``fiscal charges'' to not 
higher than those charged to nationals of a given country for similar 
services. A $50 fee is reasonably aligned with the fees charged to U.S. 
nationals for other immigration benefit requests. Moreover, INA section 
208(d)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(3), specifically authorizes DHS to impose a 
fee for the consideration of an asylum application that is less than 
the estimated cost of adjudicating the application. The approximate 
cost of an asylum application is $366. Thus, a $50 fee for asylum 
applications is in line with U.S. international treaty obligations and 
domestic implementing law.
    DHS disagrees with the commenters' assertions that a $50 fee would 
operate as a complete bar on asylum seekers' ability to apply for 
asylum and access to equal protection and due process of law. The 
commenter refers to Article 32 of the 1951 Refugee Convention, which 
provides that ``[t]he expulsion of such a refugee shall be only in 
pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with due process of 
law.'' The commenter also refers to Article 3 of the 1951 Refugee 
Convention, which states that the provisions of the Convention shall 
apply ``to refugees without discrimination as to race, religion, or 
country of origin.'' DHS believes that the establishment of a minimal 
fee of $50 to apply for asylum is not cost-prohibitive or overly 
burdensome for asylum seekers. This final rule does not bar asylum 
seekers from filing asylum applications. Also, charging a $50 fee for 
an asylum application does not restrict an asylum seeker's access to a 
decision reached in accordance with due process of law or discriminate 
against refugees.
    Moreover, DHS does not intend to recover the estimated full cost of 
adjudicating the asylum application, as the fee amount is well below 
the approximate full cost of $366 for adjudicating an asylum 
application. DHS maintains that charging a fee for asylum applications 
will help alleviate the pressure that the growing asylum workload 
places on the administration of other immigration benefits and would 
generate some revenue to help offset costs.
    As discussed in the NPRM, DHS requested a report from the Law 
Library of Congress on fees charged to asylum applicants by countries 
that are a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention and/or its 1967 Refugee 
Protocol. The Law Library of Congress surveyed the 147 signatory 
countries to the 1951 Refugee Convention and/or the 1967 Refugee 
Protocol, and of 147 countries, identified three countries that charge 
a fee for initial applications for asylum or refugee protection. DHS 
considered the asylum fees charged by other nations, including 
Australia, Fiji, and Iran, and the $50 fee is in line with the fees 
charged by these other nations. See 84 FR 62319.
    DHS disagrees with commenters' assertions that charging a fee for 
asylum would place the United States in the same position as countries 
that abuse human rights and would contravene the work the United States 
has done to become a leader in refugee protection. DHS acknowledges the 
comments related to the policies of other nations, such as Australia 
and Iran. Each nation has its own unique needs and different asylum 
workloads. Given the growing scale of the affirmative asylum workload 
in the United States, DHS explored ways to alleviate the pressure of 
the affirmative asylum workload. DHS believes that establishing a 
minimal fee of $50 for Form I-589 would help USCIS generate revenue and 
offset costs, as well as mitigate fee increases for other immigration 
benefit requests.
    Comment: Some commenters said the asylum application fee, Migrant 
Protection Protocols (MPP), CBP ``metering,'' and ``safe third country 
agreements'' are counter to the international legal principle of non-
refoulement and indicate a clear effort on the part of the 
administration to dismantle asylum in the United States.
    Response: The commenter's concerns regarding MPP, CBP ``metering'', 
and safe third country agreements are outside of the scope of this 
rulemaking and DHS provides no response to those subjects in this final 
rule. DHS believes that fees associated with access to asylum and work 
authorization in the United States are not prohibited by the 1951 U.N. 
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (``1951 Refugee 
Convention''), 1967 U.N. Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees 
(``1967 Refugee Protocol''), United States constitution, or domestic 
implementing law, and do not run counter to the principle of non-
refoulement. Article 29(1) of the 1951 Refugee Convention, and as 
incorporated by reference in the 1967 Refugee Protocol, refers to the 
imposition of fees on refugees seeking protection, and limits ``fiscal 
charges'' to not higher than those charged to nationals of a given 
country for similar services, but does not bar the imposition of such 
fiscal charges. The $50 fee is reasonably aligned with the fees charged 
to United States nationals for other immigration benefit requests. INA 
Section 208(d)(3) authorizes the imposition of fees for asylum 
applications. The asylum application fee is in line with domestic 
implementing law and does not contravene international treaty 
obligations.
    Comment: Some commenters suggested that migration patterns in the 
U.S. are unique and questioned whether the proposed rule was a racist 
and xenophobic response to increasing levels of immigration from Latin 
America. Some commenters discussed the characteristics of common 
countries of origin for asylees. Two commenters wrote that the asylum 
fee provision would impact thousands of Asian immigrants, and provided 
data from FY 2017 that shows 27,759 Chinese immigrants and 4,057 Indian 
immigrants applied for asylum, accounting for 12 percent and 2.9 
percent of asylum seekers. Another commenter stated that approximately 
1.5 million Africans have left Africa for the United States or Europe 
since 2010,

[[Page 46849]]

according to the United Nations, and that Nigeria was the seventh most 
represented country of origin for affirmative asylum cases filed in the 
U.S. from 2016-2018 according to a DHS report. Another commenter 
claimed that the asylum fee is indicative of xenophobia and racial 
animus toward those from Mexico and Central America, as Mexico, Haiti, 
El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala, respectively, had the highest 
denial rates of the 10 nationalities with the most asylum decisions 
between 2012 and 2017 (according to a 2018 report by CNN). The 
commenter claimed that high denial rates for people from these 
countries are partly due to the inaccessibility of legal assistance, 
and higher fees will exacerbate the disparity. One commenter stated 
that if the United States is not willing to address the root causes of 
migration, it cannot also place a fee on asylum seekers fleeing the 
violence and poverty of the countries that the U.S. refuses to aid.
    Response: DHS disagrees that the asylum application fee is a racist 
and xenophobic response to increasing levels of migration and 
acknowledges the concerns of the commenters related to asylum seekers 
fleeing violence and poverty. Asylum is a discretionary benefit 
available to those who meet the definition of a refugee and are 
otherwise eligible. DHS recognizes that many legitimate asylum seekers 
face poverty and violence and considered the challenging circumstances 
that many asylum seekers face when deciding to establish a minimal fee 
of $50. The fee is well below the cost of adjudicating the asylum 
application, which is consistent with INA section 208(d)(3). The 
establishment of an asylum application fee is not animated by racism or 
xenophobia, but rather, it is animated by a need to respond to the 
increasing affirmative asylum workload and generate some revenue to 
offset costs. USCIS must address these issues regardless of the myriad 
factors that contribute to individuals claiming asylum in the United 
States.
    Comment: Some commenters discussed the impact of an asylum fee on 
children. One commenter said the proposed rule disregards the best 
interests of children, as it would charge unaccompanied children for 
applying for asylum, writing that children should not have to shoulder 
the burden of the large backlog of cases and slow processing of 
immigration applications. One commenter said that 56 percent of the 
applications from Central America were filed by unaccompanied children, 
many of whom are fleeing the most high-volume countries of origin and 
are in danger without the help of the U.S. Another commenter noted that 
derivative applicants who do not file independent asylum applications 
cannot assert their own, independent claims. Many asylum-seeking 
families submit individual applications for all family members to 
pursue every possible avenue of relief for all family members. The cost 
per application will have a negative impact on these families. Multiple 
commenters wrote that applying a fee to asylum applications could 
result in deportations or compel vulnerable children and families to 
return to countries they fled, risking continued persecution or death. 
Several commenters pointed out that asylum seekers are in danger of 
human trafficking and other crimes, and that the asylum fee bars them 
from the protections that legal status affords. A few commenters stated 
that asylum should only be based on evidence of perceived or actual 
persecution and not whether asylum seekers have financial assets. A 
commenter suggested the asylum fee proposal was ``cruel and inhumane'' 
and that asylum seekers should not have to prioritize asylum fees over 
feeding their families.
    Response: DHS acknowledges the commenters' concerns about the 
potential effects of the asylum application fee on children and their 
families. DHS recognizes that the Trafficking Victims Protection 
Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) of 2008, provides a range of protections 
for unaccompanied alien children. DHS excludes unaccompanied alien 
children in removal proceedings, a particularly vulnerable population, 
from the imposition of a $50 asylum application fee. 8 CFR 
106.2(a)(20).
    DHS acknowledges the commenters' concerns about asylum seekers' 
ability to pay fees for multiple asylum applications depending on the 
circumstances of principal and derivative applicants, including 
children. DHS considered the effect of a fee on asylum seekers and 
believes it would not impose an unreasonable burden on applicants or 
prevent asylum seekers from seeking protection. The services that USCIS 
provides at no or below cost impacts the fees imposed on other fee-
paying applicants. DHS seeks to make the USCIS fee schedule more 
equitable for all applicants and petitioners. Nevertheless, DHS 
considered the challenges that asylum seekers face and establishes an 
asylum application fee that is well below the cost of adjudicating the 
application.
    Comment: Multiple commenters discussed the very limited resources 
with which asylum seekers come to the U.S., and the resulting 
inaccessibility of transportation, housing, healthcare, and other 
necessities. Several commenters noted that asylum seekers are 
ineligible for public assistance programs unless and until they are 
granted asylum, and they rely on nonprofit and community resources for 
housing, basic toiletries, school supplies, clothing, and public 
transportation. The commenters claim that the asylum fee unjustly 
burdens those who need resources and support the most. One commenter 
cited a Human Rights Watch publication to claim that asylum seekers' 
financial resources often fail to cover the bare necessities of life, 
such as food, medicine, and shelter. Another commenter said that many 
asylum seekers do not have financial resources because of ``the nature 
of flight from perilous situations,'' and wrote that asylum seekers are 
considered ``non-qualified'' immigrants for the purposes of 
qualification for federal public assistance.
    One commenter said that USCIS claims the $50 fee is large enough to 
produce a revenue stream while small enough to remain affordable. The 
commenter cited a Washington Post article that discusses the extreme 
poverty of asylum seekers to emphasize the inability of these people to 
pay any fee, no matter how small. Another commenter added that USCIS 
should take into account $50 as a percentage of Gross National Income 
(GNI) in asylees' home countries, citing World Bank and TRAC 
Immigration data. A commenter wrote that the $50 fee for asylum would 
not be a deterrent for some asylum seekers, but that the ``calculus is 
not so simple'' for others who will not be able to afford the fee. The 
commenter provided anecdotes about the personal backgrounds of asylum 
seekers to provide context about the challenging financial situations 
many asylum seekers or refugees face.
    Response: DHS acknowledges the challenges that asylum seekers face, 
including extreme poverty and limited access to resources. In 
recognition of these circumstances, DHS establishes a minimal $50 fee 
for Form I-589 for most applicants (unaccompanied alien children in 
removal proceedings who file Form I-589 with USCIS are not required to 
pay the fee). DHS considered various fee amounts and whether the fee 
would be paid in installments over time. DHS has established a minimal 
$50 fee that can be paid at one time, would not require an applicant to 
save for an unreasonable amount of time, would generate revenue to 
offset costs, and would not be so high as to be

[[Page 46850]]

unaffordable to an indigent applicant. See 84 FR 62319. DHS does not 
intend to recover the full cost of adjudicating asylum applications via 
the Form I-589 fee. DHS will recover the additional costs of asylum 
adjudications by charging other fee-paying applicants and petitioners 
more. DHS does not intend to discourage meritorious asylum claims or 
unduly burden any applicant, group of applicants, or their families.
    Comment: A commenter stated that this NPRM functions under the 
``deterrence paradigm'' to prevent asylum seekers from coming to the 
United States. They claimed that such deterrence policies do not work, 
citing a report by the American Immigration Council which showed that 
comprehensive knowledge of the dangers and possible futility of seeking 
asylum had little impact on the intentions of Hondurans to seek asylum 
in 2014.
    Response: DHS does not intend to deter legitimate asylum seekers 
from filing asylum applications via the $50 asylum application fee. The 
goals behind establishing a $50 asylum application fee include 
alleviating the pressure of the growing affirmative asylum workload on 
the administration of other immigration benefit requests and generating 
some revenue to offset costs. DHS believes the minimal fee of $50 is 
not unreasonably burdensome and does not prevent legitimate asylum 
seekers from submitting asylum applications.
    Comment: A few commenters indicated that the $50 fee does not 
mitigate the fee increase of other immigration benefit requests. One of 
these commenters stated that since DHS will still rely on other benefit 
requesters to cover the costs of the asylum process, as authorized by 
Congress, the decision to charge an asylum fee is unacceptable.
    A few commenters reasoned that, because the process costs around 
$300 per applicant, a $50 fee would not meaningfully address the 
deficit associated with asylum adjudication but would still be 
prohibitively expensive for vulnerable people. One commenter added that 
this is an arbitrary departure from the ``full cost'' standard required 
for federal agencies, and that USCIS should charge applicants the full 
cost of adjudicating the application.
    One commenter cited the Asylum Division's quarterly statistics, 
which indicate that DHS experienced a 40 percent decrease in 
affirmative filings between 2017 and 2018. The commenter stated that 
USCIS is unable to alleviate a growing backlog despite a drop in 
affirmative filings. Two commenters cited a Migration Policy Institute 
study which shows that many factors contributing to the backlog are the 
result of U.S. policies.
    Response: DHS carefully assessed the costs associated with the 
adjudication of asylum applications and other types of immigration 
benefit requests and concluded that the $50 fee for asylum applications 
is warranted. A minimal fee would mitigate the fee increase of other 
immigration benefit requests. DHS also relied on INA section 208(d)(3), 
which provides that ``fees shall not exceed the Attorney General's 
costs in adjudicating'' the asylum application. The approximate cost of 
adjudicating an asylum application is $366, and thus, the fee is below 
the full cost of adjudicating the application. The lower fee amount 
represents DHS's efforts to balance the needs and interests of USCIS in 
generating some revenue to offset costs against the socio-economic 
challenges faced by some asylum seekers.
    DHS acknowledges the comments related to the growing affirmative 
asylum backlog, which played into DHS's decision to establish an asylum 
application fee. USCIS has taken several actions to address the 
affirmative asylum backlog, including: Identifying and employing 
strategies to maximize efficiencies in case processing across 
workloads; increasing adjudicative capacity by expanding its field 
office workforce and continuing significant facilities expansion; and 
reverting to reform scheduling, also known as Last In, First Out (LIFO) 
scheduling, which involves scheduling the most recently filed 
applications for interviews ahead of older filings. See USCIS 
announcement on Last in, First Out scheduling (January 2018), available 
at https://www.uscis.gov/news/news-releases/uscis-take-action-address-asylum-backlog. LIFO scheduling has contributed to a decrease in the 
growth of the asylum backlog. Even though USCIS has taken a range of 
measures to address the backlog, the number of pending affirmative 
asylum cases remains high.
    Comment: One commenter cited a 2011 New York Immigrant 
Representation Study to say that with decreased ability to support 
themselves, asylum seekers would be far less likely to afford legal 
counsel and therefore have less chance of prevailing on their asylum 
claims.
    Response: DHS believes that a minimal fee of $50 will not prevent 
asylum seekers from securing legal counsel or affect their chance of 
prevailing on their asylum claims. Asylum seekers may secure legal 
counsel as needed to assist them with the asylum application process. 
This final rule does not hinder or affect asylum seekers' access to 
counsel. With or without legal counsel, asylum applicants are given the 
opportunity to provide the information needed for an adjudicator to 
make a decision about their eligibility for asylum. DHS declines to 
make any changes in this final rule in response to the comment.
14. Form I-600A/I-600 Supplement 3, Request for Action on Approved Form 
I-600A/I-600
    Comment: A commenter supported changes in the handling of Hague 
Adoption Convention Transition Cases, commenting that their personal 
experience in the adoption process had been very difficult. The 
commenter stated that having a prescribed system would be an 
improvement.
    Response: DHS appreciates the support for the changes in handling 
intercounty adoption cases and agrees that the prescribed system is an 
improvement upon previous practice.
15. Form I-601A, Application for Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver
    Comment: Multiple commenters opposed increasing the fee for Form I-
601A because it would harm family unity, discourage the use of consular 
processing, and undermine the use of Form I-601A to improve efficiency.
    Response: DHS recognizes that Form I-601A can aid family unity and 
improve administrative efficiency through the use of consular 
processing. However, DHS disagrees with the commenters' contention that 
the fee increases enacted in this final rule for Form I-601A, from $630 
to $960, undermines those goals. DHS adjusts the fee for Form I-601A to 
reflect the estimated full cost of adjudication. If DHS did not adjust 
fee to provide for USCIS to recover full cost, USCIS would be unable to 
devote sufficient resources to adjudication to limit the growth of 
pending caseload, thereby undermining the goals of family unity and 
efficient processing.
    DHS declines to make adjustments in this final rule in response to 
these comments.
    Comment: A commenter opposed the fee increase for Form I-601A 
because such waivers have allowed thousands of immigrants to pursue 
lawful permanent residence through consular processing. The commenter 
said the proposed increase for this waiver application, in conjunction 
with the costs of consular processing, would discourage immigrants from 
seeking lawful status and place them at risk of removal and long-term 
separation from their families.

[[Page 46851]]

    Response: DHS recognizes that the provisional waiver process has 
enabled family unity and the use of consular processing to gain lawful 
permanent residence. However, DHS disagrees with the commenter's 
assertion that the fee increase for Form I-601A will discourage 
immigrants from seeking lawful status or result in long-term separation 
for families. DHS believes that the fee increase of $330, from $630 to 
$960, likely represents a small portion of the overall cost of 
utilizing consular processing to pursue lawful permanent residence. DHS 
also notes that noncitizens with an approved Form I-601A still trigger 
the unlawful presence ground of inadmissibility found in INA section 
212(a)(9)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B) upon departure.
    DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in response to the 
comment.
16. Form I-751, Petition To Remove Conditions on Residence
    Comment: Multiple commenters wrote regarding increases in the fee 
for Form I-751. Commenters wrote that the fee for Form I-751 would 
cause individuals who are unable to afford the new fee failing to 
petition to remove the conditions on their permanent residence, thereby 
losing their conditional lawful permanent resident status.
    Response: DHS recognizes the importance of Form I-751 to 
individuals in conditional lawful permanent resident status. However, 
DHS disagrees with the commenters' contention that the fee increase for 
Form I-751, from $595 to $760, will render Form I-751 unaffordable to 
these individuals. Conditional lawful permanent residents have nearly 
two years between gaining that status and the 90-day period in which 
they are required to file Form I-751, during which they are able to 
work and save to afford the fee, or they may pay with a credit card. 
DHS adjusts the fee for Form I-751 to reflect the estimated full cost 
of adjudication and declines to make adjustments in this final rule in 
response to these comments.
    Comment: Many commenters indicated the Form I-751 fee increase and 
elimination of the fee waiver would make it more difficult for low-
income families to file timely and could have severe consequences, 
including the conditional resident's loss of lawful status and the risk 
of being placed into removal proceedings. A commenter stated that the 
unbundling and resulting increase in the fee for adjustment of status 
and ancillary applications, and the increased fee for provisional 
waivers could prevent low-income individuals from applying for 
immigration benefits. The commenter asked that USCIS hold current fees 
in place or increase the fees by a modest amount. One commenter said 
the proposed change would affect many older applicants who maybe be on 
fixed incomes, as well as people in single-income households.
    Response: DHS acknowledges the changes in fee waiver eligibility 
and the increase in the fee for Form I-751 implemented in this final 
rule will render the process of removing conditions on lawful permanent 
resident status more expensive for individuals. However, DHS disagrees 
with the commenters' contention that the fee increase for Form I-751, 
from $595 to $760, will render Form I-751 unaffordable to these 
individuals. Conditional lawful permanent residents have nearly two 
years between gaining that status and the 90-day period in which they 
are required to file Form I-751, during which they are able to work and 
save to afford the fee.
    DHS declines to adjust this final rule in response to these 
comments.
17. Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization
    Comment: A commenter wrote that Form I-765 fees are causing 
students to consider leaving the United States following graduation, 
removing talented workers from the U.S. economy and tax base. The 
commenter stated that the proposal would further disincentivize foreign 
students from studying in the United States. A commenter also wrote 
that the proposed fee increases could impede immigrant student's career 
advancement.
    Response: DHS acknowledges the sizeable increase in the Form I-765 
fee implemented in this final rule, adjusting the fee from $410 to 
$550. DHS adjusts the fee for Form I-765 to reflect the estimated full 
cost of adjudication. Although DHS recognizes that this fee increase 
imposes an additional burden on nonimmigrant students seeking 
employment authorization for Optional Practical Training, off-campus 
employment under the sponsorship of a qualifying international 
organization, or due to severe economic hardship, DHS is unaware of 
data to support the commenter's contention that fee for Form I-765 
serves to deter students from coming to the United States. DHS declines 
to exempt students from the increased filing fee because USCIS must 
determine the student's eligibility under the applicable regulations at 
the time of application and the fee is necessary to recover the full 
costs of the adjudication. DHS does not believe the fee is an 
unreasonable burden for students who need employment-based training. 
DHS believes that employment in the United States will continue to 
appeal to individuals despite an increase of $140 in the cost of 
applying for an EAD.
    DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in response to the 
comment.
    Comment: Multiple commenters opposed the change to charge asylum 
applicants for their first Form I-765, Application for Employment 
Authorization. The comments are summarized as follows:
     Charging asylum seekers for the first work permit creates 
a ``catch 22'' situation where people cannot work so cannot afford to 
pay their asylum fees and may incentivize people to work illegally.
     USCIS should not charge $50 for asylum applications and 
further charge for an EAD while asylum cases are pending.
     Requiring individuals who are not authorized to work to 
pay such a substantial fee to acquire work authorization is cruel and 
counterintuitive.
     Asylum seekers have historically not been charged for 
their initial EAD because their flight from their country of origin 
leaves them in dire financial situations, and they often lack family 
support in the United States to assist them.
     Requiring asylum applicants to pay for an initial EAD 
before they have authorization to work will worsen the already 
precarious situation of a vulnerable population.
     People subject to the fee have already spent substantial 
time and money to get to the United States, have likely spent time in 
immigration detention, and have not been authorized to work since 
leaving their home country.
     USCIS should continue to exempt asylum seekers from fees 
associated with EADs because these individuals would not be able to 
afford fees before they can legally work. It did not make sense to 
charge asylum seekers for work permits before being granted protection.
     The EAD fee for asylum seekers will act as an unjust 
deterrent for asylum seekers.
     To levy an asylum fee in conjunction with the EAD fee was 
beyond contemplation and abominable and questioned how the government 
could expect asylum-seekers to obtain funds to cover these costs.
     The proposal was far from benign and employers could pay 
this work permit fee.
     This fee will force asylum applicants into seeking 
unauthorized

[[Page 46852]]

work, putting them at a higher risk of exploitation, placing an undue 
burden on investigative agencies, and ultimately putting those 
applicants in danger of facing further consequences for attempting to 
work without authorization.
     A fee for an initial work permit is illogical, because the 
U.S. benefits from self-sufficiency of asylum seekers and should 
therefore want to expedite the employment authorization process.
     It will burden local communities and service providers 
that must provide social services to asylum applicants unable to work.
     Local communities will suffer lost wages and tax revenue, 
as well as the labor that would otherwise be provided by asylees.
     State, local, community, and religious organizations will 
attempt to cover the EAD fee for asylum seekers, straining their 
resources and preventing them from serving more people.
     Preventing asylum seekers from authorized work restricts 
them from lawfully paying a fee for asylum.
     Allowing asylum seekers to have work authorization 
benefits local economies by asylum seekers paying taxes, filling skills 
gaps, and building the workforce.
     Asylees often bring a wide range of skills and experience 
and are useful to many businesses, and that the proposal would deny 
U.S. businesses of the opportunity to hire these workers.
     Nearly 65 percent of the asylum seekers in the commenter's 
program arrive in the U.S. with experience in STEM and healthcare 
fields.
     Employers would have difficulty finding labor substitutes 
if asylum seekers were kept out of the workforce. USCIS should conduct 
additional analysis on the impact of new fees for employment 
authorization.
     USCIS has not calculated the losses to tax revenue and the 
broader economy associated with a reduced number of asylees in the U.S.
     Asylees often come to the U.S. with in-demand skills, 
including skills that would be useful in the healthcare and information 
technology sectors, and the USCIS should estimate the costs borne to 
employers who would use asylees.
    Response: DHS acknowledges the concerns of the commenters related 
to the requirement of a fee ($550) for initial filings of Form I-765 
for applicants with pending asylum applications. Initial EAD applicants 
with pending asylum applications account for a large volume, 
approximately 13 percent, of the Form I-765 workload forecast and DHS 
has decided to no longer provide this service for free. Charging 
initial Form I-765 applicants with pending asylum applications allows 
DHS to keep the fee for all fee-paying EAD applicants lower. Asylum 
applicants will pay no more and no less than any other EAD applicant 
(except for those who are eligible for a fee waiver) for the same 
service.
    DHS is acting in compliance with Section 208(d)(3) of the INA, 
which provides that, ``[n]othing in this paragraph shall be construed 
to require the Attorney General to charge fees for adjudication 
services provided to asylum applicants, or to limit the authority of 
the Attorney General to set adjudication and naturalization fees in 
accordance with section 286(m).'' DHS believes that charging asylum 
applicants for EADs does not impose an unreasonable burden on asylum 
seekers. This final rule does not impose or seek to impose any 
obligation on the part of employers, states, or community or religious 
organizations to pay the Form I-765 fee. Also, this final rule does not 
seek to burden local communities or service providers. DHS declines to 
make changes in this final rule in response to these comments.
    USCIS disagrees that charging asylum seekers for the first work 
permit creates a conflict between contradictory conditions where aliens 
cannot work to pay their asylum fees and may incentivize people to work 
illegally. No asylum applicant may receive employment authorization 
before 180 days have passed since the filing of his or her asylum 
application. INA section 208(d)(2), 8 U.S. C. 1158(d)(2); 8 CFR 
208.7(a)(1). This requirement has been in effect for over twenty years. 
See, Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 
1996, Section 604, Public Law 104-208; see also 62 FR 10337. Thus, an 
asylum seeker is unlikely to come to the United States expecting to be 
authorized to work immediately. Asylum seekers can, and do, rely on 
their own means, as well as family or community support to economically 
sustain themselves in the United States during the period of time that 
they are not employment authorized.
    Comment: Several commenters wrote that if asylum seekers are unable 
to obtain employment authorization, they may be unable to pay for legal 
counsel, which will make it more difficult for them to prevail on the 
asylum applications. One commenter cited ``Accessing Justice: The 
Availability & Adequacy of Counsel in Immigration Proceedings,'' a 
study that showed that among non-detained individuals in immigration 
court, those with counsel saw success in 74 percent of cases compared 
with 13 percent of those unrepresented.
    Response: DHS recognizes the economic challenges faced by asylum 
seekers. However, DHS does not believe that charging asylum seekers for 
a work authorization application will prevent them from obtaining legal 
counsel. DHS does not believe that the EAD fee is unduly burdensome for 
asylum seekers. Furthermore, DHS is acting within the scope of its 
statutory authority to establish fees for adjudication services, in 
accordance with INA sections 208(d)(3) and 286(m). DHS declines to make 
changes in response to these comments.
    Comment: A commenter stated that fee exemptions for EAD 
applications by asylees should apply not only to initial applications, 
but also renewals. The commenter said the original rationale was that 
the initial EAD lasts for 2 years, and it was expected that asylees 
would be granted lawful permanent residence within that two-year 
period. Currently, however, the processing times for permanent 
residence by asylees range up to 26 months, so the commenter said USCIS 
should eliminate the fee for applications for renewal of employment 
authorization filed by asylees.
    Response: DHS acknowledges the concerns related to processing times 
for EADs and adjustment of status applications. DHS does not believe 
that the fee for renewal EAD filings will present an insurmountable 
burden for asylees. Asylees are employment authorized incident to their 
status. DHS will continue to exempt asylees from the initial Form I-765 
fee. However, considering that they are employment authorized incident 
to their status as an asylee and the EAD is matter of convenience and 
not necessary for ongoing employment, asylees submitting I-765 renewal 
applications will be required to pay the relevant fee, unless the 
asylee filed for adjustment of status on or after July 30, 2007 and 
before October 2, 2020 and paid the Form I-485 filing fee. DHS declines 
to adjust this final rule in response to these comments.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that initial asylum applicants 
seeking employment authorization should be exempt from fees. Instead, 
they propose that the Form I-765 fee should increase by $10 to offset 
the cost.
    Response: DHS appreciates the commenter's suggestion. DHS 
considered continuing to exempt asylum applicants from paying for their 
first Form I-765 filing. However, to more closely align with the 
beneficiary-pays principle, DHS declines to require other fee-paying 
applicants to subsidize

[[Page 46853]]

the cost of adjudicating the initial EAD applications of asylum 
applicants. DHS declines to adopt the change suggested by this 
commenter.
    Comment: One commenter pointed out that work-eligible unaccompanied 
children need access to EADs in order to access housing, food, and 
clothing. Many minors reach adulthood before their Form I-589 
application is adjudicated, losing access to foster care and other 
financial support, leaving them as reliant on work as adult applicants. 
Another commenter said that women and children will be particularly 
affected by the EAD application fee and stated that a fee waiver is 
necessary for these applications. Given that asylum seekers do not have 
access to social welfare benefits, women are especially at risk of 
hunger, abuse, homelessness, trafficking, and other coercive employment 
practices. This commenter cited data from the Women's Refugee 
Commission which emphasizes the benefits of employment for women who 
have experienced trauma, as many asylees have.
    Response: DHS acknowledges that asylum applicants need access to 
employment authorization. DHS does not believe that this final rule 
hinders or prevents asylum seekers from applying for employment 
authorization. DHS believes that the EAD fee is not unduly burdensome 
for asylum seekers and is acting within the scope of its statutory 
authority to establish fees for adjudication services, in accordance 
with INA sections 208(d)(3) and 286(m). Regarding unaccompanied alien 
children (UAC), a UAC may be in the custody of the U.S. Department of 
Health and Human Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) or 
residing with a sponsor. See 8 U.S.C. 1232(b) and (c). A UAC should not 
need an EAD for an identity document, and to the extent that they do, 
the sponsor for the UAC is generally responsible for his or her Form I-
765 fee. After turning 18, the same policy considerations for charging 
them for the Form I-765 apply as for charging all adults.
    Comment: A few commenters claimed that the processing time for EAD 
applications is too long as is, and the new Form I-765 fee will present 
an unsurmountable burden. Doubling the waiting period, along with the 
$490 fee, presents an unjust financial hurdle for many asylum seekers 
and will prevent them from attaining self-sufficiency through work.
    Response: DHS acknowledges that the fee and waiting period for the 
initial EAD may be an economic challenge to some asylum applicants, but 
DHS disagrees that it is insurmountable or unduly burdensome. Many 
asylum seekers spend thousands of dollars to make the journey to the 
United States. It is not unduly burdensome to require that asylum 
seekers plan and allocate their financial resources to pay a fee that 
all other noncitizens must also pay. USCIS must incur the costs of 
adjudicating Form I-765 submitted by an asylum seeker, and DHS does not 
believe it should shift that cost to other fee payers. Charging a fee 
for adjudication services is in line with INA section 208(d)(3), which 
provides that ``[n]othing in this paragraph shall be construed to 
require the Attorney General to charge fees for adjudication services 
provided to asylum applicants, or to limit the authority of the 
Attorney General to set adjudication and naturalization fees in 
accordance with section 1356(m) of this title.'' DHS declines to make 
changes in this final rule in response to these comments.
18. Form I-817, Application for Family Unity Benefits
    Comment: A commenter said the fee decrease for Form I-817 is 
puzzling in light of the current processing and adjudication of the 
corresponding benefits because this form currently experiences 
inordinate delays for processing.
    Response: DHS acknowledges that processing times for many forms, 
including Form I-817, have exceeded USCIS' processing time goals. DHS 
is setting the fee for Form I-817 at the level sufficient to recover 
the estimated full cost of adjudicating USCIS's anticipated workload 
receipt volumes. DHS hopes to be able to devote sufficient resources to 
Form I-817 adjudication to reduce pending caseload. DHS declines to 
make any adjustments in this final rule in response to the comment.
19. Form I-821D, DACA Renewal Fee
    Comment: Many commenters wrote that they opposed the Form I-821D 
DACA renewal fees. Commenters stated that increasing DACA fees would 
make it difficult for individuals to renew their work permits and 
individuals could lose the ability to work legally in the United 
States. Commenters highlighted that many DACA requestors are students 
and may have difficulty paying the proposed fee in addition to the fee 
for filing Form I-765. Commenters wrote that the proposed fee increase 
would cause emotional and financial hardships for the families of DACA 
recipients. Commenters stated that the imposition of a fee for DACA 
would constitute an attempt to terminate the DACA program. Some 
comments stated that the Supreme Court might decide the future of the 
DACA program in the next few months; therefore, DACA recipients should 
not pay more for an uncertain benefit.
    Response: DHS will not impose the proposed Form I-821D, 
Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals fee. It is not 
included in this final rule. USCIS will not receive any revenue from 
Form I-821D. Therefore, DHS removed the marginal costs directly 
attributable to the DACA policy from its cost baseline that informs the 
fee calculations for this final rule. The revenue DHS anticipated from 
the Form I-821D DACA fee in its NPRM to recover costs associated with 
overheads and cost reallocation will be collected through adjustments 
to the other fees addressed in this final rule.\88\ DACA requestors 
will continue to pay the fees in place before September 5, 2017, $410 
for Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization, as well as a 
separate biometric services fee of $85.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ Although DHS requires DACA requestors to continue paying 
the fee for Form I-765, it has removed all DACA workload and fee-
paying volume projections from USCIS' ABC model due to our decision 
to not impose a fee for Form I-821D in this final rule, consistent 
with Scenario D of the NPRM and the FY 2016/2017 fee rule. In its 
rules to establish USCIS fees, DHS has generally not relied on 
revenue from sources that are temporary in nature, including DACA. 
See 81 FR 73312. Including temporary programs in the model would 
allocate fixed costs and overhead to these programs, thereby 
introducing financial risk because USCIS would not be able to 
recover full cost if they are discontinued.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Multiple commenters suggested that the ability to receive 
immigration protection and work authorization under DACA is crucial for 
immigrant survivors of domestic and sexual violence. The commenters 
cited a DOJ special report from December 2014 which indicates that 
women between the ages of 18 and 24 experience the highest rate of rape 
and sexual assault when compared to women of other age groups. The 
commenters stated that because most DACA requestors are young 
immigrants, the DACA eligible population is particularly vulnerable to 
violence and abuse.
    One commenter said that increasing the DACA renewal fee by 55 
percent will jeopardize the employment of domestic abuse survivors. The 
commenter stated that when a DACA holder is a victim of domestic 
violence and becomes eligible for U nonimmigrant status, it is 
important that they be able to renew their DACA and related work 
permits while they wait for their U nonimmigrant status so that can 
remain employed and not have to

[[Page 46854]]

financially rely on their abusers. The commenter stated that processing 
time for petitions for U nonimmigrant status is between 52.3 and 53 
months.
    Response: DHS will not impose a fee for Form I-821D in this final 
rule. However, DACA requestors will continue to be required to submit 
Form I-765 for an EAD. To request a DACA renewal, DHS will continue to 
require the $410 Form I-765 fee and the $85 biometric services fee that 
were in effect before September 5, 2017. Furthermore, DHS reiterates 
that Form I-918 has no fee and Form I-192 remains fee waivable for U 
nonimmigrant status petitioners.
    DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in response to 
these comments.
20. Form I-829, Petition by Investor To Remove Conditions on Permanent 
Resident Status
    Comment: A commenter said the fee review for EB-5 forms, such as 
Form I-829, failed to meet the objectives of ensuring USCIS has 
adequate resources and to recover the full operating costs of 
administering the national immigration benefits system. The commenter 
said the modest 4 percent increase for Form I-829 fee is clearly too 
low for adequate service and noted that despite the form having a 
statutory requirement to be adjudicated within 90 days of filing, the 
processing time for this form is currently between 22 and 45 months.
    Response: DHS acknowledges that processing times for many forms, 
including Form I-829, have exceeded the goals established by USCIS. 
Furthermore, DHS acknowledges its obligation to adjudicate Form I-829 
filings within 90 days of the filing date or interview, whichever is 
later. See INA section 216(c)(3)(A)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1186b(c)(3)(A)(ii). 
In this final rule, DHS adjusts the fee for Form I-829 to $3,900 to 
reflect the estimated full cost of adjudication. In estimating the full 
cost of adjudication, USCIS considers the costs to adjudicate incoming 
workloads and does not consider the resources necessary to adjudicate 
existing pending caseloads. If USCIS considered the cost to adjudicate 
existing, pending caseloads in its fee reviews, this would require 
future immigration benefit requestors to subsidize the cost of 
adjudicating previously received applications and petitions. DHS will 
not require future applicants and petitioners to subsidize the 
adjudication of existing, pending caseloads.
    DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in response to the 
comment.
21. Form I-881, Application for Suspension of Deportation or Special 
Rule Cancellation of Removal (Pursuant to Section 203 of Public Law 
105-100 (NACARA))
    Comment: A commenter said that the NPRM provided no explanation for 
the 532 percent fee increase for Form I-881. The commenter questioned 
if adjudication had changed drastically to justify the fee increase. 
Similarly, a couple commenters stated that USCIS' justifications did 
not explain the fee increase and the proposal was contrary to the 
purpose of the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act 
(NACARA).
    Response: DHS disagrees with the commenters' contention that DHS 
failed to explain or justify the fee increase for Form I-881. This 
final rule adjusts the fee for Form I-881 from $285 for individuals or 
$570 for families to a single fee of $1,810. As stated in the NPRM, DHS 
has not adjusted the fee for Form I-881 since 2005. Thus, the fee has 
not reflected USCIS' estimated full cost of adjudication since that 
time. The large increase results from a need for the fee to recover its 
proportionate share of USCIS' estimated full costs. In this final rule, 
DHS adjusts the fee for Form I-881 to reflect the estimated full cost 
of adjudication.
    DHS declines to make change in this final rule in response to these 
comments.
22. Forms I-924, Application for Regional Center Designation Under the 
Immigrant Investor Program, and I-924A, Annual Certification of 
Regional Center
    Comment: A commenter said the filing fee for Form I-924 is 
``already vastly out of proportion'' with the work required to process 
the form. The commenter said the current fee of $17,795 may be 
appropriate for entities seeking a new regional center designation or 
an approval of an exemplar Form I-526 petition but is not reasonable 
for smaller-scale changes like a change to a regional center's name, 
ownership, or organizational structure. The commenter suggested there 
should be a much lower fee to accompany such minor changes (which are 
mandatory notifications to USCIS).
    Another commenter said the fee adjustment for Forms I-924 and I-
924A fails to meet the agency's stated objectives of adjusting fees to 
ensure USCIS has the necessary resources to provide adequate service to 
applicants and can recover the full operating costs associated with 
administering the immigration benefits system.
    Response: DHS acknowledges that there may be a difference between 
the cost of adjudicating a Form I-924 filing that requests a new 
regional center designation and a filing that amends an existing 
regional center. However, DHS does not have data to document the 
difference in effort and cost between different types of Form I-924 
filings. Thus, DHS estimated the full cost of adjudication for Form I-
924 based on an estimate of the average level of effort required to 
adjudicate Form I-924. As noted in the rule initially establishing the 
$17,795 for this form, the proposed fee ``was determined using USCIS's 
standard fee-setting methodology, based on the number of hours required 
to adjudicate Form I-924. These adjudications require economists and 
adjudications officers to thoroughly review extensive business 
documents, economic impact analyses, and other project-related 
documents.'' \89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ USCIS, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Fee 
Schedule, 81 FR 73292, 73310 (Oct. 24, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS disagrees with the commenter's contention that the fee for Form 
I-924 is too low to provide adequate service. In its fee review, USCIS 
estimated that the fee for Form I-924 necessary to reflect the full, 
estimated cost of adjudication would be less than the existing fee of 
$17,795. In recognition of the resources available to I-924 filers and 
to limit the fee increases for other form types, DHS decided to 
maintain the fee for Form I-924 at the current level of $17,795 in this 
final rule.
    DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in response to 
these comments.
23. Form I-929, Petition for Qualifying Family Member of a U-1 
Nonimmigrant
    Comment: Multiple commenters suggested the proposed $1,285 or 559 
percent increase in the Form I-929 fee is excessive. The commenters 
stated that the petition benefits crime victims' family members. A 
commenter said the proposed fee would create a financial hardship for 
immigrant families and the proposed rule ignores the fact that 
survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and human trafficking 
may desperately need timely processing of ancillary applications to 
escape and overcome abuse. Another commenter said the proposed increase 
would inhibit a vulnerable population from reuniting with spouses, 
children, and in the case of minors, parents--directly in tension with 
congressional intent. A commenter indicated this increase would make 
applying extremely difficult for individuals who have

[[Page 46855]]

qualified family members. A commenter stated that it is important to 
incentivize individuals to come forward and report when they have been 
the victim of a crime and by keeping derivative applications for U-visa 
applicants affordable, USCIS would ensure that agencies prioritize 
public safety and family unity.
    Response: DHS recognizes the importance of Form I-929 for promoting 
family unity for U nonimmigrants and their family members. In 
recognition of this importance, and consistent with its commitment to 
maintain fee waiver availability of statutorily protected classes of 
individuals, DHS proposed in the NPRM to continue to make the fee for 
Form I-929 waivable for those who file Form I-912, Request for Fee 
Waiver, and meet the fee waiver eligibility criteria. See 84 FR 62297. 
In this final rule, DHS reaffirms that the fee for Form I-929 will 
remain waivable for petitioning U nonimmigrants or lawful permanent 
residents who file Form I-912, Request for Fee Waiver, and meet the fee 
waiver eligibility criteria. DHS believes that maintaining access to 
fee waivers for this vulnerable population mitigates any concerns that 
the increase in the fee for Form I-929 would inhibit family unity.
    In this final rule, DHS establishes the fee for Form I-929 as 
$1,485 to reflect the estimated full cost of adjudication, which 
includes the anticipated cost of fee waivers for Form I-929. DHS 
recognizes that this represents a significant increase of $1,255 in the 
fee. DHS notes that this increase is due, in part, to its commitment to 
preserve access to fee waivers for certain vulnerable populations. 
Because DHS anticipates that many filers will meet the fee waiver 
criteria, USCIS must charge fee-paying applicants more to recover the 
cost of processing fee-waived forms.
    DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in response to 
these comments.
24. Form N-400, Application for Naturalization
a. N-400 Fee Increase
    Comment: Some commenters stated that USCIS does not have statutory 
authority for raising the naturalization fees.
    Response: DHS disagrees that USCIS does not have the statutory 
authority to raise naturalization fees. The Form N-400 fee adjustment 
is consistent with INA section 286(m), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m) (authorizing 
DHS to charge fees for adjudication and naturalization services at a 
level to ``ensure recovery of the full costs of providing all such 
services, including the costs of similar services provided without 
charge to asylum applicants and other immigrants'') \90\ and the CFO 
Act, 31 U.S.C. 901-03 (requiring each agency's Chief Financial Officer 
(CFO) to review, on a biennial basis, the fees imposed by the agency 
for services it provides, and to recommend changes to the agency's 
fees). Currently, there are no statutory provisions that require USCIS 
to limit the naturalization application fee. DHS declines to make any 
changes in this final rule in response to these comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ The longstanding interpretation of DHS is that the 
``including'' clause in section 286(m) does not constrain DHS's fee 
authority under the statute. The ``including'' clause offers only a 
non-exhaustive list of some of the costs that DHS may consider part 
of the full costs of providing adjudication and naturalization 
services. See 8 U.S.C. 1356(m); 84 FR 23930, 23932 n.1 (May 23, 
2019); 81 FR 26903, 26906 n.10 (May 4, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Many commenters stated that Congress has asked USCIS to 
keep citizenship affordable, consistent with Congressional intent, 
USCIS has historically followed this directive by using other fees to 
subsidize naturalization fees, and that the proposed increase in 
naturalization fees and removal of fee waivers violates Congressional 
intent. A commenter provided quotations from 2010 and 2016 rulemakings 
stating this policy objective and wrote that USCIS is arbitrarily 
departing from the policy of reducing economic barriers to 
naturalization. Commenters also cited the U.S. Code's citizenship 
criteria and noted the absence of economic status. Commenters cited the 
2019 DHS Appropriations Act and a recent Congressional Committee report 
in making this argument and especially opposing the removal of fee 
waivers for Form N-400. A commenter also cited Consolidated 
Appropriations Acts from 2012, 2017, and 2019 as evincing Congressional 
intention to reduce financial barriers to naturalization. The commenter 
also quoted a Senate Committee report from 2015 and House Committee 
report from 2020 to the same effect. Another commenter provided two 
House of Representatives reports from 2018 and 2019, also writing that 
the proposal contravenes Congressional intent.
    Multiple commenters stated that the proposal ``undermin[es] the 
special consideration that obtaining U.S. citizenship deserves.'' A 
commenter wrote that USCIS irrationally dismissed Congressional 
instructions to remove barriers to naturalization by relying on a 
principle of ``self-sufficiency'' that USCIS asserts without support. 
Another commenter stated that USCIS acknowledged its departure from 
Congressional intent, and that its stated justification--a 
``hypothetical concern'' that waivers could disrupt services--is 
insufficient. A commenter stated that, while reducing the subsidy 
provided by other immigration fees to naturalization may be 
appropriate, it is cynical of USCIS to use naturalization fees to fund 
ICE while making no commitment to reducing the months-or-years-long 
wait times for citizenship interviews. A commenter provided a citation 
to a USCIS statement reaffirming the special consideration given for 
naturalization in making fee determinations.
    A commenter stated that increasing naturalization fees would impact 
families and that DHS must therefore perform a ``family policymaking 
assessment,'' citing a 1998 Omnibus Appropriations Act. The commenter 
wrote that N-400s are the forms most likely to impact immigrant 
families.
    A commenter wrote that the Northern District of California issued a 
nationwide preliminary injunction, effective December 2, 2019, barring 
USCIS from limiting access to naturalization for LPRs.
    Two commenters cited the United Nations Declaration of Human 
Rights' statement that the right to a nationality also includes the 
right to ``change [one's] nationality,'' and therefore there should be 
no arbitrary barriers that prevent naturalization.
    One commenter cited a 2012 Migration Policy Institute study which 
found that the United States lags behind other English-speaking 
countries in naturalization rates, writing that these countries have 
made active attempts to encourage naturalization. A few commenters 
emphasized the role of naturalization in providing personal security 
for immigrants, particularly those who are in danger of worker 
exploitation without the full legal rights of citizenship. A commenter 
requested that DHS more thoroughly analyze the costs of impeding access 
to naturalization, which include long-term reduced economic and social 
mobility for impacted populations.
    Response: DHS recognizes the importance of naturalization to 
individual beneficiaries and American society as a whole. However, 
there are no specific provisions in the law (including the INA or the 
United Nations Declaration of Human Rights) that require USCIS to set 
fees to encourage individuals to obtain U.S. citizenship.
    In response to comments, DHS provides that the fee for Form N-400 
will remain fee waivable for VAWA self-

[[Page 46856]]

petitioners T and U nonimmigrants, SIJ petitioners and recipients who 
have been placed in out-of-home care under the supervision of a 
juvenile court or a state child welfare agency, and Special Immigrant 
Afghan and Iraqi translators. DHS is aware of the United Nations' 
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and we agree with the 
declaration's article 15 which provides that everyone has the right to 
a nationality and no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his 
nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.\91\ 
Congress has authorized DHS to fund USCIS naturalization services from 
fees, and does not fund USCIS through appropriations. See INA section 
286(m), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m). Our fees are set using notice and comment 
rulemaking as permitted by law and we provide a robust explanation of 
the need for the fees and respond to public comments. Furthermore, the 
fee for an application for naturalization will be $1,170 and fee 
waivers will be available to VAWA, T, U, SIJ and Afghan/Iraqi SIV 
applicants. See new 8 CFR 106.2(b)(3) and 106.3(a)(3). DHS recognizes 
that some applicants would need to pay for the fees absent a fee waiver 
but does not believe the increase will prevent people from filing for 
naturalization. As previously indicated, USCIS monitors the proportion 
of lawful permanent residents who naturalize over time and this 
tracking has a high degree of accuracy and the most recent published 
analysis shows that the proportion of LPRs naturalizing increased over 
time from the 1970s to 2004, despite the increase in the naturalization 
fee over that time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ See Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Available at 
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf 
(last viewed March 16, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: An individual commenter stated that the rule's 
justification--that fee increases are needed to cover costs--does not 
support the Form N-400, Application for Naturalization, fee increase. 
The commenter wrote that USCIS' projected cost increases are only 13 or 
20 percent and the proposal would raise fees by 60 percent.
    Response: DHS acknowledges that the fee for Form N-400, Application 
for Naturalization, is increasing by a greater percentage than the 
total increase in USCIS costs and the average increase in fees 
generally. DHS is raising the fee for Form N-400 from $640, plus the 
$85 biometric services fee, if applicable, to a total fee including 
biometric services fee of $1,160 if filed online or $1,170 if filed on 
a paper application. The estimated average fee of $1,165 is $445, or 
61.4 percent, above the previous combined cost of Form N-400 and the 
biometric services fee.
    The fee for this form is increasing more than for most other forms 
because DHS has historically held the fee for Form N-400 below the 
estimated cost to USCIS of adjudicating the form in recognition of the 
social value of citizenship. However, in this final rule DHS is 
emphasizing the beneficiary-pays principle for establishing user fees. 
This means that the fee for Form N-400 will now represent the estimated 
full cost to USCIS of adjudicating the form, plus a proportional share 
of overhead costs and the costs of providing similar services at a 
reduced or no charge to asylum applicants and other immigrants. In 
other words, the fee for Form N-400 will now be determined in the same 
manner as most other USCIS fees. Because DHS has held the fee for Form 
N-400 below full cost in the past, adjusting to full cost requires an 
increase in excess of the volume-weighted average increase of 20 
percent. If DHS did not increase the fee for Form N-400 this amount, 
other fees would need to increase further to generate the revenue 
necessary to recover full cost, including the costs of Form N-400 not 
covered by its fee. Thus, DHS believes the increase in the fee for Form 
N-400 is fully justified.
    Comment: Many commenters opposed the proposed fee increase by 
comparing its 60 percent increase against the 4 percent inflation rate 
over the same period. A commenter recommended that DHS raise the fee 
for Form N-400 to $737.70, to account for inflation. A commenter wrote 
that DHS should base naturalization fee increases on inflation only. 
Another commenter stated that, adjusted for inflation since its 
original price in 1985, the citizenship application should cost $85, 
rather than the $725 it currently is or the proposed $1,170. Likewise, 
another commenter cited a Stanford News article in commenting that the 
inflated price of naturalization applications should only be $80.25. 
Another commenter stated that, if inflated since 1994, the current 
naturalization fee would be $95. Another commenter recommended that 
naturalization fees be set at a percentage of the taxable income 
reported by applicants over the past 2 years. A commenter stated that 
the proposed naturalization fee increases should be phased in over a 
number of years in order to reduce its burden on applicants.
    Response: DHS appreciates the recommendations but neither adjusting 
the fee for Form N-400 by inflation nor phasing the fee increase in 
gradually over time would result in sufficient revenue to recover the 
cost of adjudicating and processing Form N-400. DHS is increasing the 
fee for Form N-400, Application for Naturalization, to recover the full 
cost of adjudication. The revenue generated by the previous fee is 
insufficient to recover the full cost of adjudication. DHS held the 
current N-400 fee at less than the cost of adjudication when it last 
adjusted the fee on December 23, 2016. See 81 FR 73307. In this final 
rule, DHS emphasizes the beneficiary-pays principle of user fees so 
that applicants will be primarily responsible for covering the cost of 
adjudicating their applications. This requires an increase in the fee 
for Form N-400 to $1,160 for online filing or $1,170 for paper filing. 
Phasing in the increase over multiple years would require increasing 
other fees by greater amounts to generate the revenue necessary to 
cover the costs not recovered due to the lower Form N-400 fee. 
Therefore, DHS declines to adopt the commenters' suggestions.
    Comment: A commenter stated that the fees for Forms N-400 and N-600 
should not be more than $500, and indicated that DHS should decrease 
the fees so that more immigrants can afford to apply without relying on 
a fee waiver. The commenter stated that the fee increase is a hardship 
and referenced refugees, Special Immigrant Visas, and Afghan/Iraqi 
interpreters should pay lower fees for humanitarian reasons.
    Response: Charging a limited fee shifts the cost of processing and 
adjudicating those benefits to other applicants and petitioners, which 
is not equitable given the significant increase in Form N-400 filings 
in recent years.\92\ The new fees for Forms N-600 and N-400 implement 
the beneficiary-pays principle, which ensures that those individuals 
who receive a benefit pay for the processing of the relevant 
application, petition, or request. The N-400 fees of $1,160 if filed 
online and $1,170 if filed on paper are set to recover the full cost of 
adjudicating the Form N-400.\93\ In addition, DHS has provided in the 
final rule that certain Afghan/Iraqi interpreters are eligible for N-
400 fee waivers, provided that they file Form I-912, Request for Fee 
Waiver, and meet the fee waiver eligibility requirements. See 8 CFR 
106.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ Based on filing volume trends in recent years, USCIS 
forecasts an increase of 82,827 Form N-400 applications, nearly a 10 
percent increase from the FY 2016/2017 fee rule forecast. See NPRM 
Table 4: Workload Volume Comparison.
    \93\ For more information, see Appendix VII: Final Fees by 
Immigration Benefit Request that accompanies this final rule.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 46857]]

    Comment: An individual commenter stated that the rule's 
justification--that fee increases are needed to cover costs--does not 
support the naturalization fee increase. The commenter wrote that 
USCIS' projected cost increases are only 20 percent and the proposal 
would raise fees by 60 percent.
    Response: As stated in the NPRM, in crafting prior fee rules, DHS 
reasoned that setting the Form N-400 fee at an amount less than its 
estimated costs and shifting those costs to other fee payers was 
appropriate in order to promote naturalization and immigrant 
integration.\94\ DHS now believes that shifting costs to other 
applicants in this manner is not equitable given the significant 
increase in Form N-400 filings in recent years.\95\ Therefore, DHS 
proposes to no longer limit the Form N-400 fee to a level below the 
cost of adjudication, thereby mitigating the fee increase of other 
immigration benefit requests and implementing the beneficiary-pays 
principle. In this final rule, DHS institutes a $1,160 fee for Form N-
400 if filed online and a fee of $1,170 if filed on paper to recover 
the full cost of adjudicating the Form N-400, as well as the cost of 
similar service provided without charge to asylum applicants and other 
immigrants.\96\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ See, e.g., 75 FR 33461; 81 FR 26916.
    \95\ Based on filing volume trends in recent years, USCIS 
forecasts an increase of 82,827 Form N-400 applications, nearly a 10 
percent increase from the FY 2016/2017 fee rule forecast. See Table 
4: Workload Volume Comparison.
    \96\ For more information, see Appendix VII: Final Fees by 
Immigration Benefit Request of the supporting documentation that 
accompanies this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS acknowledges that the fee for Form N-400, Application for 
Naturalization, is increasing by a greater percentage than the total 
increase in USCIS costs and the average increase in fees generally. DHS 
is raising the fee for Form N-400, Application for Naturalization, from 
$640, plus the $85 biometric services fee, if applicable, to a fee of 
$1,160 if filed online or $1,170 if filed on a paper application. The 
estimated average fee of $1,165 is $445, or 61.4 percent, above the 
previous combined cost of Form N-400 and the biometric services fee.
    Comment: Multiple commenters requested that USCIS ensure that 
naturalization remain affordable. A commenter stated that the cost and 
fees are a significant amount and discourages immigrants from applying 
to become US citizens. The commenter cited to a 2015 Pew Research 
Center asked Mexican green-card holders additional 13 percent of 
Mexican and 19 percent of non-Mexican lawful immigrants identified 
financial and administrative barriers, mainly the cost of 
naturalization. Two commenters said that barriers to naturalization 
disproportionately endanger Mexican workers, who are more likely to 
experience worker exploitation and four times more likely to die in the 
workplace than U.S.-born workers. Another commenter indicated that the 
naturalization fee amounted to a month's gross income for an immigrant 
and therefore would make it too difficult to afford citizenship 
applications. Another commenter indicated that the naturalization fee 
represents 50 to 100 percent of a foreign resident's monthly income. A 
commenter questioned the naturalization application fee increased based 
on 2 hours of work and asked about the hourly wage or a week's salary 
for a typical American household. Another commenter opposed USCIS' 
rationale, writing that while it may receive more naturalization 
applications, naturalization adjudication levels remain flat despite 
receipt increases. An individual commented that the proposed 
naturalization fee increase would prevent residents from seeking 
citizenship, citing data on financial and administrative barriers as 
bars to naturalization. Another individual described the extent of the 
fee's burden by comparing it against the average income of immigrants.
    A commenter wrote that the proposal would act as a barrier to 
immigrants with middle or lower class income and cited an analysis from 
the Pew Research Center that found immigrants age 16 and over who 
arrived in the U.S. in the past five years had median annual earnings 
of $24,000, and those who arrived in the U.S. in the last ten years had 
median annual earnings of $32,000. The commenter cited another analysis 
from the same organization showing the U.S. foreign-born population was 
44.4 million in 2017, and that 800,000 immigrants applied for 
naturalization in 2018. One commenter provided citations to various 
sources detailing the widespread lack of adequate savings among many 
Americans, particularly black and Latino households, and that the 
proposal would deprive families of the ability to work and pursue 
opportunities. The commenter said the proposal would cause 
``irreparable harm'' to families forced out of the legal immigration 
system by unaffordable fees.
    Response: DHS understands that the increase for the naturalization 
application may affect those applying. As explained in the NPRM, in 
crafting prior fee rules, DHS reasoned that setting the Form N-400 fee 
at an amount less than its estimated cost and shifting those costs to 
other fee payers was appropriate in order to promote naturalization and 
immigrant integration.\97\ DHS now believes that shifting costs to 
other applicants in this manner is not equitable given the significant 
increase in Form N-400 filings in recent years.\98\ Therefore, DHS will 
no longer limit the Form N-400 fee, thereby mitigating the fee increase 
of other immigration benefit requests and implementing the beneficiary-
pays principle. In this final rule, DHS institutes a fee of $1,160 for 
Form N-400 if filed online and a fee of $1,170 if filed on a paper form 
to recover the full cost of adjudicating the Form N-400.\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \97\ See, e.g., 75 FR 33461; 81 FR 26916.
    \98\ Based on filing volume trends in recent years, USCIS 
forecasts an increase of 82,827 Form N-400 applications, nearly a 10 
percent increase from the FY 2016/2017 fee rule forecast. See NPRM 
Table 4: Workload Volume Comparison.
    \99\ For more information, see Appendix VII: Final Fees by 
Immigration Benefit Request of the supporting documentation that 
accompanies this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: A commenter faulted USCIS' economic model for the Form N-
400 fee increases. The commenter wrote that USCIS increased the 
activity-based cost (ABC) model baseline with no explanation, failed to 
account for fee waivers, increased the model output for Form N-400 by 
18 percent, and failed to account for the cost-savings of online Form 
N-400 filings. A commenter stated that the proposal belies its 
``beneficiary-pays'' principle by charging naturalization applicants a 
higher amount than the cost of processing of their own applications, 
subsidizing other immigration-related expenditures. Likewise, another 
commenter wrote that the proposal arbitrarily departs from past 
practice of capping the ``model output'' increase to 5 percent, setting 
the new level at 18-19 percent. A commenter wrote that the proposed 
naturalization fee increase could actually be detrimental to USCIS 
finances, as fewer immigrants would apply. The commenter faulted USCIS' 
rationale as failing to discuss operational effectiveness despite 
increasing fees beyond projected processing volume increases and 
failing to justify a $745-per-hour processing cost for naturalization 
applications--a cost exceeding that charged by private lawyers to 
corporate clients. The commenter also cited Government Finance Officers 
Association guidelines in writing that high-demand benefits are made 
affordable by government entities.

[[Page 46858]]

    Response: DHS understands the commenter's concerns regarding the 
effect the fee increase on USCIS' financial well-being. DHS recognizes 
that, if the increase in fee for Form N-400 discouraged significant 
numbers of individuals from naturalizing, USCIS could realize less 
revenue than with a lower fee for Form N-400. However, DHS believes 
that most individuals will continue to value American citizenship, even 
if it is more expensive to naturalize. In the wake of past increases in 
the fee for Form N-400, USCIS has not experienced a decline in 
application volumes. DHS does not anticipate that Form N-400 
application volumes will decrease following the fee increase in this 
final rule.
    DHS notes that the critiques of its ABC model misunderstand what 
model outputs represent, how they incorporate fee waivers, and how they 
translate into final fees. DHS never limits the model output for any 
form type. The model output represents the estimated fee-paying unit 
cost for a given form. Meaning, the model output would recover the full 
cost of adjudicating that form type, given the anticipated fee-paying 
rate for that form. However, given that DHS determined to limit the fee 
increase for certain form types, USCIS must reallocate costs that will 
not be recovered by the lower, limited fees to other form types. Thus, 
the fees for most form types are greater than the calculated model 
outputs in order to generate revenue sufficient to cover the cost of 
adjudicating form types with fees held below the model output and 
ensure that USCIS achieve full cost recovery overall. DHS acknowledges 
that, in past fee rules, DHS has limited the increase in the fee for 
Form N-400 below the model output for that form. This choice forced 
other fee-paying applicants to pay higher fees and bear the cost of 
generating the revenue that was not recovered from the Form N-400 fees 
because of the lower fee. In the NPRM, DHS noted that it no longer 
believes this approach to setting the fee for Form N-400 is equitable, 
given high volumes of Form N-400 filings, the significant amount of 
costs other fee-paying applicants would have to bear if DHS limited the 
increase in fee for Form N-400, and its emphasis on the beneficiary-
pays principle of user fees. Therefore, DHS disagrees that this change 
in practice is arbitrary.
    The commenter is mistaken in calculating the cost per hour to 
process Form N-400 as $745. As with all USCIS fees, the fee for Form N-
400 reflects not only the direct costs of processing an individual Form 
N-400 filing but also the cost of providing similar services at no or 
reduced charge to asylum applicants and other immigrants. Furthermore, 
each fee incorporates costs related to USCIS overheads and general 
administrative costs. In this final rule, DHS establishes a fee of 
$1,160 for Form N-400 if filed online and a fee of $1,170 if filed on 
paper to reflect the full cost to USCIS of processing these filings. 
DHS believes it has fully justified these fees.
    Comment: Another commenter faulted DHS' abandonment of the 
``ability-to-pay'' principle, asking for more transparency as to the 
changes in N-400 trends and how other applicants subsidized 
naturalization. The commenter also stated that DHS' assumption that 
applicants will continue to submit applications regardless of their 
eligibility for a fee waiver is unfounded. The commenter provided 
another citation to the proposal where DHS appears to recognize that 
removing fee waivers would impact application decisions, and then 
states that it cannot predict the proposal's impact on applications. A 
different commenter stated that, in a footnote, USCIS indicates that 
the true intent of the proposal is to impose a ``self-sufficiency'' 
principle and impose barriers to naturalization contrary to 
Congressional intent. A commenter also stated that when President 
Johnson signed the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 into law, 
it ushered in our modern era with a more equitable system.
    Response: The quote of President Johnson cited by the commenter 
referred to the elimination of the previous quota system that had 
severely restricted the number of people from outside Western Europe 
who were allowed to immigrate to the United States. The 1965 Act did 
not discuss the fees for naturalization. The 1965 Act did not provide 
for specific fee exemptions or waivers. DHS considered the self-
sufficiency principles as established by Congress along with other 
provision of the law and the added cost to other fee-paying applicants 
and petitioners. DHS believes that it is neither equitable nor in 
accordance with the principle of self-sufficiency that Congress has 
frequently emphasized, to continue to force certain other applicants to 
subsidize fee-waived and reduced-fee applications for naturalization 
applicants who are unable to pay the full cost fee.
    Comment: A commenter contrasted the proposed rule against a speech 
from Vice President Pence where he stated, ``America has the most 
generous system of legal immigration in the history of the world,'' 
writing that the proposal would be inconsistent with this statement. 
The commenter also provided statistics of the number of immigrants who 
naturalize in the United States against higher figures from Australia, 
Canada, and the United Kingdom.
    Response: DHS does not agree that this final rule is inconsistent 
with the Vice-President's statement.\100\ The statement did not include 
any references to fee or fee waivers or exemptions, instead the 
statement references the ability of different people with different 
backgrounds to be able to naturalize. The rate of naturalization has 
increased over the years and DHS does not believe that this final rule 
would have a significant effect on the number of people filing Form N-
400.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \100\ Remarks by Vice President Pence at a Naturalization 
Ceremony, July 4, 2019, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-vice-president-pence-naturalization-ceremony (last visited March 9, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: A commenter claimed that USCIS has failed to provide the 
evidence necessary for the agency to save money by no longer providing 
printed N-400 forms for people with low technology literacy, requiring 
them to access the forms at public libraries and community 
organizations. The commenter wrote that USCIS has failed to account for 
the impact those savings had on the agency's budget, as well as on the 
ability of LPRs to submit their naturalization applications.
    Response: As the commenter points out, DHS is encouraging 
applicants to file online when they can, moving toward modernizing all 
of our services, minimizing the use of paper, and increasing agency 
efficiency through technology. It requires 10 days to receive forms 
after ordering them from the phone and mail service, as opposed to 
immediate access via the website. All USCIS forms are easily accessible 
by visiting the USCIS website, and applicants may either file 
electronically or download the form and submit it in paper format 
according to the form instructions. If an individual visits a USCIS 
office, we will direct them to digital tools and USCIS Contact Center 
phone number. Understanding some individuals may not have access to the 
digital tools, our staff will make them aware of resources, such as 
libraries that offer free computer online services, including many that 
offer a Citizenship Corner. USCIS works closely with accredited 
community-based organizations and local libraries to provide access to 
information and computers. Public libraries can be a resource for 
immigration information, and many have a Citizenship Corner where the 
public can visit and learn more about the citizenship process

[[Page 46859]]

libraries may also have computers that the public may use to access 
forms, complete, and print them. USCIS has enjoyed a costs savings from 
reducing the storage and mailing of paper forms, as well as destroying 
unused stocks of paper forms when versions changed, but not enough of a 
savings to have an appreciable effect on the new fees in this final 
rule.
    Comment: A commenter recommended several alternatives to the 
proposed fee increases, including bundling fees for Forms I-90 and N-
400, offering premium processing at a fee, offering tiered pricing for 
Form N-400, and offering fee reductions based on applicant's income 
taxes. A commenter suggested that USCIS adopt a sliding scale 
application fee for naturalization based on income. Another commenter 
suggested a payment installment plan for immigrants who cannot pay the 
full amount at once, as well as micro-loans. The commenter also 
suggested the creation of a citizenship foundation similar to that 
which funds the National Park Service.
    Response: As previously indicated, DHS recognizes that filing fees 
are a burden for some people of limited financial means. Creating and 
maintaining a new system of tiered pricing, family caps, installments 
plans, or micro-loans would be administratively complex and would 
require even higher costs than in the NPRM. Such payment systems would 
require staff dedicated to payment verification and necessitate 
significant information system changes to accommodate multiple fee 
scenarios for every form. The costs and administrative burden 
associated with implementing such a system would require additional 
overall fee revenue. However, as previously stated, the cost of fee 
waivers and reduced fees are borne by all other fee payers because they 
must be transferred to those who pay a full fee to ensure full cost 
recovery. DHS believes that it is more equitable to align with the 
beneficiary-pays principle. Thus, USCIS takes a relatively careful 
position with respect to transferring costs from one applicant to 
another through the expansion of fee waiver eligibility and discounting 
fees. To set fees at various levels based on income, as suggested by 
the commenter, would require deviation from the underlying fee-setting 
methodology and require some of the costs for those applications to be 
reassigned to other benefit requests. Therefore, DHS did not 
incorporate a reduced fee, sliding scale, or family cap in this final 
rule or the other suggestions provided by commenters.
    Comment: One commenter took issue with the use of terms like 
``moral turpitude'' and ``good moral character'' since these terms lack 
a legal definition. The commenter said the proposed fee increases would 
prevent many LPRs from pursuing citizenship, and that the lack of a 
legal definition for certain terms would increase the amount of time 
individuals are at risk of losing legal status.
    Response: DHS did not propose a change to the eligibility 
provisions for benefit requests such as adjustment of status to lawful 
permanent resident or naturalization, for which a ``crime involving 
moral turpitude'' and ``good moral character'' may be relevant 
statutory terms. Therefore, we are not including changes to those terms 
in the final rule.
b. Effect on Naturalization Applicants
    Comment: Many comments offered various comments on the effects of 
the proposed naturalization fee increase on naturalization applicants. 
Commenters wrote that the new fees:
     Would prevent residents from seeking citizenship, citing 
data on financial and administrative barriers as bars to 
naturalization.
     Will not just delay, but ultimately prevent low income and 
poor immigrants from naturalizing, and the U.S. is engaging in implicit 
racism, citing the U.S.'s history of denying citizenship based on race.
     The proposal would punish immigrants who did their utmost 
to obey immigration laws.
     The proposal would harm the Latino community--more than 
half of the immigrants currently eligible to naturalize are Latino 
while 71 percent of the population that face the greatest barriers to 
naturalization are Latino.
     Naturalization fees are a significant bar to Mexican 
immigrants becoming U.S. citizens with 13 percent of Mexican and 19 
percent of non-Mexican lawful immigrants identifying financial and 
administrative barriers, mainly the cost of naturalization, as a reason 
preventing their naturalization.
     2.1 million immigrants are eligible for naturalization in 
the state of California, and the new fee would severely affect 1 
million Californians including 768,024 that live in Los Angeles County.
     The proposal would increase immigrants' dependence on 
predatory financing in order to support their naturalization 
applications.
     Would harm eligible parents of U.S. children who will 
either have to pay a higher fee or forgo naturalization, subjecting 
themselves and their children to the stresses of uncertain status.
     The mental health problems and traumas faced by children 
of undocumented parents would be exacerbated.
     The increase is harmful--the United States Census Bureau 
reported that between 1970 and 2010 the percentage of foreign-born 
populations who naturalized decreased from 64 percent to 44 percent, A 
20 percent decrease in 40 years is a drastic drop and one reason for 
this is due to the increased in prices for naturalization applications.
     Naturalization provides personal security for immigrants, 
particularly those who are in danger of worker exploitation without the 
full legal rights of citizenship.
     Citizenship helps members of immigrant communities to feel 
secure enough to report crime, which improves neighborhood safety.
     Limiting working class immigration would be contrary to 
the interests of the U.S. society and economy.
     Naturalization boosts American democracy, economy, and 
diversity.
     Everyone benefits from residents naturalizing, citing a 
study showing that naturalization increases net taxable income and GDP.
     Naturalization increases individual earnings. A San 
Francisco Pathways to Citizenship Initiative study program's 
participants used financial assistance to afford the naturalization 
application fee. The funds provided by the city to support such fees 
``would be depleted almost immediately'' if the proposed rule goes into 
effect.
     Citizenship promotes social benefits, such as English 
proficiency, quality of employment, and buy-in to U.S. democratic 
principles.
     Naturalization improves immigrant language skills.
     If half of LPRs naturalized, GDP would increase between 
$37 and $52 billion annually.
     LPRs must navigate many hurdles to naturalize, and that at 
a certain point, the United States misses out on the benefits of high 
naturalization rates because of these hurdles. Naturalization boosts 
American democracy, economy, and diversity, citing a Catholic 
Immigration Network study.
     Naturalization increases civic engagement, naming many 
naturalized citizens who have gone on to hold elected office.
     A 2015 Urban Institute study shows that naturalization 
increased individual earnings by 8.9 percent, employment rates by 2.2 
percent, and

[[Page 46860]]

homeownership by 6.3 percent, with the earnings and employment 
improvements resulting in $5.7 billion of additional income in the 21 
cities studied and increases home ownership and incomes.
     If eligible immigrants naturalized, federal, state, and 
city revenues would increase by $20 billion while New York City 
government benefit expenditures would decrease by $34 million.
     A 2015 Urban Institute study demonstrates that if just 
half of eligible immigrants in the United States naturalize, it would 
increase GDP by $37-52 billion, annually, and if all eligible 
immigrants in 21 U.S. cities naturalized, home ownership would increase 
by more than 45,000 people and an additional $2 billion in tax revenue 
would be recognized.
     A 2002 Bratsberg et al. study showed that naturalization 
led to wage increases as observed in the same individuals over time.
     A 2012 Migration Policy Institute study shows 
naturalization contributes to increased economic growth through 
consumer spending.
     Several show the current application fee discourages 
naturalization, and that naturalization positively impacts wages, the 
economy, and immigrants' integration into society.
     A 2019 Migration Policy Institute study shows that 
naturalized citizens over the age of 25 have similar levels of post-
secondary education to U.S.-born citizens and that, through 
naturalization, these immigrants can better integrate into and 
contribute to their local communities. The naturalization fee increases 
have caused the number of immigrants eligible to naturalize but not 
doing so to 9 million, and the proposal would diminish U.S.-specific 
human capital.
     A 2019 Center for Migration Studies paper shows the impact 
of naturalization on college degree attainment, English-language 
skills, employment in skilled occupations, healthcare, poverty level, 
and home ownership.
    Response: DHS appreciates and acknowledges all of the positive 
aspects of naturalization. DHS does not intend for the new fees to 
prevent individuals from applying for naturalization, that they require 
applicants to depend on predatory financing to pay naturalization 
application fees, and we do not believe the rule will have those 
effects. Therefore, DHS declines to make any changes in this final rule 
on these bases.
    USCIS monitors the proportion of lawful permanent residents who 
naturalize over time. This analysis has a high degree of accuracy 
because it uses administrative data rather than survey data (as the 
Census does) to assess changes in naturalization patterns. The most 
recent published analysis shows that the proportion of LPRs 
naturalizing increased over time from the 1970s to 2004, despite the 
increase in the naturalization fee over that time period.\101\ DHS does 
not have any data that indicates that this trend would change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \101\ See USCIS, Trends in Naturalization Rates: FY 2014 Update 
(November 2016), available at https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Resources/Reports/Trends-in-Naturalization-Rates-FY14-Update.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: A commenter stated that all asylees rely on naturalization 
for the right to petition for certain family members. The commenter 
stated that with the additional financial burden of naturalization 
fees, family reunification for asylees will be delayed or prevented.
    Response: DHS recognizes that asylees may petition for family 
members after completing the naturalization process. DHS wants every 
person eligible to apply for naturalization to submit an application. 
Likewise, we encourage anyone eligible to petition for the immigration 
of qualifying family members. DHS does not believe that asylees would 
be unduly burdened by naturalization fees and does not agree that 
naturalization fees would prevent or delay family reunification for 
asylees. DHS is also unaware of any specific statutory provision 
requiring DHS to provide naturalization applications to asylees with 
limited fees. DHS declines to make any changes in this final rule in 
response to this comment.
    Comment: Another commenter stated that the NPRM would further 
disadvantage people with disabilities and chronic mental health 
conditions, contrary to Congressional intent to make immigration 
benefits available to eligible noncitizens regardless of disability. 
The commenter wrote that, in addition to the increased naturalization 
fees, people with disabilities and chronic mental health conditions 
often must pay to appeal erroneous findings by USCIS officers who 
conduct naturalization interviews with no medical training and make 
assumptions regarding their clients' disabilities.
    Response: DHS is adjusting its fees in this final rule to recover 
the estimated full cost of providing adjudication and naturalization 
services. As the commenter suggests, DHS is applying the fees in this 
final rule to all applicants regardless of their having a disability or 
not. The comment seems to equate physical disability and mental health 
conditions with poor financial condition, but DHS does not know that to 
generally be the case, and DHS is not basing fee policies on that 
assumption but rather emphasizing the beneficiary-pays principle. 
Further, USCIS monitors the proportion of lawful permanent residents 
who naturalize over time. This analysis has a high degree of accuracy 
because it uses administrative data rather than survey data (as Census 
does) to assess changes in naturalization patterns. The most recent 
published analysis shows that the proportion of LPRs naturalizing 
increased over time from the 1970s to 2004, despite the increase in the 
naturalization fee over that time period.\102\ DHS declines to make 
changes in this final rule in response to the comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \102\ See USCIS Trends in Naturalization Rates: FY 2014 
(November 2016) Update, available at https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Resources/Reports/Trends-in-Naturalization-Rates-FY14-Update.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. N-400 Reduced Fee
    Comment: Commenters stated that the fee waiver and partial fee 
waiver would be eliminated for families with income between 150 percent 
and 200 percent of the poverty level and almost eliminated for everyone 
else. A commenter indicating the eliminating the reduced fee for people 
with incomes from 150 to 200 percent of the FPG would make it too 
difficult for immigrants to afford citizenship. An individual commenter 
mentioned the fee waiver and partial fee waiver system strengthened by 
the Obama administration, and stated that this rule would eliminate 
these options for families with income between 150 percent and 200 
percent of the poverty level and almost eliminate waivers for everyone 
else.
    Response: DHS acknowledges that eliminating the reduced fee for the 
naturalization application will limit the number of people who receive 
a reduced fee and slightly increase the number of people who are 
required to pay the full fee. However, few applicants have requested 
the reduced fee since its creation and significantly fewer applicants 
than predicted took advantage of the reduced fee option. In other 
words, the reduced fee option was not widely received, and DHS does not 
believe its elimination will significantly hinder the number of people 
who cannot pay the full fee established in this final rule.
    The estimated total number of approved reduced fee requests in 
fiscal year 2017 was 3,624 (0.83 percent). The total number of denied 
reduced fee requests was 733. In total, DHS estimates the annual number 
of requests for a reduced Form N-400 fee that

[[Page 46861]]

would be filed absent the proposed change is 4,357 (0.6 percent). For 
comparison, the total number of Form N-400 filed in fiscal year 2017 
was 581,998. See Table 38 in the RIA.
    DHS proposes to eliminate the reduced fee in order to recover the 
estimated full cost for naturalization services. In addition, 
eliminating the Form I-942 will reduce the administrative burden on the 
agency to process the Form I-942. USCIS would recover the cost of 
adjudicating Form N-400 and not transfer Form N-400 costs to other form 
fees.
d. Case Processing
    Comment: A commenter wrote that the proposed naturalization fee 
increase is not supported by any improvement in quality of services. It 
added that, in 1998, INS announced a fee increase but claimed that it 
would only follow a reduction in the backlog and acceleration of 
processing speeds. The commenter contrasted this statement against the 
current backlog of 700,000, cited from a 2019 Colorado State Advisory 
Committee paper. The commenter also provided a lengthy quotation from a 
2017 OIG report stating that USCIS has introduced operational 
inefficiencies as processing times doubled and naturalization 
interviews were cancelled. The commenter mentioned the suspension of 
InfoPass services specifically as an example of diminished customer 
service.
    A commenter wrote that the proposal would compound policies made at 
the local level which are already increasing barriers to 
naturalization, such as the USCIS field office in Seattle's 2019 
decision to shift caseloads to offices more than 142 or 174 miles away.
    A commenter provided figures of the LPRs eligible to naturalize and 
the backlogs in Denver and that the fee increase will further deter 
eligible adults from naturalizing.
    A commenter claimed that without increasing fees, with automation 
and management reforms, the Form N-400 processing period in their 
region has decreased to an average of less than 12 months, undermining 
the necessity of a fee increase.
    Response: DHS does not believe the rule changes will delay 
processing or deny access. USCIS will adapt and change its process as 
necessary to avoid or minimize any delays in case processing. 
Nevertheless, by enabling USCIS to hire more employees to process 
requests, including requests on hand, USCIS also believes the new fees 
will help reduce backlogs.
25. Other Naturalization and Citizenship Forms
    Comment: A commenter opposed the Form N-600 fee increase, writing 
that USCIS would receive more revenue and avoid administrative 
difficulties if the fee were reasonable. A commenter opposed the fee 
increase for Forms N-600 and N-535 [sic], stating that no explanation 
has been provided to explain why those increases are necessary.
    Response: DHS disagrees with this comment. DHS calculated the 
estimated cost to USCIS of adjudicating Form N-600. This change aligns 
more closely with the beneficiary-pays principle to ensure that 
individuals who receive an immigration benefit or service from USCIS 
bear the cost of providing that benefit or service. Therefore, DHS 
believes the fee as established is reasonable based on USCIS costs.
    Comment: A commenter stated that the Form N-600 fee is especially 
cruel as it has been inflated for years, ``not getting their 
certificate of citizenship limits their college options, and most 
families have more than one child.''
    Response: DHS disagrees that the fees for Forms N-600 and N-600K 
were inflated for years. As noted in the FY 2016/2017 fee rule, the 
current fees for Forms N-600 and N-600K assumed that approximately one 
third of applicants would receive a fee waiver. See 81 FR 73928. To 
recover full cost, DHS set the fees for Forms N-600 and N-600K at a 
level for fee-paying applicants to cover the cost of fee-waived work. 
Id.
    In this fee rule, the fees for Forms N-600 and N-600K are 
decreasing mainly because of the proposed limitation of fee waivers, 
which will enable greater cost recovery for several form types and 
limit the need for cost reallocation to fee-paying applicants. The 
proposed fees provide for the full recovery of costs associated with 
adjudicating the forms. In addition, DHS is providing fee waivers for 
the humanitarian categories for Forms N-400, N-600, and N-600K.
    In addition, not obtaining a certificate of citizenship does not 
limit a person's college options because there are other means to 
establish citizenship. Upon meeting the requirements of INA 320, 
children of U.S. citizens automatically acquire U.S. citizenship. 
Applying for a certificate of citizenship is only one means to acquire 
proof of such citizenship. Applicants who acquired U.S. citizenship may 
also obtain a passport to establish proof of citizenship. Further, some 
colleges permit nonimmigrants and lawful permanent residents to attend 
college.
    Comment: Commenters opposed the proposed fees for the following 
naturalization and related forms:
     N-300, Application to File Declaration of Intention;
     N-336, Request for a Hearing on a Decision in 
Naturalization Proceedings (Under Section 336 of the INA); and
     N-470, Application to Preserve Residence for 
Naturalization Purposes.
    These commenters stated that immigrants who need to file these 
special forms would face additional barriers to naturalization.
    Commenters indicated that some immigrants use Form N-300 in order 
to work in certain states. The proposed rule would increase this fee by 
389 percent, to $1,320 or five weeks of minimum wage take-home pay.
    Some immigrants use Form N-336 to file an appeal if their 
naturalization application is denied by USCIS. The proposed rule would 
increase this fee by 151 percent, to $1,755 or seven weeks of minimum 
wage take-home pay. The commenter stated that USCIS provided no 
justification for its Form N-336 fee increase and that the increase 
would especially affect the most vulnerable populations by charging a 
total of $2,925 to navigate a faulty system.
    Some immigrants use Form N-470 if they plan to work abroad for a 
U.S. company, university, or government agency before applying for U.S. 
citizenship. The proposed rule would increase this fee by 351 percent, 
to $1,600 or six weeks of minimum wage take-home pay.
    The comment stated that in all of these cases, immigrants living in 
the United States could be prevented from increasing their income, 
obtaining the right to vote, and reuniting with family members abroad 
because they are unable to afford the proposed naturalization fees.
    Response: Consistent with full cost recovery and the beneficiary-
pays principle emphasized throughout this final rule, the new fees 
represents USCIS' estimated full cost of adjudicating the forms at the 
time of USCIS' FY 2019/2020 fee review. USCIS used all available data 
at the time it conducted its fee review to estimate the full cost of 
adjudication for benefit requests. DHS does not believe that the 
changes in the fees will limit the ability of noncitizens to obtain the 
required documentation to be eligible to work if qualified.

H. Comments on Changes to Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant 
Worker

    Comment: Multiple commenters objected to the increase in fees for

[[Page 46862]]

petitions requesting O and P nonimmigrant status. Commenters 
highlighted the increased costs and burdens to U.S.-based petitioners, 
including non-profit organizations, small entities, and cultural 
institutions. Some commenters objected to treating petitions for O and 
P visa classifications differently, as DHS proposed to create Form I-
129O for entities to petition for O visa classification and Form I-
129MISC to petition for P visa classification and other categories of 
nonimmigrant visas. A commenter wrote that the proposed Form I-129MISC 
would only further delay P-visa classification processing, especially 
as P, Q, R, and H-3 visa classifications are vastly different. Another 
commenter said the I-129MISC classifications are so vastly different 
that there is a higher risk that an officer will apply certain criteria 
to the P visa classification that is only applicable to another 
classification. A few commenters stated Form I-129MISC is an 
inappropriate option for P visa classification and instead suggest 
combining P visa classification form with Form I-129O or creating a 
separate P visa classification form to replicate I-129O with minor 
modifications.
    Response: DHS acknowledges similarities between the uses of O and P 
nonimmigrant visa classifications. However, USCIS currently records 
time per adjudication (i.e., completion rates) for Form I-129 petitions 
requesting O visa classification discretely so we are able to calculate 
a separate fee for the O nonimmigrant classification. Time spent 
adjudicating petitions requesting P visa classification are aggregated 
with the time spent adjudicating all of the nonimmigrant 
classifications requested using the new Form I-129MISC. Thus, USCIS is 
unable to distinguish the time spent adjudicating petitions requesting 
P nonimmigrant workers from the time spent on adjudicating requests for 
the other types of workers included in Form I-129MISC, and therefore we 
have not calculated a separate fee for the P classification. Therefore, 
DHS declines commenters' suggestions to charge the same amount for 
petitions requesting O nonimmigrant classification and P nonimmigrant 
classification and implements fees based on data that show 
adjudications of O nonimmigrant petitions require more staff, and are 
therefore more costly, than adjudications of petitions for nonimmigrant 
classifications that may be requested using Form I-129MISC. DHS will 
revisit the fees for all of the new Forms I-129 that are created in 
this rule in the next biennial fee review.
    Comment: Commenters on the effect of the religious worker program 
stated:
     That the proposed changes to Form I-129 unduly burden 
religious organizations because religious workers have limited means to 
petition for R nonimmigrants, hindering their ability to provide 
pastoral care while respecting vows of poverty.
     Petitioners requesting R nonimmigrant workers currently 
pay a $460 fee for Form I-129. Under the proposal, the fee would be 
$705, a $245 or 53 percent increase.
     The steep fee increases would have a chilling effect on 
U.S. religious workers and would burden religious orders and their 
vital work in American communities.
     International religious workers provide critical pastoral 
care and social services for American parishioners and communities.
     These fees would disproportionately affect small religious 
organizations that serve a charitable function in our society.
    Response: In this final rule, DHS adjusts the fees for all types of 
Form I-129 to reflect the estimated full cost of adjudication. DHS does 
not believe that the fee increases implemented in this final rule will 
impose unreasonable burdens on petitioners, churches, religious 
organizations, or small entities who wish to petition for a 
nonimmigrant religious worker. DHS realizes that many religious workers 
have limited means and some take a vow of poverty, but the R-1 
religious worker does not petition for his or her own employment and is 
not responsible for paying the Form I-129 fee, because the organization 
is required to submit Form I-129 and pay the fee. DHS declines to make 
changes in this final rule in response to these comments.
    Comment: One commenter noted that the changes to the way USCIS 
reviews and adjudicates H-1B petitions have resulted in slower 
processing times, shifting standards for approval of petitions, and an 
increase in Requests for Evidence (RFEs).
    Response: DHS is unsure how the commenter thinks changes in H-1B 
nonimmigrant adjudications impact this rulemaking. DHS is breaking the 
Form I-129 into several forms that will focus the information collected 
and instructions on the nonimmigrant category. DHS anticipates that 
this will result in more efficient completion and adjudication of the 
forms and declines to make changes in this final rule in response to 
the comment.
    Comment: Many commenters called the 25-person limit for Form I-129 
petition for H-2A, O, or P performers ``arbitrary.'' A few commenters 
stated that USCIS fails to provide any information or data supporting 
the 25-person limit or increased fees. One commenter questioned how 
USCIS determined their per worker/petition cost because it would cost 
the same to have a petitioner with one beneficiary as it would to have 
a petitioner with 25 beneficiaries. A few commenters suggested that the 
proposed 25-beneficiary cap as applied to arts ensembles would multiply 
costs for arts organizations and would preclude them from considering 
larger performing groups. The commenters also said the 25-beneficiary 
cap would create ``new risks for USCIS confusion'' and unnecessary 
processing delays. A commenter suggested that O- and P-nonimmigrant 
classifications also limit the numbers of beneficiaries on a single 
petition, reasoning that USCIS should not apply the same fee for cases 
with fewer beneficiaries. Some commenter's stated that the separating 
of I-129 will create confusion and delays.
    Response: DHS disagrees with commenters that the separating of Form 
I-129 will create confusion and delays. USCIS is limiting the number of 
named beneficiaries to 25 that may be included on a single petition for 
H-2A, H-2B, H-3, O,\103\ P, Q, E, and TN workers. As previously 
discussed in section I of the preamble of the NPRM, limiting the number 
of named beneficiaries simplifies and optimizes the adjudication of 
these petitions, which can lead to reduced average processing times for 
a petition. Because USCIS completes a background check for each named 
beneficiary, petitions with more named beneficiaries require more time 
and resources to adjudicate than petitions with fewer named 
beneficiaries. This means the cost to adjudicate a petition increases 
with each additional named beneficiary. Thus, limiting the number of 
named beneficiaries may ameliorate the inequity of petitioners filing 
petitions with low beneficiary counts who effectively subsidize the 
cost of petitioners filing petitions with high beneficiary counts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \103\ While O-1 petitions are limited to a single named 
beneficiary, a petition for O-2 nonimmigrant workers may include 
multiple named beneficiaries in certain instances. See 8 CFR 
214.2(o)(2)(iii)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS acknowledges similarities between the uses of O and P 
nonimmigrant classifications. Annual receipt data for each nonimmigrant 
classification petitioned for on Form I-129 can be found in the 
Regulatory Impact Analysis throughout Section (K) and more specifically 
Table 7. However,

[[Page 46863]]

USCIS currently records time per adjudication (i.e. completion rates) 
for Form I-129 petitions requesting O nonimmigrants discretely, but 
records time spent adjudicating petitions requesting P nonimmigrants 
aggregated form such that it is combined with the time spent 
adjudicating all classes of nonimmigrant classifications that may be 
requested using the new Form I-129MISC. Thus, USCIS is unable to 
distinguish the time spent adjudicating petitions requesting P 
nonimmigrants from the time spent on adjudicating requests for the 
other types of visas included in Form I-129MISC. Therefore, DHS cannot 
charge a separate fee for P nonimmigrants or charge the same amount for 
petitions requesting O and P nonimmigrants. DHS implements fees based 
on data that show adjudications of O nonimmigrant petitions require 
more staff, and are therefore more costly, than adjudications of 
petitions for nonimmigrant workers that may be requested using Form I-
129MISC. The evidence suggests that the additional fee in this final 
rule does not represent a significant economic impact on these 
entities.
    Comment: A few commenters wrote that applicants with one or two 
beneficiaries are subsidizing applications with multiple beneficiaries, 
which could further diminish, if not eliminate, farmers' margins. A few 
commenters indicated that limiting petitions to 25 named beneficiaries 
and requiring farmers to file separate petitions would create an 
immense paperwork burden; multiplying the costs to access the H-2A 
program; and increasing the workload for USCIS as well as for farmers 
who produce labor intensive agricultural commodities.
    Response: DHS agrees that petitions with one or two named 
beneficiaries subsidize petitions with greater numbers of named 
beneficiaries, because petitions with fewer named workers require less 
time to process but pay the same fee. In this final rule, DHS adjusts 
the fees for all types of Form I-129 to reflect the estimated average 
cost of adjudication for the relevant form. Setting the fee at the 
level of the average cost necessarily entails some cross-subsidization 
between petitions that are less costly to adjudicate and those that are 
more costly to adjudicate.
    DHS data indicates that the limit of 25 named beneficiaries per 
petition established in this final rule will significantly limit the 
amount of cross-subsidization between petitions with few named workers 
and many named workers. Previously a single petition might contain a 
single named worker or hundreds of named workers, implying a high level 
of cross-subsidization, given the disparity between the cost of 
adjudicating a petition with a single named worker and the cost of 
adjudicating a petition with hundreds of named workers. Limiting the 
number of named beneficiaries per petition to 25 effectively limits the 
amount of cross-subsidization per petition, because it limits the 
maximum disparity in the number of background checks to 24 (25-1) and 
overall cost of adjudications between petitions.
    DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in response to 
these comments.
    Comment: A few commenters suggested a flat application fee with an 
add-on fee per beneficiary.
    Response: DHS considered and rejected the approach suggested by the 
commenter. Past experience has demonstrated to DHS the complexity of 
administering sliding scale fees. DHS believes that the system 
implemented in this final rule of limiting an individual petition to a 
maximum of 25 named beneficiaries minimizes the administrative 
complexity, while also clearly delineating the cost for individual 
petitioners. DHS acknowledges that this system continues cross-
subsidization between petitions that include few named beneficiaries 
and those that include 25 named beneficiaries, but DHS determined that 
25 was a logical number because USCIS immigration services officers 
could generally adjudicate a petition with 1-25 named workers in 2 
hours. 84 FR 62309. DHS believes that the administrative simplicity of 
this system outweighs concerns about cross-subsidization.
    Comment: Some commenters generally opposed limiting the number of 
H-2A beneficiaries and increasing fees. One commenter opposed the fee 
changes for named and unnamed beneficiaries. The commenter stated DHS 
lacks a large amount of data, including the amount of time and effort 
required to process these petitions. Several commenters expressed 
support for USCIS lowering the fees for unnamed I-129 petitions, but 
opposed increasing the fees for a Form I-129 with named beneficiaries. 
One commenter stated that USCIS' justification for separating fees for 
named and unnamed petitions are valid, but due to the significantly 
higher filing fee for petitions filled with a named worker, petitioners 
will be incentivized to file unnamed worker petitions and require 
significantly more resources to be expended by the State Department in 
order for workers to obtain their visas. A commenter stated that the 
department failed to explain why it does not discuss an option of using 
improved technology to reduce processing time for named beneficiary 
petitions.
    Response: In this final rule, DHS establishes the fee for each Form 
I-129 subtype at the estimated average cost of adjudication. DHS used 
all available data at the time it conducted its fee review to estimate 
the cost of adjudication for Form I-129 subtype. DHS disagrees with the 
commenter who wrote that USCIS did not have sufficient data.
    DHS acknowledges that some petitioners may choose to file petitions 
for unnamed workers with a lower fee than petitions for named workers 
with a higher fee. However, choosing to petition for unnamed workers 
also incurs additional costs associated with consular processing. 
Furthermore, in some instances, petitioners may need to submit 
petitions for named workers. Thus, DHS does not believe its changes to 
the fee structure for petitions with named and unnamed beneficiaries 
will substantially change petitioner behavior.
    DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in response to 
these comments.
    Comment: A commenter stated that members of its trade association 
would face a 529 percent increase in filing costs because of the 
proposed Form I-129H2A changes. The commenter stated that this change 
is contrary to Congressional intent and that USCIS' justification 
relies on it performing duplicative background checks on workers who 
have already been vetted by the Department of State. A few commenters 
doubted that USCIS could use background checks to determine whether 
workers have left the country for 3 months after 3 years, reasoning 
that CBP officials do not record land-based departures from the 
country. One commenter suggested USCIS develop an entry and exit system 
to help track the amount of time a worker has spent in and out of the 
country and having an online system should expedite the process and 
allow USCIS and the petitioner to get an approval at a more efficient 
speed. Another commenter said that forgoing the full background check 
and instead just doing a shorter update background check on petitions 
for workers who already possess a visa and who are already in the 
United States could save extraordinary amounts of time, money, and 
effort.
    Response: USCIS must conduct full background checks on named 
workers and does not merely check to determine how much time the worker 
has spent

[[Page 46864]]

outside of the United States. In this final rule, DHS establishes the 
fee for Form I-129H2A at the level estimated to represent the full cost 
of adjudication. DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in 
response to these comments.
    Comment: Many commenters generally opposed the changes to the Form 
I-129 and its fees as it applies to the arts, writing that artists 
should be treated better and the arts should be promoted. A commenter 
stated that the proposal would diminish the quality of arts in the 
United States, as artists would be unable to afford to tour and make a 
living from their craft. Commenters indicated that the proposal would 
harm local communities, small businesses, and non-profits, as artists 
would be unable to afford to perform here. A commenter wrote that 
artists' contribution to the U.S. market is greater than what they 
actually ``earn,'' mentioning that artists help draw in international 
demand. Commenters also stated that international artists provide a 
vital service in promoting cultural exchange and U.S. soft diplomacy. A 
commenter wrote that its art school teaches Scottish music, and 
hindering the school's ability to procure Scottish talent would operate 
to the detriment of the school, its students, and the community it 
serves. One commenter stated their organization already navigates 
significant uncertainty in gaining approval for petitions, due to 
lengthy processing times, uneven application of statutes and policies, 
and extensive and even unwarranted requests for further evidence to 
support petitions. The commenter stated that the proposed fees would 
only exacerbate these issues for performers. A few commenters said this 
NPRM would make it harder for their businesses to hire foreign 
musicians. Some commenters said the proposal would create financial 
barriers that will harm U.S. arts organizations and the local economies 
these organizations support. The commenters stated that if artists are 
unable to come to the U.S., the public will be denied the opportunity 
to ``experience international artistry.'' One commenter that provides 
legal services to overseas artists and performance groups wrote that 
the proposal would negatively impact their business and its clients, 
many of whom are small businesses.
    Response: DHS agrees with the commenters' views of the arts a 
vitally important and beneficial. Nevertheless, the fees DHS 
establishes in this final rule are intended to recover the estimated 
full cost to USCIS of providing immigration adjudication and 
naturalization services. DHS does not intend to deter or unduly burden 
petitioners requesting workers in the arts, but any preferential 
treatment provided to petitioners for performers and musicians is borne 
by other petitioners, applicants, and requestors. DHS declines to 
require other applicants and petitioners subsidize the cost of 
petitioning for workers in the arts.
    Comment: Some commenters discussed the rule's impact on farmers and 
the H-2A program. Several commenters said their use of H-2A workers 
allows them to have trained and trusted labor that has been properly 
vetted through the USCIS system. Likewise, several commenters said the 
proposed increase of H-2A filing fees would be especially harmful 
considering the difficulty farmers have obtaining enough and dependable 
domestic workers. A commenter stated that the proposed increase of H-2A 
filing fees would contravene the Executive Order on Buy American and 
Hire American. In contrast, one commenter expressed support for 
increased fees and rationalized that fees would improve their ability 
to compete with farms that spend less on labor and make it more 
appealing for farms to consider hiring citizens.
    Response: In this final rule DHS adjusts the fees for all types of 
Form I-129 to reflect the estimated full cost of adjudication. DHS 
declines to make changes in this final rule in response to these 
comments.
    Comment: Multiple commenters referenced an OIG report titled ``H-2 
Petition Fee Structure Is Inequitable and Contributes to Processing 
Errors.'' A few commenters said USCIS uses this report as justification 
for their proposed changes, but they claimed the audit separates 
filings into small (1-10), medium (11-40) and large (more than 40) and 
does not suggest limiting the number of beneficiaries to specifically 
25. One commenter said the report explicitly refrains from recommending 
a change in fees, noting that collecting more detailed cost data will 
be critical for USCIS to ``inform its H-2 petition fee setting 
activities.'' Another commenter quoted the report saying that a ``flat 
fee is not consistent with Federal guidelines that beneficiaries pay 
for the full (or actual) cost of services provided or that established 
user fees be based on costs and benefits.''
    Response: DHS appreciates commenters' references to the report by 
the DHS Office of the Inspector General. As stated in the NPRM, DHS 
establishes separate fees of forms for different types of Form I-129 
filings to distinguish the different cost of adjudicating different 
kinds of petitions. DHS believes that the changes implemented in this 
final rule, including establishing a maximum limit of 25 named 
beneficiaries per petition, and differentiated fees based on whether a 
petition requests named or unnamed workers, are consistent with and 
responsive to the recommendation of the DHS OIG report.
    Consistent with the recommendations highlighted by commenters, DHS 
used detailed cost data to distinguish between the average cost of 
adjudicating petitions with named and unnamed beneficiaries where 
applicable. In establishing different fees that distinguish the 
differences in the average cost of adjudication, DHS addresses concerns 
that the previous flat fees were not consistent with the beneficiary-
pays principle of user fees.
    DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in response to 
these comments.
    Comment: A few commenters stated that USCIS does not provide any 
data, evidence, or information in its proposed rule regarding the costs 
associated with conducting site visits through the Administrative Site 
Visit and Verification Program (ASVVP). The commenters added that USCIS 
has failed to articulate how these site visit costs are not already 
covered by the $500 Fraud Prevention and Detection Fee and other 
related fees submitted by petitioners for certain categories of 
nonimmigrant workers, such as for certain H-1B and L workers. One 
commenter concluded that USCIS must disclose this data so that the 
public can fully evaluate whether the increased fees that USCIS is 
proposing accurately encompass the ASVVP costs associated with 
adjudicating certain categories of nonimmigrant workers.
    Response: DHS disagrees with the commenter's assertion that DHS 
failed to provide any data related to the costs of the ASVVP program. 
In the supporting documentation published on November 14, 2019 to 
accompany the NPRM, DHS identified $5.4 million in payroll and travel 
costs of the ASVVP program. As DHS described in the NPRM, USCIS 
attributed these costs to the relevant form types in proportion to 
their share of the total ASVVP costs of $5.4 million. Form I-129H1 
received $3.6 million of these costs while Form I-129L received $0.6 
million, Form I-129MISC received $1.0 million, and Form I-360 received 
$0.1 million. These figures do not sum to $5.4 million due to rounding.
    USCIS cannot use revenue from the statutory Fraud Prevention and 
Detection Fee to cover the costs of the ASVVP program. USCIS scopes all

[[Page 46865]]

activities funded by the Fraud Detection and Prevention Fee outside of 
its fee reviews, because DHS is unable to adjust the fee by rulemaking. 
Furthermore, USCIS, by statute, does not retain the entirety of the 
Fraud Detection and Prevention Fee. As explained in the NPRM, the USCIS 
FY 2019/2020 fee review, like previous fee reviews, estimates the costs 
to be recovered by fees deposited into the Immigration Examinations Fee 
Account. Unlike the fees addressed in this rulemaking, the Fraud 
Detection and Prevention Fee is not deposited into the IEFA. Instead, 
that revenue is deposited into the Fraud Detection and Prevention 
Account and is used for different purposes beyond the scope of this 
final rule. DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in response 
to the comment.
    Comment: A commenter opposed the increased L-1 application fees and 
took issue with USCIS' rationale that the fee is based on ``the 
completion rate for the average of L-1 petitions.'' The commenter 
stated that if USCIS diverted resources away from adjudicating L-1 
petitions, imposing adjudicatory criteria unauthorized by INA or USCIS 
regulations, and issuing unnecessary, duplicative RFEs, the completion 
rate for L-1 nonimmigrants would return to its historical norm.
    Response: USCIS used the most recent data available at the time it 
conducted the FY 2019/2020 fee review. Contemplating alternatives 
suggested by the commenter are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. DHS 
declines to make changes in this final rule in response to the comment.
    Comment: A few commenters wrote to oppose the fee increases for 
transitional workers in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
Islands (CNMI). These commenters stated the proposed fees would put a 
financial burden on businesses and the economic development of CNMI. A 
commenter wrote that the CNMI was still recovering from recent 
disasters and noted that the economy had barely stabilized after Super 
Typhoon Yutu hit in October of 2018. The commenter referred to a U.S. 
Department of the Interior report that documented the shortage of U.S.-
eligible workers affecting businesses in the Commonwealth and said the 
proposed fee increase of 53 percent for Petitions for a CNMI-only 
Nonimmigrant Transitional Worker would place a financial burden on 
businesses still recovering from disasters. The commenter requested 
that the increase for this petition be tabled, citing the provisions of 
U.S. Public Law 110-229 that detailed Congress' intent to grant the 
Commonwealth as much flexibility as possible in maintaining existing 
businesses and other revenue sources.
    Response: In this final rule, DHS establishes fees that reflect the 
average cost of adjudication. DHS declines to make other applicants and 
petitioners subsidize petitions for transitional workers in the CNMI 
and does not make changes in response to these comments.

I. Premium Processing

    Comment: Multiple commenters opposed the proposal to lengthen the 
timeframe for USCIS to take an adjudicative action on petitions filed 
with a request for premium processing from 15 calendar days to 15 
business days. Commenters stated that the proposed change would reduce 
the level of service that USCIS provides to petitioning entities and 
delay the arrival of greatly needed workers, thereby imposing an 
economic cost on petitioners. Multiple commenters said the relaxation 
of the premium processing deadline would result in slower 
adjudications, higher prices, and slowed hiring.
    Response: DHS acknowledges that some petitioners may wait up to 
four or more days longer for USCIS to take an adjudicative action on a 
petition for which a petitioner has requested premium processing 
service. DHS further acknowledges that this may result in slightly 
longer waits for workers for petitioning entities. However, DHS 
disagrees that adjusting the timeframe for adjudicative action on a 
petition for which premium processing service has been requested from 
15 calendar days to 15 business days would meaningfully harm 
petitioning entities. DHS was not able to quantify the estimated cost 
to petitioning entities of these additional delays.
    DHS is adjusting the timeframe for premium processing for multiple 
reasons. The current timeframe does not consider the days on which 
USCIS staff are unavailable to adjudicate cases, such as when there is 
a federal holiday or inclement weather preventing employees from coming 
to work. Therefore, a surge in applications may coincide with a period 
when USCIS staff have substantially less than 15 working days to 
receipt and adjudicate a petition with premium processing. In the past, 
there have been instances when USCIS was unable to adjudicate all of 
the petitions for which petitioners requested premium processing within 
the 15-calendar day timeframe. This led USCIS to refund the premium 
processing fee for petitions that were not adjudicated within 15 
calendar days and to temporarily suspend premium processing service. 
DHS believes that extending the premium processing timeframe from 15 
calendar days to 15 business days will allow USCIS adequate time to 
take adjudicative action on petitions and will provide petitioners with 
a consistent and predictable experience. Therefore, DHS declines to 
adopt the commenters' suggestions.
    Comment: Multiple commenters said that the premium processing delay 
would harm American businesses that face workforce gaps and that the 
cost of premium processing service reduces arts organizations' budgets 
for other activities. The commenters wrote that the change to the 
premium processing timeline would exacerbate these inefficiencies and 
increase uncertainty. Additionally, it would only further lower USCIS' 
accountability standards. A commenter similarly stated that increasing 
the premium processing timeframe would adversely impact businesses that 
pay premium processing fees because of their urgent workforce needs, 
and they suggested that further delays to the processing timeline would 
have a ``chilling effect'' on the overall process. One comment stated 
that changing the premium processing time will deter businesses from 
doing business in the United States. Another commenter added that in 
many cases, the issuance of an RFE is a stalling technique and that if 
DHS premium processing regulations to be 15 business days instead to 
calendar days that senseless and unnecessary RFEs will not continue.
    Response: DHS understands that sometimes a petitioning employer 
needs USCIS to take quick adjudicative action. However, as stated in 
the NPRM, DHS believes that changing from calendar days to business 
days may reduce the need for USCIS to suspend premium processing for 
petitions during peak seasons. This may permit USCIS to offer premium 
processing to more petitioning businesses each year. DHS believes the 
possibility that a petitioner requesting premium processing service may 
need to wait a few additional days for adjudicative action is a small 
cost to impose for being able to expand premium processing to more 
requests and reduce the likelihood for future suspensions of premium 
processing service. DHS does not think additional days will reduce the 
desire of businesses to request premium processing. DHS also disagrees 
with the assertion that USCIS issues RFEs as a stalling tactic. USCIS 
officers issue RFEs, in their discretion, to provide the petitioner an 
opportunity to supplement

[[Page 46866]]

the record when eligibility has not been established. USCIS officers do 
not send RFEs just because they are near the 15-day maximum time for 
action.
    Comment: Commenters requested that USCIS reinstate the 
``traditional expedite'' option for non-profits that seek to enhance 
the cultural and social interest in the United States.
    Response: USCIS has implemented an expedite policy for certain 
petitions in the past. Whether a petitioner seeks to enhance the 
cultural and social interest in the United States may have been 
considered when USCIS decided to favorably exercise its discretion when 
considering expedite requests. However, expedited processing is a 
policy that is implemented using guidance and not governed by 
regulations. DHS is amending USCIS' fees and fee-related regulations in 
this final rule that require notice and comment rulemaking to 
effectuate. Petitioners do not pay a fee when submitting an expedite 
request, and the decision to grant or deny an expedite request does not 
affect the fees required for the underlying petition. Thus, expedite 
policy is outside the scope of this rulemaking. DHS may consider 
whether to provide expedited processing for certain petitions based on 
its workload in other areas and ability to meet promised deadlines. 
Also, depending on the immigrant or nonimmigrant classification sought, 
the petitioner may request premium processing service by filing Form I-
907 and paying the associated fee. This final rule, though, makes no 
changes in response to this comment.
    Comment: A commenter asked if DHS would consider the additional 
revenue received by USCIS from higher premium processing fees as 
another revenue stream.
    Response: DHS understands that the commenter is suggesting that 
USCIS consider additional revenue from higher premium processing fees. 
The INA permits DHS to charge and collect a premium processing fee for 
employment-based petitions and applications. The fee revenue must be 
used to provide certain premium-processing services to business 
petitioners and to make infrastructure improvements in the 
adjudications and customer service processes. By statute, the premium 
processing fee must be paid in addition to any applicable petition/
application fee. The statute provides that DHS may adjust this fee 
according to the Consumer Price Index. See INA section 286(u), 8 U.S.C. 
1356(u); Public Law 106-553, App. B, tit. I, sec. 112, 114 Stat. 2762, 
2762A-68 (Dec. 21, 2000). DHS increased the USCIS premium processing 
fee in both 2018 and 2019. See 83 FR 44449 (Aug 31, 2018) (increasing 
the fee to reflect inflation from $1,225 to $1,410); 84 FR 58303 (Oct. 
31, 2019) (increasing the fee from $1,410 to $1,440).
    DHS regularly considers if USCIS' premium processing fee should be 
adjusted considering the rate of inflation, cost, and revenue needs. 
DHS prefers to adjust the premium processing fee outside of rules, like 
this one, that adjust fees comprehensively based on USCIS' full costs 
recovery model. The primary reason is because the premium processing 
fee may be adjusted by inflation; notice and comment rulemaking is not 
required. See 84 FR 58304. In addition, USCIS regularly analyzes 
whether to remove eligible categories based on its ability to meet 
demand or designate new benefit requests as eligible for premium 
processing in accordance with previous 8 CFR 103.7(e); new 8 CFR 106.4. 
For example, DHS recently determined that a few categories of 
employment authorization documents qualify as employment-based 
petitions and applications for business customers under INA section 
286(u), 8 U.S.C. 1356(u). Thus, USCIS is considering permitting premium 
processing requests for qualifying categories of employment 
authorization that may be requested on USCIS Form I-765. When and if 
USCIS decides to provide premium processing for additional requests, 
USCIS will announce on its website, those requests for which premium 
processing may be requested, the dates upon which such availability 
commences and ends, and any conditions that may apply. New 8 CFR 
106.4(e). This final rule, though, makes no changes in response to this 
comment and adjusts only USCIS' non-statutory, non-premium processing 
fees that DHS has the authority to adjust for full cost recovery via 
public notice and comment rulemaking.

J. 9-11 Response and Biometric Entry-Exit Fee for H-1B and L-1 
Nonimmigrant Workers (Pub. L. 114-113 Fees)

    Comment: DHS received many comments on the change in how DHS 
interprets the statutory language in Public Law 114-113 to change the 
benefit requests to which the fee would apply. The comments are 
summarized as follows:
     USCIS lacks the authority to create such a fee increase 
and that only Congress has this authority.
     USCIS lacks the authority to reinterpret language from 
Public Laws 111-230 (2010) and 114-113 (2015) and that the proposal 
invents ambiguity that does not exist with respect to the extension of 
the $4,000 or $4,500 fee to extension petitions.
     Extending the Public Law 114-113 fee for qualifying H-1B 
and L-1 petitions is contrary to Congressional intent and represents an 
effort to deter legal immigration from certain countries. DHS's 
interpretation of Public Law 114-113 is inconsistent with the agency's 
historical regulatory interpretation.
     Congress set the amounts and parameters for the fees and 
Public Law 111-230 (2010) and Public Law 114-113 (2015) do not support 
the revisions.
     Congress' consistent reenactment of the statute without 
changing the statute's meaning with respect to when the fee is required 
suggests Congressional intent that the scope of the 9-11 Response fee 
continue.
     Examples of Congress' use of the language in Public Law 
114-113 demonstrate that the DHS interpretation is not consistent with 
the intent of Congress.
     Congress provided clear and unambiguous language 
instructing DHS that the additional fee be combined with the fraud 
prevention and detection fee and the proposed change is an effort to 
thwart the plain instruction of Public Law 114-113.
     Language from Public Laws 111-230 and 114-113 support that 
the current statutory language was not ambiguous and the addition of 
the word combined in 2015 in Public Law 114-113 was not merely a 
clarifying edit as stated in the NPRM and Congress' actions over the 
past decade make it clear that the filing fee does not apply to 
extension petitions.
     Federal courts would not grant Chevron deference to the 
agency's effort to reinterpret the word combined because it is a non-
complex, nontechnical word in common public usage and the agency does 
not have special expertise in determining the definition of combined.
     This interpretation is not only correct, it is mandated by 
the statutory language.
     Congress limited the circumstances requiring the 9-11 
Response fee to only those for an application for admission and this 
language does not naturally apply to applicants for extension of time, 
for an amendment to terms, or for a change in status.
     The fees would negatively affect employers because it 
would require them to pay the fee multiple times for the same employee 
because the duration of an approval may be less than one year.
     Companies that hire from countries like India, where 
beneficiaries may wait

[[Page 46867]]

for an immigrant visa number for decades, would have to file extensions 
until the worker becomes a permanent resident.
     Because USCIS routinely limits the expiration date of Form 
I-797 approval notices to the end date of the specific contract, 
resulting in short approval periods, employers will be forced to file 
extension petitions once the Statement of Work is renewed, incurring 
new filing and legal fees. The fee would result in employers opting not 
to hire or extend nonimmigrant employees which would have negative 
impacts on workers, companies, and the overall economy. H-1B and L-1 
workers benefit the economy by increasing business efficiency, reducing 
costs for specialized work, and filling workforce gaps.
    Response: DHS disagrees with the commenters' assertions that the 
statutory language is unambiguous or that DHS does not have the 
authority to interpret the statutory language. The statutory text 
refers to, among other things, an increase to H-1B and L-1 filing and 
fraud prevention and detection fees. Such fees are typically collected 
by DHS, either by USCIS upon the filing of an H-1B or L-1 petition or 
by CBP for certain visa-exempt L-1 nonimmigrants. The statutory text 
clearly shows that Congress intended DHS, in addition to the U.S. 
Department of State, to administer Public Law 114-113 and collect the 
associated fees. Such authority is also consistent with the general 
authority provided to DHS under INA section 214(a) and (c)(1), 8 U.S.C. 
1184(a) and (c)(1), as well as, by incorporation, the specific 
authority provided in INA section 214(c)(12), 8 U.S.C. 1184(c)(12). DHS 
also explained in the NPRM how the statutory text is ambiguous, and 
that explanation remains unchanged.
    DHS understands that it must provide a valid explanation of its 
changed position and provide a reasoned explanation for disregarding 
facts that underlay the prior policy. See Encino Motorcars, LLC, v. 
Navarro, 136 S.Ct. 2117, 2125 (2016). DHS acknowledges the commenters' 
concerns about the effect of our change in interpretation on 
petitioning employers, and that the statute is open to different 
interpretations. However, DHS is providing considerable advance notice 
of this change to those affected by it, and the fee will only apply to 
future petitioners after the effective date of this final rule. DHS may 
change its initial interpretation when engaging in rulemaking and 
consider different interpretations when deciding to continue with a 
current policy. See, Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense 
Council, Inc. 467 U.S. 837, 863 (1984). As we stated in the NPRM, DHS 
believes that the Public Law 114-113 fee should apply to all extension 
of stay petitions because that interpretation gives meaning to all of 
the statutory text. That interpretation is also the most consistent 
with the goal of the statute to ensure employers that overly rely on H-
1B or L nonimmigrant workers' pay an additional fee by making the fee 
applicable to petitions, including extensions of H-1B or L status, 
filed by employers that meet the statute's 50 employee/50 percent test, 
regardless of whether or not the fraud fee also applies. 84 FR 62322. 
In other words, the fee should apply to all H-1B or L-1 petitions, 
whether for new employment or an extension of stay. Consequently, DHS 
makes no changes in response to these comments.
    Comment: A commenter requested that USCIS reinstate policy 
memoranda related to deference, such as the 2004 USCIS Memorandum, The 
Significance of a Prior CIS Approval of a Nonimmigrant Petition in the 
Context of a Subsequent Determination Regarding Eligibility for 
Extension of Petition Validity. The commenter also requested that USCIS 
enforce 8 CFR 214.2(1)(14)(i) to provide appropriate deference to 
officers' prior decisions regarding L-1. The commenter wrote that this 
would mitigate the need for fee increases for L1-nonimmigrant petition 
filings.
    Response: DHS has no intent to reinstate the 2004 memo in this fee 
rule. This final rule is focused on establishing appropriate fees for 
different nonimmigrant worker classifications and not altering existing 
evidentiary requirements, such as those found at 8 CFR 214.2(l)(14)(i). 
Consequently, the changes suggested by this commenter were not 
mentioned or proposed in the NPRM and are outside the scope of this 
final rule.

K. Comments on Other General Feedback

    Comment: Commenters wrote that fees should be raised based on 
inflation or social security cost of living increases, and that fee 
increases would be unnecessary if USCIS trained its officers.
    Response: As explained in the NPRM and this final rule, DHS adjusts 
USCIS' fee schedule to ensure full cost recovery. DHS cannot guarantee 
that future inflation rates or social security cost of living 
adjustments applied to fees will yield sufficient revenue to ensure 
full cost recovery. In other words, adjusting fees by inflation or 
social security cost of living adjustments may be insufficient to 
recover the full cost of providing adjudication and naturalization 
services. As a result, DHS rejects the notion that fees should be 
raised based on inflation or social security cost of living increases 
and will continue to comply with the CFO Act by evaluating fees on a 
biennial basis and recommending adjustments to USCIS' fee schedule, as 
necessary.
    Comment: A commenter opposed scenario A and stated that it would be 
unreasonable for the agency to compel the public to evaluate six 
different scenarios. The commenter added that, in order for the final 
rule to be valid, it must include only the fee schedule that the public 
was given adequate time to evaluate, and the agency may not use the 
final rule to codify a ``suite of alternative fee schedules'' that it 
can switch between at will without public comment.
    Response: DHS stated in the NPRM that subject to certain 
limitations, the proposed fees may change in the final rule based on 
policy decisions, in response to public comments, intervening 
legislation, and other changes. 84 FR 62327. To reduce the uncertainty 
that such conditions present to the affected public, USCIS proposed six 
fee scenarios that lay out what the fees would be if certain conditions 
materialize and present a range of fees. Id. DHS disagrees that the 
public is incapable of reviewing and commenting on multiple proposed 
fee scenarios. The fee schedule adopted in this final rule falls within 
the range of the six scenarios. The policies implemented in this final 
rule are the same, or are logical outgrowths of, those contained in the 
NPRM.
    The intent of the comment period provided under the APA is to allow 
agencies to consider public feedback on proposed rules and make changes 
as appropriate. Because a single change made in response to public 
comments may affect multiple fees, it is impossible to provide a final 
set of fees in a NPRM unless it were to be adopted without any 
modification, thereby negating the value of public feedback. DHS 
declines to make any adjustments in the final rule in response to these 
comments.
    Comment: A commenter said the severability provision suffers from 
``logical outgrowth'' concerns, stating that it would do nothing to 
protect a final rule if key provisions of the proposed rule changed so 
much in the final rule that the public was not given fair notice. In 
contrast, a commenter stated they ``wholly'' agreed with the 
severability provision because the provisions each part function 
independent of other provisions. The commenter supported codifying the

[[Page 46868]]

intent that provisions be severable to protect the goals of the 
proposed rule.
    Response: DHS is unsure of the relationship between a logical 
outgrowth and severability to which the commenter refers. DHS is making 
no changes in this final rule that the public would not view as a 
possibility based on the contents of the proposed rule. DHS realizes 
that many parts of this final rule are interrelated, but most are 
severable and can be implemented independently from the remainder of 
this final rule's provisions.
    DHS declines to make any adjustments in the final rule in response 
to these comments.
    Comment: A commenter wrote that DHS should allow applicants to 
elect their delivery method for their secure document, DHS failed to 
justify why the agency is adopting Signature Confirmation Restricted 
Delivery (SCRD) to deliver secure documents, and DHS should publish a 
notice in the Federal Register each time USCIS proposes to add SCRD to 
any additional document beyond Permanent Resident Cards, Employment 
Authorization Cards, and Travel Booklets. One commenter supported SCRD 
as the sole method of delivery for secure documents. Another commenter 
wrote that it is an unnecessary burden to place on low-income or rural 
residents to travel to the post office or arrange to hold a secure 
document for pick-up.
    Response: USCIS may use the United States Postal Service (USPS) 
Secure Confirmation Restricted Delivery (SCRD) service for delivery of 
all USCIS secure identification documents: Permanent Resident Card, 
Employment Authorization Document, and Travel Document Booklets once 
this final rule is effective. New 8 CFR 103.2(b)(19)(iii)(A). USCIS 
already uses SCRD when documents are returned by USPS as undeliverable 
after being sent by Priority Mail with Delivery Confirmation. USCIS 
plans to use only USPS initially for SCRD when appropriate because only 
the USPS can deliver to post office boxes and military addresses (i.e., 
APO addresses). Other delivery services like FedEx or UPS would just 
leave the package on the doorstep, require a signature, or require it 
to be picked up. In addition, the current application process does not 
support choosing a different delivery method, although DHS is exploring 
more delivery methods as a future capability.
    USPS's Signature Confirmation Restricted Delivery (SCRD) product 
requires the addressee to provide proof of identification and sign for 
delivery of their secure document. Applicants may also designate an 
agent to sign on their behalf, by notifying USPS and completing PS Form 
3801, Standing Delivery Order, or PS Form 3801-A, Agreement by a Hotel, 
Apartment House, or similar. SCRD permits USCIS and applicants to track 
their document utilizing the USPS website up to when the document is 
delivered. The authority for USCIS to use the SCRD process will improve 
tracking and accuracy of delivery and will improve resolution of 
questions from applicants. Recipients will also have the ability to 
change their delivery location by going to the USPS website and 
selecting ``hold for pickup'' to arrange for pickup at a post office at 
a date and time that suits them. It is not unnecessarily cumbersome or 
unreasonable to expect document recipients to undertake the time and 
expense to ensure that documents as important as those issued by USCIS 
get into the right people's hands.

L. Cost Analysis and DHS Rationale for Fee Adjustments

    Comment: Many commenters stated that USCIS proposed a 21 percent 
fee increase without evidence that it will improve immigration benefit 
services. Some commenters suggested that USCIS should find ways to 
revise the NPRM and include data that would make the connection between 
fee and efficiency increases in the adjudication process, as currently 
there is no evidence linking the two. Other commenters wrote that USCIS 
should rescind inefficient policies rather than increase fees to 
subsidize them, higher fees pass the costs of USCIS inefficiency to the 
public, fee hikes are not justified because USCIS has record long 
processing times, and needs to revert to its prior procedures for 
processing cases before increasing fees.
    Response: As explained in the NPRM, USCIS considered all cost and 
operational data that was available at the time it conducted the FY 
2019/2020 fee review, including data related to potential cost-saving 
measures. It does not account for recent cost-saving initiatives for 
which data was not yet available at that time. However, USCIS will 
evaluate and incorporate any relevant cost-savings data into its next 
biennial fee review. To the extent that potential process efficiencies 
are recognized in the next biennial fee review, cost-savings may lessen 
the impact of future fee adjustments.
    Similarly, DHS recognizes that certain USCIS policies may increase 
the cost of completing its work. USCIS accounted for those cost 
increases where it had data available at the time it conducted the FY 
2019/2020 fee review. It does not account for recent policy initiatives 
that may increase costs for which data were not available at the time 
of the FY 2019/2020 fee review. In its next biennial fee review, USCIS 
will continue the practice of using all available data to determine 
total costs and appropriate fees to recover those costs.
    DHS believes that USCIS policies are necessary for the agency to 
effectively achieve its mission and fulfil statutory mandates. USCIS 
faithfully adheres to immigration law and carefully considers the pros, 
cons, costs, and ramifications of all policy initiatives it undertakes. 
In its FY 2019/2020 fee review, USCIS estimated total costs to the 
agency of providing immigration adjudication and naturalization 
services. In the NPRM and this final rule, DHS has fully explained and 
justified the cost increases that necessitate USCIS fee adjustments.
    Comment: Another commenter criticized USCIS' use of the ABC model 
to predict the cost of adjudicating forms. The commenter wrote that the 
model predicts different costs in 2019 compared to 2016 with no 
explanation, USCIS increased the ABC model baseline with no explanation 
and USCIS' explanation for ``low volume reallocation'' is used as a 
pretext for the Department's policy priorities.
    Response: USCIS' cost projections for the FY 2019/2020 biennial 
period have increased relative to the FY 2016/2017 biennial period. 
However, DHS disagrees with the commenter's assertion that it provided 
no explanation of the change in USCIS' costs between 2016 and 2019. The 
NPRM provides USCIS' FY 2018 AOP amount used as a baseline to inform FY 
2019/2020 cost projections. It also explains projected cost increases 
over the FY 2019/2020 biennial period from that FY 2018 baseline, 
including the need for additional staff, pay adjustments for existing 
staff, and other net additional costs. See 84 FR 62286 (Nov. 14, 2019). 
Additionally, DHS clarifies that USCIS' ABC model does not predict 
costs. Instead, it assigns cost projections to operational activities 
and then to immigration benefit requests as explained in the supporting 
documentation that accompanies this final rule.
    DHS categorically denies that ``low volume reallocation'' or ``cost 
reallocation'' is a pretext with any intent other than to exercise its 
discretion to limit the fee for certain applications and petitions in 
recognition that fees set at the ABC model output for these forms would 
be overly burdensome and possibly unaffordable for the affected

[[Page 46869]]

applicants, petitioners, and requestors.\104\ In its discretion, DHS 
determined that it would be appropriate to limit the fee increase for 
the following forms, while also rounding to the nearest $5 increment:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \104\ DHS may reasonably adjust fees based on value judgments 
and public policy reasons where a rational basis for the methodology 
is propounded in the rulemaking. See FCC v. Fox Television Stations, 
Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 515 (2009); Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State 
Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion,
     Form I-360, Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er) or Special 
Immigrant,
     Form I-600, Petition to Classify Orphan as an Immediate 
Relative,
     Form I-600A, Application for Advance Processing of an 
Orphan Petition,
     Form I-600A/I-600, Supplement 3, Request for Action on 
Approved Form I-600A/I-600,
     Form I-800, Petition to Classify Convention Adoptee as an 
Immediate Relative,
     Form I-800A, Application for Determination of Suitability 
To Adopt a Child From a Convention Country, and
     Form I-800A, Supplement 3, Request for Action on Approved 
Form I-800A.
    In the NPRM, DHS explained that limiting the fee increase for these 
forms requires DHS to shift the costs to other fee-paying applicants, 
petitioners, and requestors via increased fees for other forms. If 
USCIS did not perform cost reallocation, then fees for other 
applications and petitions would be lower than those implemented in 
this final rule, and USCIS would not recover its estimated full cost of 
providing immigration adjudication and naturalization services. As 
explained in the NPRM, DHS determined that it would deviate from 
previous fee rules by not limiting the fee increase for the following 
forms:
     Form I-601A, Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver,
     Form I-765, Application for Employment Authorization,
     Form I-929, Petition for Qualifying Family Member of a U-1 
Nonimmigrant,
     Form N-300, Application to File Declaration of Intention,
     Form N-336, Request for a Hearing on a Decision in 
Naturalization Proceedings,
     Form N-400, Application for Naturalization, and
     Form N-470, Application to Preserve Residence for 
Naturalization Purposes.
    DHS outlined in its NPRM that other fees would be lower in 
recognition of additional revenue anticipated from the fee increases 
for these forms. The primary objective of not limiting the fee increase 
for these forms is to reduce the cost burden placed upon other fee-
paying applicants, petitioners, and requestors.
    DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in response to the 
comment.
    Comment: Commenters attended a February 3, 2020 meeting with USCIS 
to observe the ABC cost modeling software. In follow-up comments, the 
attendees said that many questions remain outstanding about how USCIS 
developed its proposal. Many of their follow-up comments were the same 
as those made by other commenters, which are responded to in other 
sections of this preamble. Some of their comments were unique due to 
observations of the software, including:
     Why have the costs for Form N-400s risen so dramatically,
     Can USCIS explain the 900 line items in the budget,
     Scenario modeling other than references to the six 
Scenarios A-F as described in the proposed rule, and
     USCIS explained that cost reallocation takes place outside 
of the ABC model but did not show the spreadsheet.
    Response: In its NPRM, DHS provided the public with an opportunity 
to request an appointment to view the ABC software that USCIS uses to 
help calculate immigration benefit fees. See 84 FR 62281. The purpose 
of the February 3, 2020 meeting was to provide an overview of the 
software and demonstrate how it works. In other words, USCIS allowed 
these public commenters (who requested an appointment) to view the 
software and showed them how it leverages operational data inputs 
(i.e., FY 2019/2020 cost baseline, receipt volume projections, and 
completion rates) to determine the activity costs and fee-paying unit 
costs that inform proposed fees. A discussion regarding cost increases 
associated with Form N-400 and a detailed explanation of each USCIS 
budget line item was outside the scope of this meeting, which was 
focused on the ABC software. USCIS officials did not provide 
deliberative materials or supplemental information to these public 
commenters that is not in the record for the NPRM and in the docket. 
Although briefly discussed, the public commenters did not specifically 
ask USCIS officials during the meeting to view the separate spreadsheet 
used to calculate cost reallocation. However, as explained in the 
supporting documentation that accompanies this final rule, cost 
reallocation is simply the process USCIS uses to reassign costs to each 
form fee to ensure full cost recovery. Total reassigned costs are the 
sum of the products of the fee-paying volume and model output for those 
forms with fees held below the model output, less the sum of the 
products of the fee-paying volume and the final fees for those same 
forms. Explained another way, a spreadsheet assigns the cost of limited 
fee increases or workload without fees to the fees that DHS does not 
limit for various policy reasons. We call this process cost 
reallocation. USCIS multiplies the fee-paying receipt forecast by the 
model output for each form. This calculates a total cost for that form. 
For the fees that DHS does not limit, we use the total cost for each 
form to reallocate the cost of limited fee increases or workload 
without fees. As a result, forms with the highest cost receive a larger 
share of cost reallocation. While terminology may have been 
different,\105\ this is the same process that DHS used in the previous 
three fee rules. See 84 FR 62294. DHS believes that assigning more 
costs to forms with the highest cost is in line with the beneficiary 
pays principal emphasized throughout this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \105\ Previous proposed IEFA fee schedules referred to limited 
fee increases as ``low volume reallocation'' or ``cost 
reallocation.'' The FY 2016/2017 proposed fee schedule used both 
phrases. See 81 FR 26915. The FY 2010/2011 and FY 2008/2009 proposed 
fee schedules used the phrase ``low volume reallocation.'' See 75 FR 
33461 and 72 FR 4910, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in response to 
these comments.
    Comment: Another commenter discussed information needed, but not 
provided at the meeting (even upon request in some cases) in order to 
understand how the software works. Because USCIS has failed to provide 
stakeholders with the opportunity to analyze the entire set of relevant 
information that USCIS has used to calculate the proposed new fees, the 
commenter opposed the entire new rule and requested that USCIS continue 
using the current fee schedule until USCIS provides access to the 
``FULL SET'' of information it used and enough organized time to submit 
comments.
    Response: The purpose of the February 3, 2020 meeting was to 
provide an overview and demonstration of the ABC software that USCIS 
uses to calculate immigration benefit fees. As was offered in the NPRM, 
USCIS officials provided the attendees with complete information on the 
inputs for the fee calculations and explained how the software works. 
An attendee posed several questions that would have

[[Page 46870]]

required USCIS to provide deliberative information, granular 
assumptions underlying all aspects of the USCIS budget, an in-depth 
explanation of particular fee adjustments, and policy rationale 
associated with the Form N-400 fee (in excess of what is in the NPRM 
and supporting documentation). The questions asked went beyond the 
software demonstration, would have expanded the meeting considerably, 
and would have provided the attendee additional information that was 
not relevant. DHS believes that all relevant information is readily 
available in the NPRM and supporting documentation.
    DHS declines to make changes in this final rule as a result of the 
comment.
1. Workload Projections
    Comment: Multiple commenters stated that USCIS used unreasonable 
workload receipt projections in its cost model. One commenter cited 
figures in Table 5 of the NPRM detailing the average annual fee-paying 
receipts projection and said that they do not reflect the stated 
subtotals and grand totals. Similarly, another commenter said USCIS has 
not explained the source for its data on volume projections entered 
into the ABC model. Commenters also highlighted concerns with projected 
workload and fee-paying receipts for certain individual form types such 
as Form I-526.
    Response: DHS acknowledges that workload receipt volume projections 
used in the FY 2019/2020 fee review did not materialize in FY 2019 
exactly as forecasted. USCIS' Volume Projection Committee (VPC) 
developed workload volume projections for the FY 2019/2020 fee review 
in FY 2017. The VPC considers all available data at the time it 
finalizes projections, including statistical forecasts for each form, 
analysis of recent trends, and consideration of future policy 
initiatives that are known at that time. The VPC integrates this 
information with subject matter expertise and judgement to provide 
unified receipt volume projections by form type for use in the biennial 
fee review and other operational planning purposes.
    Certain filing trends have changed since USCIS forecasted the FY 
2019/2020 fee review workload and fee-paying receipt volumes. USCIS 
simply cannot predict all filing changes that will affect actual 
receipt volumes. USCIS used the best information available at the time 
it conducted the FY 2019/2020 fee review to develop workload and fee-
paying receipt volume forecasts.
    DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in response to 
these comments.
    Comment: Some commenters stated that USCIS based its workload 
receipt forecasts on limited and unrepresentative data, using data only 
from June 2016 to May 2017. Commenters stated that USCIS did not 
explain why it chose this period. A commenter also said that USCIS' 
fee-paying volume assumptions reflect ``filing trends and anticipated 
policy changes,'' but it is not clear how USCIS accounted for these 
factors. Another commenter said that projected volumes do not account 
for current processing times. Estimates used FY 2016-2017 data, but 
processing times have increased since then.
    Response: The commenters are generally mistaken. DHS did not use a 
single 12-month period of data to project anticipated workloads for the 
FY 2019/2020 biennial period. To establish workload projections, USCIS' 
VPC always evaluates the best available information, including 
historical application volumes and trends, including data that extend 
far beyond a single 12-month period. For example, USCIS used 10 years 
of data to estimate Form I-90 renewals. In accordance with this 
procedure, USCIS evaluated all available information at the time it 
conducted the FY 2019/2020 fee review to establish its workload 
projections for the biennial period. See 84 FR 62289. Therefore, DHS 
rejects the claims that its volume forecasts are unsubstantiated.
    USCIS did use data from the June 2016 to May 2017 period to 
estimate a proportion of individuals who pay the filing fee by form 
type. In its NPRM, DHS referred to this proportion as ``fee-paying 
percentage.'' See 84 FR 62290. DHS used this data to calculate fee-
paying volumes for each form type under current policy and to estimate 
the effects of policy changes in the NPRM. DHS used data from the June 
2016 to May 2017 period because it was the most current data available 
at the time USCIS conducted the FY 2019/2020 fee review and using a 
full year of data can smooth out fluctuations that may occur from month 
to month. DHS believes that use of this data is correct and appropriate 
and declines to make changes in this final rule in response to these 
comments.
    Comment: A commenter wrote that the NPRM does not make clear 
whether projected receipts only include new applications anticipated in 
2020, or also includes applications in the backlog.
    Response: DHS reiterates that all workload figures in this final 
rule are projected volumes and do not include existing pending 
caseload. 84 FR 62288 (stating that revenue estimates were based on 
projected volumes).
    Comment: A commenter who attended the February 3, 2020 software 
review meeting at USCIS stated that evidence does not support the 
projected figure for future Form N-400 filings. The commenter stated 
that receipts may decrease because of the fee increase and elimination 
of fee waivers. The NPRM says USCIS adjudicated 830,673 Forms N-400 in 
FY 2016/2017 and expects to adjudicate 913,500 in the FY 2020-21 
biennium. The commenter understood from the meeting that USCIS 
``surveyed its staff,'' but said it does not know how staff came up 
with the application volume data to arrive at their volume projections. 
The commenter questioned USCIS' assertion that they will receive more 
N-400s than in the previous year given the drastic fee increases the 
agency seeks.
    Response: DHS used the best information available at the time USCIS 
conducted the FY 2019/2020 fee review to develop receipt volume 
projections. The VPC considered all relevant statistical forecasts, 
recent trend analysis, and subject matter expertise. It also considered 
the potential effects of future policy changes. The VPC does not survey 
staff generally. Instead, the VPC considers input of subject matter 
experts in conjunction with statistical forecasts to determine a final 
volume forecast.
2. Completion Rates
    Comment: A commenter wrote that USCIS should use completion rates 
to estimate all activity costs as was done in the previous USCIS fee 
rulemaking. A commenter wrote that the NPRM provides only some 
completion rates, but the information by itself is not useful in 
assessing justifications for proposed fee increases. A commenter wrote 
that Table 6 in the NPRM demonstrates that completion rates for most 
forms are as low as 1-2 hours, indicating that most forms include fees 
at a cost of hundreds of dollars an hour. A commenter wrote that the 
completion rates for Form N-400 with a filing fee of $1,170 come out to 
a cost of $745.22 an hour, whereas an EB-5 form for a wealthy investor 
includes a filing fee of $4,015 at a rate of $464 an hour. The 
commenter asked why it costs USCIS so much less to work on Form I-526, 
which is a much more complicated and time consuming petition requiring 
very specialized and more experienced officers, than that required to 
adjudicate Form N-400. Other commenters also mentioned the disparate 
hourly rates between Form N-400 and EB-5 workload, stating that the 
proposed fees

[[Page 46871]]

are not supported by the costs of completion and that the cost per 
completion rate for these forms shows the fees are a wealth test.
    Response: It is not accurate to say that USCIS used completion 
rates to estimate all activity costs in the previous rulemaking. In the 
last three fee rules, USCIS used completion rates to assign costs from 
the Make Determination activity to individual cost objects (i.e., 
forms). USCIS continued this approach in the FY 2019/2020 fee review. 
The fees DHS enacts in this final rule are based on the same 
methodology that was used in previous fee rules.
    DHS understands the skepticism induced by simply dividing a form's 
proposed fee by the completion rate in an attempt to estimate the 
hourly processing cost. However, the calculation performed by the 
commenter does not accurately represent the per hour cost of 
adjudicating a particular form. Such a calculation presumes that all 
costs are associated with the Make Determination activity and ignores 
the costs associated with other activities, such as the Issue Document 
activity, that are not based on completion rates. In addition, all fees 
greater than the model output (i.e., receive cost reallocation) 
represent the full amount of both the estimated cost of adjudicating 
the form and other costs associated with providing similar services at 
no or reduced charge to asylum applicants and other immigrants. USCIS' 
fees must recover estimated full costs, not just the direct costs to 
adjudicate forms.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \106\ See FY 2019/2020 Immigration Examinations Fee Account Fee 
Review Supporting Documentation with Addendum, which is part of the 
docket for this final rule. It provides more information on how 
USCIS conducted the fee review and defines the activities in it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in response to 
these comments.
    Comment: A commenter criticized USCIS for not disclosing actual 
case completion per hour statistics in the NPRM or supporting 
documentation.
    Response: DHS provided completion rates (hours per completion) in 
Table 6 of the NPRM. See 84 FR 62292. Appendix Table 10 of the 
supporting documentation that accompanies this final rule also includes 
them.
    Comment: A commenter wrote that USCIS does not explain whether 
prior year expenses used in calculations for immigration application 
fees under Section IV(B) include activities that courts later enjoined, 
or whether the calculation included legal costs related to litigating 
the issues in court. If so, the commenter asked that USCIS recalculate 
expense and completion rates.
    Response: As explained in the NPRM, proposed fees are informed by 
cost projections for the FY 2019/2020 biennial period. See 84 FR 62888. 
DHS does not use prior year expenses to calculate immigration benefit 
request fees. Additionally, as stated in the supporting documentation 
that accompanies this final rule, USCIS does not track actual costs by 
immigration benefit request. Therefore, DHS does not believe that an 
additional explanation is necessary and declines to make changes in 
this final rule in response to the comment.
3. USCIS Staffing
    Comment: Multiple commenters wrote that the NPRM seeks to justify 
fee increases by a need for more staffing, yet USCIS has employees 
performing enforcement work for ICE and CBP. Other commenters supported 
the addition of employees to improve USCIS case processing times.
    Response: In response to the migration crisis at the United States 
southern border, USCIS did provide staff on detail to ICE for clerical 
assistance in the creation and management of immigration case files. 
USCIS detailed the staff to ICE without reimbursement as provided in 
law. See Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Humanitarian 
Assistance and Security at the Southern Border Act, 2019, Public Law 
116-26, tit. III (Jul. 1, 2019). This temporary support to ICE 
represented a miniscule proportion of total USCIS staff. Marginal costs 
associated with this effort are not in this final rule, as USCIS did 
not assume an additional staffing requirement for this workload in the 
FY 2019/2020 fee review. Additionally, DHS does not assign USCIS 
employees to perform enforcement work for ICE and CBP.
    DHS proposed to hire additional USCIS employees for the reasons 
stated in the NPRM. USCIS estimates that it must add an additional 
1,960 positions in FY 2019/2020 (relative to FY 2018 authorized 
staffing levels) to address incoming workload.\107\ However, the fee 
schedule that has been in place since December 23, 2016 is insufficient 
to fund this additional staffing requirement. The total estimated 
staffing requirement of 20,820 in this final rule represents an 
increase of 6,277 or 43 percent from the FY 2016/2017 fee rule 
(14,543). DHS believes that this estimate is lawful and fully justified 
based on the best information available to USCIS at the time it 
conducted the FY 2019/2020 fee review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \107\ This represents 138 fewer positions than reflected in the 
NPRM due to the removal of estimated additional staff associated 
with DACA. See the Form I-821D, DACA Renewal Fee section for 
additional information regarding why DHS is not implementing a fee 
for Form I-821D in this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Another commenter said USCIS indicates that it uses a 
staffing model to predict needs based on workload receipts and target 
processing times, but USCIS has not identified target processing times 
or described its method for calculating workload receipts, other than 
to explain that a committee looked at trends and models. Further, the 
commenter said it is not clear what outputs that staffing model 
generated.
    Response: DHS uses multiple, different techniques to forecast 
USCIS' workloads. Ultimately, the VPC reviews, deliberates, and reaches 
a final consensus on every forecast, as described in the NPRM and 
elsewhere in this final rule. DHS uses these workload forecasts as 
inputs to Staffing Allocation Models, which determine the estimated 
staffing requirements for USCIS. DHS outlines USCIS' total estimated 
IEFA authorized staffing requirement by directorate in Appendix Table 7 
of the supporting documentation that is in the docket for this final 
rule. See 84 FR 62281. DHS declines to make changes in this final rule 
as a result of the comment.
    Comment: A commenter said USCIS needs to fill important open 
positions in order to address significant backlogs, citing a 2019 USCIS 
report to Congress.
    Response: DHS concurs with this commenter's statement. This is one 
reason why DHS is adjusting USCIS' fees in this final rule. DHS 
believes that the final fees will yield additional revenue that USCIS 
can use to hire and fill additional positions necessary for 
adjudicating incoming workload. The ability to adjudicate incoming 
workload may help USCIS mitigate future backlog growth.
    Comment: A commenter wrote that USCIS does not explain why the NPRM 
includes funding for a 44 percent increase in staffing levels from FY 
2016/2017, or why this increase was not anticipated in the 2016 fee 
rule just 3 years earlier. The same commenter stated that USCIS should 
at the very least provide the public with a version of fee review 
supporting documentation Appendix Table 6 that goes back 10 years, 
broken down by directorate, and actual staffing numbers for each fiscal 
year. Similarly, another commenter said USCIS fails to explain why the 
increase of 5,000 in staff from 2018 to 2019 is merited.

[[Page 46872]]

    Response: DHS articulated in the NPRM that, ``This additional 
staffing requirement reflects the fact that it takes USCIS longer to 
adjudicate many workloads than was planned for in the FY 2016/2017 fee 
rule and that workload volumes, particularly for work types that do not 
currently generate fee revenue, have grown.'' See 84 FR 62286. Although 
USCIS used all available data at the time it conducted the FY 2016/2017 
fee review, it necessarily used historical data and trends to inform 
its projections. USCIS was unable to foresee these additional staffing 
needs at the time it implemented the FY 2016/2017 fee rule because of 
nearly unprecedented growth in workloads such as credible fear and 
affirmative asylum. Furthermore, USCIS could not perfectly anticipate 
all policy and operational changes that influence adjudication times.
    USCIS cannot afford the estimated staffing requirement necessary to 
address its incoming workload under the previous fee structure. If 
USCIS maintains current staffing levels, DHS believes that backlogs 
would grow. Therefore, DHS adjusts USCIS' fees in this final rule to 
generate additional revenue that may be used to fund staff that will 
adjudicate incoming workload and potentially mitigate or stabilize 
future backlog growth.
    DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in response to 
these comments.
4. Cost Baseline
    Comment: Multiple commenters claimed that DHS did not adequately 
explain the growth in USCIS costs from the FY 2016/2017 fee rule and 
that DHS failed to provide justifications for 57 percent of the 
increase in costs from the previous fee rule. A commenter stated that 
USCIS dismisses the option of reducing projected costs with a single 
sentence and is a ``fatal defect'' in the NPRM. Other commenters said 
that in overstating workload volumes, DHS overestimated the costs to be 
recovered by USCIS' fee schedule.
    Response: In its NPRM, DHS highlighted changes from USCIS' FY 2018 
Annual Operating Plan (AOP) to the FY 2019/2020 cost baseline. See 84 
FR 62286. The authorized staffing levels and FY 2018 AOP costs are 
higher than FY 2016/2017 fee rule projections. After the FY 2016/2017 
fee rule became effective on December 23, 2016, USCIS funded additional 
staff and other agency initiatives through a combination of additional 
revenue resulting from higher fees and available carryover funds. Per 
Figure 4 of the supporting documentation that accompanies this final 
rule, USCIS expected to draw down its carryover funds in FY 2019 and FY 
2020 because base operating costs were projected to exceed incoming 
revenue. In other words, USCIS forecasted an annual operating deficit 
in both years. DHS determined that USCIS cannot sustain recurring 
annual operating deficits of this magnitude and continue to fund itself 
in this manner, necessitating an adjustment to the fee schedule based 
on the results of the FY 2019/2020 fee review.
    As detailed in the NPRM, a primary driver of cost growth from the 
FY 2018 AOP to the FY 2019/2020 cost baseline is payroll for on-board 
and new staff. See 84 FR 62286. This staff is necessary to process the 
projected workload receipt volume, which exceeds USCIS' current 
workload capacity. Strategic investments in staffing may help USCIS 
mitigate or stabilize future backlog growth. Furthermore, net 
additional costs include non-pay general expense enhancements for 
requirements such as secure mail shipping for permanent resident cards 
and other secure documents ($27 million), USCIS headquarters 
consolidation ($32 million), increased background checks ($18 million), 
IT modernization efforts ($32 million), customer engagement center ($23 
million), and inflationary increases for contracts. This final rule 
does not transfer funds to ICE or implement new DACA fees. Therefore, 
DHS removed $207.6 million for ICE and $18.7 million of DACA costs in 
this final rule. Table 6 is a revised crosswalk summary from the FY 
2018 AOP to the FY 2019/2020 cost baseline used to inform the fee 
schedule in this final 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                    280.2
 Increases..............................................
Plus: Net Additional Costs..............................           249.0
                                                         ---------------
    Total Adjusted FY 2019 IEFA Non-Premium Budget......         4,332.0
Plus: Pay Inflation and Promotions/Within Grade                    218.6
 Increases..............................................
Plus: Net Additional Costs..............................             5.8
                                                         ---------------
    Total Adjusted FY 2020 IEFA Non-Premium Budget......         4,556.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS did not overstate its projected costs for recovery via USCIS' 
fee schedule. Generally, whenever an overestimate of workload and/or 
fee-paying receipts materialize, proposed fees are often understated. 
For example, assume there is a total cost estimate of $100.00 for an 
agency to recover via one user fee. If there were 100 projected fee-
paying applicants to assign a total cost estimate of $100.00 to, then 
the proposed fee would be $1.00. However, if the actual fee-paying 
receipt volume materialized at half or 50, then the proposed fee should 
have been double or $2.00 to recover full cost because there were fewer 
fee-paying applicants to absorb the $100.00. Using this same example, 
even if the $100.00 was high due to an overestimate of volume 
projections and it should have been only $80.00 (to account for a 
notional marginal cost change), the proposed fee would remain $2.00 
($80.00/50 = $1.60 or $2.00 when rounded to the nearest whole 
dollar).\108\ As previously explained, USCIS uses the best information 
available at the time it conducts biennial fee reviews.\109\

[[Page 46873]]

Forecasts may not materialize exactly as initially projected due to 
many factors. Consequently, USCIS reevaluates its fees on a biennial 
basis and makes adjustments, if necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \108\ In reality, a lower receipt volume often does not produce 
a cost reduction within the span of a two-year period due to fixed 
costs associated with facilities, staff, and other overhead.
    \109\ OMB Circular A-25 clarifies that ``full cost shall be 
determined or estimated from the best available records of the 
agency, and new cost accounting systems need not be established 
solely for this purpose.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in response to 
these comments.
    Comment: A commenter stated that USCIS rests the proposed new fees 
on the outcome of a budget model but gives little indication of how it 
derived the budget in the first place. For example, USCIS states that 
the budget is derived from the FY 2018 AOP, but it is not clear from 
the proposal and supplemental material what estimates, assumptions, or 
operating practices this plan embodies or why this plan is relevant 
(instead of a more recent plan or actual operating figures). In 
addition, the commenter said USCIS states that its budget reflects an 
``adequate level of operations,'' plus ``funding for [certain] 
enhancements,'' but does not explain either concept. The commenter also 
said the proposal does not give commenters a full understanding of 
other aspects of the budget, including the ICE funds transfer, staff 
salaries and benefits, what assumptions are driving the estimates of 
budget growth, how much carryover USCIS is budgeting for or how that 
affects the proposed fees, and how USCIS plans to use premium 
processing revenue or why such revenue does not offset any of the fees 
that USCIS proposes based on its non-premium budget.
    Response: As explained in the supporting documentation that 
accompanies this final rule, USCIS establishes an AOP (detailed budget 
execution plan) at the beginning of each fiscal year that is consistent 
with the annual spending authority enacted by Congress. The FY 2018 AOP 
is USCIS' basis for the FY 2019/2020 cost baseline, which informs 
proposed fees in the NPRM and final fees in this final rule. DHS 
clarifies that USCIS considers an ``enhancement'' to be additional 
funding in excess of the base annual operating plan. This estimated 
additional funding (i.e., cost projections) are outlined in both the 
NPRM and Cost Baseline section of this final rule.
    Information and assumptions about USCIS' carryover are located in 
the IEFA Non-Premium Carryover Projections section of the supporting 
documentation that accompanies this final rule. Additionally, premium 
processing revenue, as explained in the Premium Processing section of 
this final rule, may only be used for limited purposes as provided by 
law.
    DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in response to the 
comment.
    Comment: Commenters identified differences between their estimate 
of USCIS' expenditures in FY 2018-2019 and DHS' cost estimates for 
those years in the NPRM. The commenters contended that DHS appears to 
have substantially overstated USCIS' FY 2018-2020 costs. Additionally, 
commenters noted that USCIS' FY 2019-2021 congressional justifications 
convey lower amounts than DHS' cost estimates in the NPRM.
    Response: The commenters' conclusion that USCIS' FY 2018-2019 
actual expenditures are less than its cost estimates for those years in 
the NPRM is correct. Furthermore, the commenters' observation that 
USCIS' FY 2019-2021 congressional justifications requested less 
budgetary authority than the cost estimates for those years in the NPRM 
is also correct. However, contrary to the commenters' assertions, this 
does not mean that DHS overstated USCIS' costs or that USCIS does not 
need to collect the amount of revenue it identified in the NPRM.
    DHS developed cost estimates for addressing projected incoming 
workloads during the FY 2019/2020 period. As identified in the NPRM, 
USCIS is unable to fully fund its estimated budgetary requirements 
(i.e., FY 2019/2020 cost baseline or cost projections) via the existing 
fee schedule, thereby necessitating fee adjustments in this final rule. 
Thus, USCIS expended less in FY 2018-2019 than its cost projections for 
addressing incoming workloads precisely because it did not have 
sufficient available resources to meet its estimated budgetary 
requirements. Similarly, the congressional justifications cited by the 
commenters reflect USCIS' estimates, at different points in time, of 
the funds it would be able to execute based on anticipated resources 
available to the agency under current policy and fees, rather than the 
cost projections of addressing incoming workloads forecasted during the 
FY 2019/2020 fee review. Therefore, DHS's NPRM cost projections differ 
from actual expenditures and congressional justifications because they 
reflect USCIS' estimated budgetary requirements to fully address 
projected incoming workloads as of a particular point in time.
    Given that USCIS did not have available resources equivalent to its 
estimated budgetary needs in FY 2018 and 2019, it was not able to hire 
the number of staff estimated by its Staffing Allocation Models. The 
underfunding of USCIS' requirements increased processing times and 
backlogs. USCIS' fee schedule must recover the estimated costs of 
addressing incoming workloads to ensure that it has sufficient 
resources to operate and limit the future growth of processing times 
and backlogs.
    DHS declines to make adjustments in this final rule in response to 
these comments.
    Comment: Similarly, a commenter stated that the NPRM uses opaque 
and invalid budget assumptions and neither the proposed rule nor the 
commenter's meeting with USCIS have provided any way for the public to 
adequately understand, much less analyze, future costs and revenue 
estimates. The commenter said cost and revenue baselines are not 
aligned, as USCIS is using two completely different time periods to 
inform its proposed fee rule: A relatively antiquated time period (June 
2016 to May 2017) as the baseline for revenues, and a relatively recent 
time period (FY 2018) as the baseline for costs. The commenter 
characterized this as ``perplexing'' given that USCIS surely knows its 
actual costs and revenues for any prior fiscal year. The commenter also 
detailed their analysis that concluded that projected costs and 
revenues do not match actual costs and revenues, which the commenter 
said raises several issues that USCIS must explain to the public.
    Response: DHS disagrees with the commenter's contention that USCIS' 
budget assumptions are opaque and invalid. The commenter is incorrect 
in stating that USCIS used two different time periods to determine 
revenue and cost projections for the FY 2019/2020 fee review and that 
the revenue and cost baseline are not aligned. USCIS used data from 
June 2016 to May 2017 to determine one data element, fee-paying 
percentages, that informed its FY 2019 and FY 2020 revenue forecasts. 
This is only one data input among several that USCIS considers in 
forecasting revenue. DHS maintains that its use is appropriate. 
Furthermore, USCIS used the same data to inform the FY 2018 AOP, 
insofar as it was also an input into the FY 2018 USCIS revenue 
forecast.
    DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in response to the 
comment.
    Comment: A commenter wrote that there is an especially great burden 
on USCIS to disclose a full and transparent accounting for why it 
requires an average annual budget of $4.67 billion, as the role of the 
agency's cost-modeling software is simply to accept this number ``as a 
received truth'' and allocate it among all of the various form types. 
This commenter said USCIS provides

[[Page 46874]]

almost no explanation for why it is projecting such high costs, 
especially when the agency's actual costs in FY 2018, 2019, and 2020 
were so much lower than its own projections.
    Response: DHS acknowledges that USCIS' actual expenditures in FY 
2019 were less than the projected costs in this final fee rule. 
Furthermore, the commenter is correct in stating that the FY 2019 and 
FY 2020 cost projections in the NPRM exceed the total budget authority 
requested for USCIS in the Congressional Justifications that accompany 
the President's annual budget proposal for those years. This reflects 
the fact that the revenue generated under the previous USCIS fee 
schedule was insufficient to adequately fund the agency's needs. The 
President's budget proposal did not request authority for USCIS to 
spend money that it was not expecting to have. The difference between 
the cost projections and actual USCIS expenditures across this time 
manifested in backlog growth and unmet operational needs. It does not 
reflect inaccurate projections of the cost to USCIS of fully funding 
its operational requirements.
    DHS has fully explained and justified USCIS' projected costs to 
meet its operational requirements and address its projected workload. 
Therefore, DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in response 
to the comment.
    Comment: Commenters stated that, during a meeting with USCIS Office 
of the Chief Financial Officer, the group discussed the timing and 
availability of information in the FY 2019/2020 fee review. A commenter 
stated that the cost-modeling software uses information from 2017, 
which precedes most of the notable USCIS policy changes of the past 3 
years. The commenter stated that USCIS apparently attempts to predict 
how costs for a given form type will change in the future, but there 
has been no comprehensive modeling of the many recent developments that 
would tend to reduce agency costs and put downward pressure on user 
fees.
    The commenter stated that USCIS does not appear to have accounted 
for many recent policy changes because data was not available ``at the 
time it conducted this fee review.'' The commenters wrote that more 
recent data could change the number of people applying for immigration 
benefits, and thus USCIS' budget estimates and fee calculations. 
Another commenter stated that the rule does not suggest that USCIS has 
estimated and accounted for the combined effect of these multiple 
initiatives, nor could it have done so comprehensively as the 
Administration's adoption of new initiatives that could affect the 
number of people seeking immigration benefits has continued even since 
April 2019 when USCIS completed its fee review and November 2019 when 
DHS published the NPRM. The commenter said this also raises serious 
questions about whether the fee review complies with the statutory 
requirement for USCIS to conduct such a review and make recommendations 
based on the relevant ``costs incurred.'' The commenter said the 
proposal's reliance on 2018 cost projections is unreasonable. The 
commenter said more recent data and projections were available or could 
have been if USCIS had waited just a bit longer, and USCIS provides no 
reason that 2018 figures are more relevant. The same commenter said the 
proposal is additionally unreasonable because it is based on 
projections for FY 2019 and FY 2020, a period that has nearly passed. 
The commenter said USCIS should have based its modeling on more recent 
data and projected results for the time period when any new fee rule 
would be in effect.
    A commenter wrote that USCIS excludes savings and benefits already 
realized such as efficiencies gained through investments in information 
technology, closures of international offices, and lower refugee 
intake. Similarly, a commenter wrote that the RIA fails to present data 
and evidence on a number of recent changes designed to reduce costs, 
including limiting the availability of printed study materials, no 
longer providing printed Forms N-400, centralizing all customer 
inquiries and complaints on a call center, and introducing electronic 
filing for many benefits.
    Response: DHS acknowledges that it did not incorporate cost 
increases or savings from policy initiatives for which data was not 
available at the time USCIS conducted the FY 2019/2020 fee review. DHS 
rejects the implication that it inappropriately failed to account for 
future policy initiatives. DHS must adjust USCIS fees through notice 
and comment rulemaking which, especially for a rule with a billion-
dollar impact, is a lengthy process that requires policy planning, 
analysis, a proposed rule, reading and responding to comments, and a 
final rule. DHS must publish a final rule that only makes changes that 
are a logical outgrowth from the proposed rule, and a totally new 
budget with minor changes in costs or savings cannot be substituted 
between the proposed and final rules, although we adjust for 
substantial sums based on intervening legislation as we did for 
appropriated funds for ICE and the Citizenship and Integration Grant 
Program discussed elsewhere. The immigration policy environment changes 
so frequently that if USCIS were to delay finalizing a fee review until 
cost data was available for all future policy initiatives, DHS would be 
unable to adjust fees timely, thereby posing a fiscal risk to USCIS. 
Biennial fee reviews must reflect USCIS' cost projections as of a 
particular point in time as best can be determined. The same logic 
applies to other operational metrics including completion rates, 
revenue forecasts, and workload projections. USCIS always leverages the 
best information available at the time it conducts a biennial fee 
review, but it necessarily results in some costs or savings realized or 
to be realized not being incorporated in the final fees simply due to 
the passage of time for rule development and finalization.
    In recognition of the constantly evolving immigration policy 
environment and its obligations under the INA and the CFO Act, USCIS 
regularly conducts biennial fee reviews. The two-year review mandate in 
the CFO Act forces fee setting agencies to address the effects of just 
these sorts of policy and practice changes on their fees; otherwise, 
bureaucratic inertia could cause an agency to not address the soundness 
of their fees versus costs and services. As it is, the two-year period 
provides agencies with a reasonable period within which to regularly 
address such issues, subject to the time constraints of notice and 
comment rulemaking previously mentioned. To the extent that the recent 
policy initiatives identified by the commenters affect USCIS' costs, 
those effects will be captured in USCIS' next biennial fee review. If 
the totality of new initiatives reduces USCIS' costs, it may result in 
lower fees in the future for applicants and petitioners.
    DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in response to the 
comments.
    Comment: A commenter wrote that their own estimates suggest USCIS 
is attempting to increase revenue by around 49 percent over current 
revenue projections based on estimated growth in applications. The 
commenter said this is an extraordinary amount of revenue extracted 
from its most vulnerable users.
    Response: DHS is unable to replicate the commenter's estimate and 
does not know the source or validity of these calculations. Regardless, 
as explained in the NPRM and this final rule, DHS must adjust USCIS' 
fees to recover the estimated full cost of providing adjudication and 
naturalization services. DHS declines to make changes

[[Page 46875]]

in this final rule in response to this comment.
    Comment: A commenter said that USCIS states that it recognizes 
revenue when work is completed, asserting that the implications of this 
accounting principle on USCIS' budget and fee modeling is not clear but 
could be quite significant. For example, the commenter said it is 
unclear whether revenue estimates are based on actual cash flow or the 
amount of revenue that is recognized in a current year or if USCIS' 
budget is inflated with the costs of processing applications for which 
USCIS received a fee in a prior year.
    Response: DHS clarifies that all figures in the USCIS fee review, 
NPRM, and this final rule reflect projected costs, workload and 
associated revenue for the FY 2019/2020 biennial period. DHS did not 
overstate or inflate the USCIS' cost baseline because it does not 
include workload for which USCIS received a fee in a prior year.
    DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in response to the 
comment.
5. Alternative Funding Sources
    Comment: Commenters wrote that funding for USCIS should come from 
another source. Multiple commenters indicated that Congress should 
provide appropriations to USCIS to decrease the burden on immigrants. 
Some commenters also indicated that USCIS did not consider the $10 
million appropriation for citizenship grants in setting its fees.
    Response: As stated in the NPRM, fees have funded USCIS since its 
inception. Approximately 97 percent of USCIS' annual funding comes from 
fees. USCIS must rely on fees until the law changes or Congress 
appropriates funding. For FY 2019 and FY 2020, Congress appropriated 
$10 million for the Citizenship and Integration Grant Program. See 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019, Public Law 116-6, div. A, tit. 
IV (Feb. 15, 2019) and Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, Public 
Law 116-93, div. D, tit. IV (Dec. 20, 2020). At the time USCIS 
conducted the FY 2019/2020 fee review, Congress had not appropriated 
$10 million for the Citizenship and Integration Grant Program. As a 
result, USCIS did not expect to receive the appropriations in FY 2019 
or FY 2020. Therefore, USCIS' FY 2018 AOP and FY 2019/2020 fee review 
cost baseline accounted for these funds in the IEFA non-premium budget. 
In this final rule, DHS clarifies that $10 million (IEFA non-premium 
funds; not appropriated funds) remains in the cost baseline for other 
agency initiatives. However, USCIS does not assign $10 million to only 
naturalization-related forms (i.e., N-336, N-400, N-565, N-600, and N-
600K) in its final ABC model because Congress appropriated funds for 
the Citizenship and Integration Grant Program. Instead, USCIS reassigns 
$10 million of non-premium funds to other fee-paying forms, thereby 
reducing the costs assigned to and final fees for naturalization-
related forms.
    DHS declines to make any changes in this final rule in response to 
these comments.

M. ICE Transfer

    Comment: Many commenters wrote that they disagree with the proposed 
transfer of USCIS IEFA funds to ICE. They provided a number of reasons 
for their objections. Another commenter concluded that eliminating the 
revenue transfer to ICE enforcement would reduce USCIS' claimed need to 
eliminate ability-to-pay waivers.
    Response: DHS removed the transfer of IEFA funds to ICE from this 
final rule because Congress appropriated $207.6 million to ICE in FY 
2020. See Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, Public Law 116-93, 
div. D, tit. IV (Dec. 20, 2019). DHS may fund activities conducted by 
any component of the department that constitute immigration 
adjudication and naturalization services using the IEFA. See INA 
section 286(m), (n), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m), (n). Nevertheless, the fees 
established by this final rule are not calculated to provide funds to 
ICE.
    Comment: A commenter suggested that USCIS use the money currently 
spent on detention by ICE to instead streamline and simplify the 
application process.
    Response: Congress appropriates funds for ICE Enforcement and 
Removal Operations. Those funds are not available for use by USCIS. DHS 
declines to make changes in this final rule in response to this 
comment.
    Comment: A commenter wrote that recent legislative action suggested 
USCIS would abandon the plan to transfer funds to ICE, so the commenter 
asked that USCIS confirm in its final rule that it does not have the 
authority to transfer IEFA funds to ICE collected.
    Response: DHS may fund activities conducted by any component of the 
department that constitute immigration adjudication and naturalization 
services using the IEFA. See INA section 286(m), (n), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m), 
(n). DHS removed the transfer of IEFA funds to ICE from this final rule 
because Congress appropriated $207.6 million to ICE in FY 2020. See 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, Public Law 116-93, div. D, tit. 
IV (Dec. 20, 2019). The fees established in this final rule are not 
calculated to provide funds to ICE.

N. Processing Times and Backlogs

    Comment: A commenter wrote that USCIS should focus on the 
processing times and becoming more efficient. The commenter also 
suggested that USCIS could benefit from a more streamlined electronic 
process. One commenter wrote that electronic filing glitches, lost 
documents, erroneous rejections, and lengthy holds should be addressed 
before fees are raised. One commenter said USCIS should increase filing 
technology and training of Service Officers to ensure they have the 
legal knowledge of the regulations and have the platform to adjudicate 
cases efficiently. The commenter said technology allocations should 
specifically focus on electronic filing systems that can reduce 
processing times and make document and forms submission from U.S. 
employers seamless.
    Response: DHS strives to save money, be efficient, and process all 
requests in a timely manner while maintaining the integrity of the 
United States immigration system. USCIS agrees with commenters that 
electronic filing, processing, and record keeping for immigration 
benefit requests is likely to provide operational efficiencies that 
could aid USCIS in better using its existing resources and potentially 
reduce processing times and backlogs. Although USCIS is aggressively 
moving to expand e-processing to more form types, its current 
operational needs dictate that it must increase fees to cover projected 
costs. If USCIS realizes operational efficiencies through the expansion 
of electronic benefit request filing and processing, those cost savings 
will be reflected in upcoming fee reviews and may result in future fees 
that are lower than they would have been in the absence of such 
efficiencies. Training, software, and equipment costs are part the IEFA 
budget. USCIS encourages its employee to discuss with their supervisor 
if they believe that they lack the resources necessary to do their 
jobs.
    DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in response to 
these comments.
    Comment: Many commenters who opposed the NPRM noted that 
immigration benefit request backlogs and processing times have 
increased under the current administration despite a fee increase in 
December 2016. Many commenters stated that since 2010, USCIS increased 
filing fees by weighted averages of 10 percent and 21 percent but has 
not achieved any

[[Page 46876]]

associated improvement in processing times, backlogs, or customer 
service. Commenters cited reports stating that during that same period 
USCIS' backlog has increased by more than 6,000 percent and that the 
overall average case processing time increased 91 percent between 2014 
and 2018. Commenters wrote that fees should not increase until USCIS 
improves its efficiency and management. Commenters wrote that an 
increase in fees must be accompanied by improvement in processing 
times, reduced backlogs, improved customer service, and services that 
do not discriminate against the working class, low-income applicants, 
and others who face financial hardships.
    Response: DHS recognizes the continued growth of USCIS case 
processing backlogs since it last adjusted the USCIS fee schedule on 
December 23, 2016. See 81 FR 73292 (Oct. 24, 2016). The fees 
established at that time proved insufficient to fund USCIS at the level 
necessary to prevent growth in case processing backlogs. USCIS' costs 
grew more than expected at that time because of disproportionate growth 
in humanitarian workloads that did not generate revenue, increased 
adjudicative time requirements per case for many different workloads 
(i.e., increased completion rates), additional staff, and other 
factors.
    DHS is adjusting fees in this final rule because they are 
insufficient to generate the revenue necessary to fund USCIS at levels 
adequate to meet its processing time goals. Adjustments to USCIS' fee 
schedule will generate more revenue to fund the operational 
requirements necessary to meet projected incoming workloads and prevent 
further deterioration in processing times. The new fees will allow 
USCIS to hire more people to adjudicate cases and possibly prevent the 
growth of backlogs. USCIS will continue to explore possibilities for 
business process efficiencies. Future fee adjustments will reflect any 
efficiencies realized by USCIS.
    DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in response to 
these comments.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that USCIS should internally 
review its processes and determine how they might be streamlined before 
increasing fees. A few commenters stated that increased RFEs and 
mandatory in-person interviews, among other policies, are labor 
intensive and should be addressed to decrease the backlog before fees 
are increased.
    Response: USCIS continually evaluates its processes and pursues 
efficiencies to the greatest extent possible. As explained in the NPRM, 
USCIS considered all cost and operational data that was available at 
the time it conducted the FY 2019/2020 fee review, including potential 
process efficiencies. It does not account for recent process 
efficiencies for which data was not yet available at the time. However, 
USCIS will evaluate and capture any relevant cost-savings data for 
process efficiencies during its next biennial fee review. To the extent 
that potential process efficiencies are recognized in the next biennial 
fee review, cost-savings may lessen the impact of future fee 
adjustments.
    DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in response to the 
comment.
    Comment: A commenter said an increase in fees would only further 
burden those who seek services and are repeatedly met with 
inefficiency, long wait times, and the inability to get answers. This 
commenter said USCIS has taken away services, such as the ability to 
make InfoPass appointments online, and rerouted those inquiries to 
Customer Service Center where wait times to receive calls back make 
emergency situations that require an InfoPass appointment even more 
frustrating. Another commenter also mentioned the difficulty in making 
InfoPass appointments as an example of how USCIS services have declined 
in recent years due to mismanagement. Commenters said USCIS should end 
policies and practices that raise fees to support the continued 
administration of backlog-expanding policies and practices.
    Response: USCIS continually evaluates potential operational 
efficiencies. Reductions in the use of in-person appointments through 
InfoMod enable USCIS to redirect resources to adjudication, potentially 
improving overall customer service. USCIS evaluates and incorporates 
all available information on both cost-savings and cost increases as 
part of its biennial fee reviews, including the effects of policy 
changes and their impact on operational processes. This final rule 
adjusts USCIS' fee schedule to recover the estimated full cost of 
providing immigration adjudication and naturalization services; 
removing or reconsidering all USCIS policies and practices is beyond 
the scope of this rulemaking.
    DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in response to 
these comments.
    Comment: Another commenter noted that USCIS' only concrete plan was 
to spend money on reducing fraud, which would not efficiently reduce 
the backlog.
    Response: DHS disagrees with the commenter's statement that its 
only concrete plan is to spend more money on reducing fraud. USCIS 
intends to use revenue from the fees to fund multiple initiatives, 
including increased staffing across the agency. DHS adjusts USCIS' fee 
schedule in this final rule to recover the estimated full cost of 
providing immigration adjudication and naturalization services for 
anticipated incoming workloads. USCIS does not incorporate the cost of 
addressing existing pending caseloads in its biennial fee reviews, as 
it would be inequitable to require new applicants and petitioners to 
pay for the cost addressing previously submitted applications and 
petitions for which USCIS already collected fees. To the extent fee 
adjustments result in additional revenue for USCIS, those additional 
resources may help limit future growth in pending caseload. DHS 
declines to make changes in this final rule in response to the comment.
    Comment: Some commenters noted USCIS' failure to implement the 
recommendations of the USCIS Ombudsman's Report, which provides a 
number of recommendations for improving adjudication times. One of 
these commenters said DHS's failure to consider, address, or implement 
recommendations from other federal government offices is telling, 
asserting that these changes are simply intended to make the asylum 
process more challenging for asylum applicants, and to deter asylum 
applicants.
    Response: DHS notes that one of the USCIS Ombudsman's 
recommendations is to address delays in processing Form I-765 by 
ensuring sufficient staffing resources are available to provide for 
timely adjudication. DHS adjusts USCIS' fee schedule in this final 
rule, including the fee for Form I-765, to provide for the recovery of 
full estimates of the costs of providing immigration adjudication and 
naturalization services. The Ombudsman did not recommend an increase in 
the Form I-765 fee; however, adjusting the fee schedule will enable 
USCIS to devote more resources, including staffing, to the adjudication 
of all applications and petitions, including Form I-765. DHS reiterates 
that it does not intend to make the asylum process more complicated.
    DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in response to 
these comments.

O. Fee Payment and Receipt Requirements

    Comment: Multiple commenters opposed the proposal to allow DHS to 
require the payment of certain fees by particular methods, as described 
in the relevant form instructions. Commenters

[[Page 46877]]

wrote that any potential future requirement to pay fees through 
electronic means such as Pay.gov would limit the ability of individuals 
who lack access to bank accounts or credit cards to apply for 
immigration benefits. Commenters also wrote that requiring payment 
through electronic means would restrict the availability of immigration 
benefits for individuals who lack computer and internet access. 
Commenters stated that it is important to maintain the ability to pay 
fees using cashier's checks and money orders, because they are 
available to individuals without access to other banking services, such 
as a credit card. Another commenter cited data from the New York City 
Department of Consumer and Worker Protection, which found that less 
than two-thirds of immigrant households in New York have access to 
products such as checking and savings accounts and that 11 percent are 
unbanked and 22 percent are underbanked. A few commenters cited Federal 
Deposit Insurance Corporation numbers in writing that the proposal 
would inhibit the immigrant portion of the ``unbanked'' and 
``underbanked'' households in the United States from applying.
    Multiple commenters said prohibiting cashier's checks or money 
orders would disproportionately affect low-income immigrants and a few 
commenters indicated it would impose a substantial burden on asylum 
seekers. One commenter said 85 percent of the immigrant clients they 
help need to use money orders, and this provision would negatively 
affect them. Commenters said the proposal would lead to wide scale 
confusion and inefficiency among immigrant and advocacy groups and 
requested that USCIS continue to accept cashier's checks and money 
orders.
    Response: In this final rule, DHS does not restrict the method of 
payment for any particular immigration benefit request. This final rule 
clarifies the authority for DHS to prescribe certain types of payments 
for specific immigration benefits or methods of submission. DHS does 
not have data specific to USCIS benefit requestors' access to the 
internet and/or banking but understands that particular populations 
submitting requests may have attributes that make access to a bank 
account more or less challenging DHS acknowledges that some requestors 
may not use banks or use them on a limited basis for a number of 
reasons. However, any person who can purchase a cashier's check or 
money order from a retailer can just as easily purchase a pre-paid 
debit card that can be used to pay their benefit request fee.\110\ In 
addition, since 2018 requesters can use a credit card to pay for a 
USCIS form filing fee that gets sent to and processed by one of the 
USCIS lockboxes, or split the fees between more than one credit 
card.\111\ The credit card used does not have to be the applicant's; 
however, the person who is the owner of the credit card must authorize 
use of his or her credit card. Therefore, DHS believes that requiring 
the use of a check, credit, or debit card will not prevent applicants 
or petitioners from paying the required fees. In addition, resources 
such as libraries offer free online services, access to information and 
computers that the public may use to access forms, complete, print or 
submit them. Nevertheless, in evaluating future changes to acceptable 
means of payment for each immigration benefit request, DHS will 
consider the availability of internet access and different means of 
payment to the affected populations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \110\ See, e.g., Visa Prepaid Cards, at https://usa.visa.com/pay-with-visa/cards/prepaid-cards.html (last viewed 2/24/20).
    \111\ See USCIS Expands Credit Card Payment Option for Fees 
https://www.uscis.gov/news/news-releases/uscis-expands-credit-card-payment-option-fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in response to 
these comments.
    Comment: A few commenters raised concerns about nonrefundable fees 
and rejecting checks over 365 days old, which they said were listed in 
the NPRM without explanation. The commenters stated that relevant fees 
should be refundable in certain situations, including when an 
applicant's health or family conditions have changed or when an 
immigrant is denied on a clear USCIS error.
    Response: DHS provided a complete explanation of its reasoning 
behind its proposed stale check or refund requirements. See 84 FR 62295 
and 62296. In addition, DHS is continuing its policy to issue fee 
refunds if there is a clear USCIS error, but we will not codify that 
discretionary practice as a requirement on USCIS. DHS declines to make 
changes in this final rule in response to these comments.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that USCIS should publish any 
restriction of payment in the Federal Register. The commenter also 
suggested that USCIS should accept financial instruments regardless of 
their age and, if it does not process, give applicants 14 days to 
correct any payment errors. The commenter wrote that USCIS should not 
be rejecting applicants because of payment problems unknown to them or 
out of their control.
    Response: DHS declines to publish any change in acceptable payment 
instruments in the Federal Register. However, where DHS limits 
acceptable instruments locally, nationwide, or for certain USCIS 
benefit requests, it issues multiple communications and provides 
sufficient advance public notice to minimize adverse effects on any 
person who may have plans to pay using methods that may no longer be 
accepted.\112\ As far as the age of payment instruments, as stated in 
the NPRM, USCIS generally accepts and deposits payments dated up to 
one-year before they are received although 6 months old is a general 
standard often followed in the financial services industry. See 84 FR 
62295. Because of the large volume of payments that USCIS receives on a 
daily basis, handling dishonored payments adds unnecessary 
administrative burden to its intake process. Assigning employees to 
handle defective payments and, as suggested by the commenter, holding 
filings and billing for fees that were not properly submitted, is an 
opportunity cost to USCIS because those employees could otherwise 
adjudicate immigration benefit requests. DHS believes that it is the 
responsibility of the remitter to submit proper fees. USCIS will take 
ameliorative action if a payment error is caused by the agency. 
However, USCIS has no obligation to insulate filers from a payment 
problem caused by the requester's financial institution, agent, lawyer, 
third party check validation service, or similar parties. DHS makes no 
changes in response to these comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \112\ See, e.g., USCIS Updates Fee Payment System Used in Field 
Offices, available at https://www.uscis.gov/news/news-releases/uscis-updates-fee-payment-system-used-field-offices (Last Reviewed/
Updated: 3/07/2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

P. Fees Shared by CBP and USCIS

    Comment: One commenter suggested that previous fee reviews failed 
to account for the actual adjudication costs of these forms. They 
questioned if CBP costs were accounted for in previous fee reviews.
    Response: DHS acknowledges that previous adjustments to the USCIS 
fee schedule did not account for CBP costs for instances where CBP uses 
the same form as USCIS. DHS set those fees using USCIS costs and CBP 
collected the fee that was established. This final rule refines the fee 
calculation by considering CBP costs and workload volumes in 
establishing the fees for shared forms. However, CBP workload volumes 
and associated revenue are backed out from the fee schedule shown in 
the NPRM and this final rule because

[[Page 46878]]

that revenue is not available to USCIS for the purposes of funding its 
immigration adjudication and naturalization services. This ensures that 
USCIS' projected revenue matches its estimated costs of adjudication.
    Comment: A commenter said that the hike in fees shared by CBP and 
USCIS are drastic and unjustified because the cost to legalize status 
will rise to thousands of dollars per person.
    Response: DHS recognizes that adjustments to the fees for forms 
shared by USCIS and CBP represent a sizeable increase in the cost of 
those forms. However, the fees adopted in this final rule represent the 
estimated full cost of adjudication. DHS declines to make changes to 
the final fee schedule on the basis of this comment.
    Comment: Another commenter questioned why the NPRM did not include 
more recent information regarding CBP costs and suggested that if CBP 
needs the revenue, they should have their own higher fees or fund their 
operations through annual appropriations.
    Response: DHS used the most recent CBP data available at the time 
USCIS conducted the FY 2019/2020 fee review. It includes cost and 
workload volume information from FY 2017 as the basis for FY 2019/2020 
projections. This is consistent with the data used to develop all other 
workload and cost projections represented in the fee schedule. The fees 
set in this final rule that affect CBP are only those forms that USCIS 
prescribes, but CBP shares for certain functions. DHS has determined 
that it is appropriate to set the fees for these forms at a level 
sufficient to ensure that both USCIS and CBP recover the estimated full 
cost of adjudication, including the cost of providing similar services 
at no charge to other immigrants. Therefore, DHS makes no changes in 
this final rule in response to the comment.

Q. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) Comment Responses

    Comment: Multiple commenters noted that the increased requirements 
and additional evidence required for filing the Form I-912, Request for 
Fee Waiver should increase the time burden to applicants. This includes 
one commenter who noted that the submitted ``Instructions for request 
for fee waiver'' states that the form will take 1 hour and 10 minutes 
per response, but the currently approved form states it would take 2 
hours and 20 minutes. The commenter said USCIS did not provide 
rationale on why the newly revised form would take half the time when 
it has not been simplified. A commenter stated that the proposed 
changes to Form I-912 would present burdens to applicants with 
increased evidence requirements and repetitious and extraneous 
information collection. The commenter recommended that USCIS revert and 
retain the previous version of Form I-912.
    Response: DHS agrees that it used an outdated burden estimate in 
the NPRM. In this final rule, DHS has updated the estimated time burden 
for Form I-912 from 1 hour and 10 minutes to the currently approved 2 
hours and 20 minutes.
    Comment: One commenter noted that using the Paperwork Reduction Act 
to introduce a revised fee waiver form, with new requirements, in 
October 2019 in lieu of using a NPRM and then eliminating fee waivers 
in this rule, was a waste of the public's time to review both 
documents. A few commenters stated that eligibility based on receipt of 
a means-tested benefit was due to be eliminated, but the case City of 
Seattle, a court placed a nation-wide injunction on that action, 
thereby affecting USCIS' plans to constrict eligibility standards for 
fee waivers. USCIS has already eliminated the means-tested benefit 
criteria for fee waivers, which drastically limited access to 
immigration benefits. The proposed rule narrows the criteria for fee 
waivers even further and eliminates the financial hardship criteria 
entirely which means 400,666 individuals annually, about the population 
of Tampa, FL, would be detrimentally impacted. Another commenter stated 
that the fee increases are an attempt to get around the currently 
enjoined 2019 fee waiver rules because it eliminates fee waivers for 
most applicants. The commenter stated that the proposal seeks to 
restrict legal immigration and naturalization for ``poor and non-white 
people.'' Another commenter recommended that while the Form I-912 
revision is enjoined by the U.S. District Court for the Northern 
District of California that USCIS request public comment on a new 
proposed Form I-912 that maintains options to demonstrate qualification 
through receipt of means-tested benefits, financial hardship, or income 
of up to 150 percent of the federal poverty level. The commenter wrote 
that USCIS is required by the injunction to restart the information 
collection request clearance process anew for a revised I-912 form that 
conforms to the Court's decision. The commenter wrote that because the 
version of the Form I-912 published as supporting material to USCIS's 
November 14, 2019 NPRM, for which comment periods with a cumulative 
total length of slightly more than 60 days are now ending, does not 
meet the Court's specifications, USCIS may not move forward with 
implementation of this revised I-912 based on the present notice-and-
comment process.''
    Response: The comment refers to the effort by USCIS to revise the 
USCIS policy guidance on fee waivers. On September 28, 2018, USCIS 
published a 60-day notice in the Federal Register requesting comments 
on the revised Form I-912 and instructions and posted the documents for 
review in docket USCIS-2010-0008 at www.regulations.gov. 83 FR 49120 
(Sept. 28, 2018). The revisions to the fee waiver form revised the 
evidence USCIS would consider in evaluating inability to pay, required 
federal income tax transcripts to demonstrate income, and required use 
of the Form I-912 for fee waiver requests. USCIS complied with the 
Paperwork Reduction Act and the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, OMB (OIRA) approved the form changes on October 24, 2019.\113\ 
On October 25, 2019, USCIS published the revised Form I-912 and 
instructions, along with corresponding revisions to the USCIS Policy 
Manual and a Policy Alert. The revised form and manual took effect on 
December 2, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \113\ The approved package is available at https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewICR?ref_nbr=201910-1615-006# (last 
visited Feb. 17, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS did not consider this rulemaking's impact on that policy change 
because DHS was proposing comprehensive reforms to fee waivers which 
were not certain to occur, and the rulemaking was separate and 
independent of the October 25, 2019, form and policy change. USCIS was 
losing hundreds of millions of dollars each year to fee waivers and it 
decided not to wait for the comprehensive DHS fee rulemaking while it 
continued to ``forgo increasing amounts of revenue as more fees are 
waived.'' 84 FR 26138 (June 5, 2019). Nonetheless, on December 11, 
2019, the revised Form I-912 was preliminarily enjoined, nationwide, by 
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. See 
Order Granting Pls.' Mot. for Nationwide Prelim. Inj., City of Seattle 
v. DHS, 3:19-cv-7151-MMC (N.D. Cal., Dec. 11, 2019). By stipulation of 
the parties and as agreed to by the court, that injunction will remain 
pending publication of this final rule. The injunction does not require 
that USCIS may only revise the Form I-912 in a way that conforms to the 
Court's decision. Nonetheless, while this final rule is not affected by 
City of Seattle, the decision in that case only requires that the 
October 25, 2019 fee waiver policy

[[Page 46879]]

changes required notice and comment rulemaking to effectuate. DHS is 
conducting notice and comment rulemaking with this final rule and the 
City of Seattle injunction does not prevent USCIS from moving forward 
with implementation of the Form I-912 revision in accordance with this 
rulemaking.
    Comment: Several commenters stated that the proposed rule also 
fails to comply with a federal agency's requirements under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act by failing to provide the public with a 60-day 
opportunity to comment on the collection of information under the 
proposal. One commenter states that ``when proposed rule was initially 
published on November 14, 2019, it provided 60 days for the public to 
submit comments on draft forms and instructions. USCIS then posted no 
fewer than 145 such documents on regulations.gov for public review. 
Then, on December 9, 2019, published another proposed rule that reduced 
the period for public comments on draft forms and instructions to only 
45 days. This clear breach of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) leaves 
insufficient time for the public to adequately comment on the massive 
volume of form changes proposed by the agency. USCIS must therefore 
extend the comment period for PRA review by at least another 30 days.'' 
Another commenter stated that ``while the extension notice of December 
9, 2019 extends the public comment period, it simultaneously shortens 
it for the related forms, in violation of the Paperwork Reduction 
Act.\114\ The extension notice states: DHS also notes and clarifies the 
comment period for the information collection requests (forms) that the 
proposed rule would revise in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction 
Act. The comment period for the NPRM will end on December 30, 2019, 
including comments on the forms DHS must submit to OMB for review and 
approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-12. 
The NPRM contained erroneous references to comments being accepted for 
60 days from the publication date of the proposed rule. The commenter 
requests that the public comment period be open for 60 days.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \114\ Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, 
Sec. 451(b), 110 Stat. 163 (1995) (codified at 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq.)].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: DHS regrets any erroneous references in the NPRM. 
Nevertheless, as the commenters have indicated, DHS published the 
proposed revisions to the information collection requirements for 
public comment for a cumulative period of more than 60 days. Thus, DHS 
has complied with the public comment period requirements of 5 CFR 
1320.11 for the information revisions associated with this rule.
    Comment: A commenter wrote that the collection of a valid domestic 
address for named workers in a Form I-129 petition is duplicative given 
that USCIS conducts a background check for named beneficiaries listed 
on Form I-129. The commenter also wrote that USCIS ``failed to 
articulate in its proposed rule why this new question is necessary.''
    Response: DHS disagrees with the comment that this question is 
duplicative. Providing a valid domestic address for the beneficiary 
helps USCIS to conduct the background check and otherwise ensure the 
integrity of the information provided on the Form I-129. In addition, 
USCIS will use a beneficiary's U.S. address to notify them if USCIS 
denies a request to change status or extend stay.
    Comment: A commenter wrote that, ``USCIS [should] adopt a timeline 
that allows for a sufficient grace period and does not conflict with 
high-volume filing seasons'' when implementing the new forms and 
recommended a six-month grace period. The commenter wrote that USCIS 
should consider high-volume filing seasons, for which petitioners 
prepare months in advance, noting that ``refusing to accept a prior 
version of a form during that time could cause undue burden on the 
public.''
    Response: DHS will not adopt the recommendation to provide a 
minimum six-month grace period before the new forms are mandatory for 
submission. DHS does not believe that requiring use of the new forms 
immediately will cause undue burden on the public. The proposed forms 
essentially incorporate the same information as the previous forms, but 
the new forms are shorter because they are focused on the specific 
nonimmigrant classification. In addition, DHS believes the public has 
had sufficient notice of the proposed forms. DHS first published the 
NPRM on November 14, 2019, subsequently extended the comment period on 
December 9, 2019, and the rule is not effective until 60-days after 
publication. USCIS will consider high-volume filing seasons when 
establishing the implementation process for these new forms.
    Comment: A commenter wrote, ``about the inclusion of E-Verify 
questions on each of the new [Forms I-129], even when participation in 
E-Verify is not mandated for participation in nonimmigrant program 
(sic), as it could be used inappropriately to target employers for 
enforcement action.'' The commenter recommended that USCIS either 
remove the E-Verify questions from forms where it is not mandated, or 
add language to the form instructions to say that ``. . . these 
questions are optional and are not outcome determinative, such that if 
a petitioner leaves the information blank it will not result in a 
rejection.'' The commenter also pointed out a typographical error.
    Response: USCIS does not accept the recommendation to remove E-
Verify-related questions on Forms I-129 where participation is not 
mandated. Petitioners who choose not to participate in E-Verify are not 
required to enroll in the system; only those who are already enrolled 
will need to provide E-Verify information. Requiring the petitioner's 
name as listed in E-Verify, as well as their E-Verify Company 
Identification Number or Client Company Identification Number, if 
applicable, protects the interests of U.S. workers by preventing fraud 
and abuse of E-Verify and employment eligibility rules. Having this 
information on all of the I-129 versions maximizes E-Verify's 
reliability and integrity by confirming that certain categories of 
employees who are authorized for employment with a specific employer 
incident to status are working for the employer specified on the 
petition.
    USCIS Form Instructions indicate that all questions should be 
answered fully and accurately. They also provide direction to write 
``N/A'' or ``None'' when a question doesn't apply to the applicant, 
petitioner, requestor or beneficiary.
    USCIS reviewed all of the new I-129 forms and corrected 
typographical errors related to the E-Verify questions.
    Comment: A commenter pointed out that on Form I-129H1, ``. . . in 
Part 2. Information about this Petition, question 1, Item 1D repeats 
Item #1C. It appears it should read `Free Trade, Chile (H-1B1).' '' The 
commenter also wrote that they recommended ``. . . that Part 5. Basic 
Information About the Proposed Employment and Employer, questions 9 and 
10 be struck as they ask for information that is beyond what is 
required for eligibility for H-1B status.
    Response: USCIS has updated Form I-129H1, Part 1., Item Number 1, 
Item 1D. Regarding Part 5., Item Numbers 9 and 10, these questions 
relate to the ``experience required for the position'' and ``special 
skills'' for the position, both of which are relevant to determining if 
the wage level selected on the Labor Condition Application (LCA) 
corresponds to the position as described in the petition. Per 20 CFR 
655.705(b), while the U.S. Department

[[Page 46880]]

of Labor ``administers the labor condition application process,'' the 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) ``determines whether the 
petition is supported by an LCA which corresponds with the petition.''
    Petitioner's responses to these questions provide USCIS with a more 
complete picture of the requirements for the proffered position. This 
may help to reduce RFEs on this topic, as USCIS officers will have 
additional information when initially adjudicating the case.
    Comment: A commenter wrote that they appreciated that ``. . . 
specific program requirements have been laid out in the instructions . 
. .'' for the new Form I-129H2A and Form I-129H2B that ``. . . will be 
helpful for newer employers, agents, and attorneys.'' The commenter 
objected, however, to the ``. . . additional requirements for each 
program that have not been previously required that are either 
burdensome or too broad'' and that USCIS could ascertain them ``. . . 
through its own systems . . .'' The commenter also indicated that, ``. 
. . Part 6. Petitioner and Employer Obligations, question 14, which 
requires the H-2A petitioner and each employer to consent to ``allow 
Government access'' to the H-2A worksite is overly broad and goes 
beyond 8 CFR 214.2(h)(5)(vi) which only requires consent to ``allow 
access to the site by DHS officers.''
    Response: The data collections included in Form I-129H2A and Form 
I-129H2B have a regulatory basis. While they might technically be 
ascertainable through USCIS systems, this would result in substantially 
greater operational burdens and, hence, greater expense being passed 
onto petitioners. It is also reasonable that petitioners should 
properly be on record whether the relevant requirements are met.
    Regarding the Petitioner and Employer Obligations, Item Number 14, 
USCIS has changed the language to ``DHS access.''
    Comment: A commenter wrote that the requirement on Form I-129H2B 
for the petitioner ``. . . to provide evidence of why substitution is 
necessary and that the requested number of workers has not exceeded the 
number of workers on the approved temporary labor certification . . .'' 
could be ``. . . burdensome on the petitioner and delay processing.'' 
The commenter also suggested that Forms I-129H2A and I-129H2B be 
reviewed for consistency, noting that helpful language about what 
evidence to provide appeared in one of these forms but not in the 
other.
    Response: The H-2B Substitution regulation at 8 CFR 
214.2(h)(6)(viii) states that to substitute beneficiaries who were 
previously approved for consular processing but have not been admitted 
with aliens who are currently in the United States, the petitioner 
shall file an amended petition with fees at the USCIS Service Center 
where the original petition was filed, with a statement explaining why 
the substitution is necessary and evidence that the number of 
beneficiaries will not exceed the number allocated on the approved 
temporary labor certification, such as employment records or other 
documentary evidence to establish that the number of visas sought in 
the amended petition were not already issued. Thus this requirement is 
clearly supported by the regulations.
    USCIS has reviewed the forms for consistency and updated Form I-
129H2B to include the appropriate note under Part 3., Item Number 24.
    Comment: A commenter wrote that proposed Form I-129MISC ``. . . 
would make applications for R nonimmigrant workers less efficient and 
more confusing.'' The commenter stated that, ``The current version of 
the form is organized and follows a clear structure . . .'' but that 
``. . . the proposed revised Form I-129 moves from one topic to 
another, not following a logical progression.'' The commenter also 
wrote that, ``. . . certain questions are redundant and . . . broaden 
the scope of the question needlessly.''
    Response: The comment does not specify how the organization fails 
to follow the progression of the regulation. Notably, the new Form I-
129MISC structure contains much of the eligibility information in the 
main petition. The R Supplement is limited to questions about the 
beneficiary's family, the relationship between the foreign and U.S. 
organizations, and the attestation, including attestation regarding 
secular employment, as required by R-1 regulations. 8 CFR 214.2(r)(8). 
Plus, petitioners no longer must search through lengthy instructions 
that do not apply to their petition.
    Comment: One commenter wrote that on Form I-129MISC, ``Part 1, 
Question #10 does not include an option to select ``Not Applicable'' if 
a Social Security number is not available.''
    Response: USCIS has added an ``(as applicable)'' parenthetical to 
the U.S. Social Security Number field on the form. Per USCIS Form 
Instructions, all questions should be answered fully and accurately. 
Any questions that do not pertain to the applicant, petitioner, 
requestor or beneficiary should be answered with ``N/A'' or ``None,'' 
according to the instructions.
    Comment: A commenter noted that, ``Part 2, Question #3 requests 
that a petitioner for amended status provide the receipt number of the 
petition they seek to amend. However, in Part 3, Question #17, the 
petitioner would have to enter the receipt number again. This is 
repetitive. There are several bases for classification in which a 
previous receipt number would be necessary for adjudication.'' The 
commenter ``. . . recommend[ed] that USCIS consolidate and only request 
a receipt number once for any basis that would be applicable.
    Response: On Form I-129MISC, Part 2 relates to information about 
the basis for the filing (new employment, continued employment, change 
of status, or amended petition), and, if an amended petition, asks for 
the receipt number of the petition being amended. Part 3, on the other 
hand, seeks information about the beneficiary, requesting the most 
recent petition or application number for the beneficiary. These 
requests are not necessarily duplicative as a previous receipt number 
does not always mean the filing is an amended petition. Eliminating the 
question about the receipt number of the petition to be amended in Part 
2 would make matching the amended petition with the original petition 
more burdensome.
    Comment: A commenter wrote that, ``Part 4, Questions #9 and #10 ask 
if the beneficiary has ever been granted or denied the classification 
requested. The current version of the form limits the scope of these 
questions to the last 7 years. By removing the time limitation on this 
question, USCIS is requesting information that may be overly burdensome 
for petitioners and beneficiaries to provide, if the information has 
been lost over time. Information beyond 7 years is also unnecessary for 
USCIS' adjudication, as that time period would necessarily encompass 
enough time to demonstrate that a beneficiary who had spent the maximum 
5 years in a previous R-1 status had spent the requisite one year 
outside the United States to be eligible for readmission.''
    Response: USCIS notes that P-1A individual athletes have a 10-year 
admission period when your account for their initial and extension 
period of stay while other P categories may have their period of stay 
extended in one-year increments. 8 CFR 214.2(p)(14). While the R-1 
classification does have a 5-year limit, USCIS will count only time 
spent physically in the United States in valid R-1 status toward the 5-
year maximum period of stay, and an R-1 may be able to ``recapture'' 
time when he or she has resided abroad and has been physically present 
outside the United States for the immediate prior year. 8 CFR

[[Page 46881]]

214.2(r)(6).\115\ Thus the time the beneficiary may have been in R-1 
status in the United States may be longer than the immediately 
preceding 7 years in some scenarios. USCIS does not believe the 
questions to be overly burdensome since we are not initially requiring 
supporting evidence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \115\ See Procedures for Calculating the Maximum Period of Stay 
for R-1 Nonimmigrants, available at https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/USCIS/Laws/Memoranda/2012/March/R-1_Recapture_%20AFM_Update_3-8-12.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: A commenter pointed out a typographical error in Part 5., 
Question #6 of Form I-129MISC. `` `If the answered `No' . . .' should 
be `If you answered `No'.''
    Response: USCIS has corrected this typographical error.
    Comment: A commenter wrote that, ``R-1 Classification Supplement 
Section 1, Question #18 has been revised to provide less context and 
detail for this request for information about secular employment. 
Specifically, the phrase `[i]f the position is not a religious vocation 
. . . has been removed, making the question much broader than the 
previous version. This broad question is more difficult for petitioners 
to answer and could result in answers that create more confusion for 
adjudicators.''
    Response: In the R-1 Classification Supplement, Section 1, Item 
Number 18, removal of the phrase ``[i]f the position is not a religious 
vocation . . .'' aligns the question to the relevant regulatory text. 
Specifically, the regulation at 8 CFR 214.2(r)(8)(xi) requires the 
prospective employer to attest ``[t]hat the alien will not be engaged 
in secular employment,'' without regard to the type of religious worker 
position that the beneficiary will hold. As to the commenter's concern 
that the revised wording creates a ``much broader'' question that is 
more difficult to answer, we note that it remains a yes or no question, 
requiring further explanation only if the prospective employer answers 
``no'' to the required statement.

R. Statutory and Regulatory Responses

1. General Comments on the Regulatory Impact Analysis
    Comment: One commenter cited the APA and Supreme Court precedent, 
stating that the asylum fee is such a departure from prior policy that 
the agency must provide a ``reasoned analysis for the change.'' The 
commenter wrote that the agency provided no evidence, analysis, or 
discussion to support its conclusions, and that under the APA and 
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, USCIS failed to identify and evaluate 
all potential economic and non-economic costs and ensure that those 
costs are outweighed by benefits and that the regulations impose the 
least burden to society. The commenter wrote that E.O. 12866 requires 
agencies to assess all costs and benefits and should select those 
approaches that maximize benefits (including potential economic, 
environment, public health and safety), and other disadvantages; 
distributive impacts, and equity.
    Response: DHS has identified and evaluated potential economic and 
non-economic costs as summarized in table 7 of the Executive Orders 
12866 and 13563 sections of this rule, table 1 of the Regulatory Impact 
Analysis, and in the Small Entity Analysis document. As stated in 
multiple places in this final rule, DHS is changing USCIS fees to 
recover the costs of administering its adjudication and naturalization 
services. DHS is not changing USCIS fees with the intent to deter 
requests from low-income immigrants seeking family unity or deterring 
requests from any immigrants based on their financial or family 
situation. DHS will continue to explore efficiencies that improve USCIS 
services and may incorporate corresponding cost savings into future 
biennial fee reviews and rulemakings accordingly.
    Comment: Multiple commenters generally stated that the RIA does not 
accurately analyze the impact of reduced economic activity generated by 
immigrants as a result of more arduous immigrant requirements under 
this rule. Some commenters requested that USCIS analyze whether reduced 
administrative costs as a result of increased fees would be offset by a 
reduction in the economic value generated by immigrants due to more 
costly fees. Similarly, a commenter wrote that the proposed rule does 
not account for the harm posed by increased naturalization fees such as 
reduced wages, broken families, and increased vulnerability to domestic 
violence.
    Response: DHS notes that previous fee increases in 2007, 2010 and 
2016 have had no discernible effect on the number of filings that USCIS 
received.\116\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \116\ See RIA, Section M: Fee Waivers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS recognizes the contributions that naturalized citizens make to 
American society. However, USCIS must fund itself through fees. DHS 
does not have any data to establish that these fees, though required, 
are a significant impediment to naturalization or economic and social 
mobility. As stated in the proposed rule and elsewhere in this final 
rule, DHS performs a biennial review of the fees collected by USCIS and 
may recommend changes to future fees. DHS reviewed research cited by 
commenters as evidence that the cost increases discussed in the rule 
would be a barrier to immigration and found no evidence to support the 
conclusion that the fee changes would have a quantifiable causal effect 
on wages, family cohesion or domestic violence. DHS declines to conduct 
further analysis on this issue or make changes in this final rule in 
response to this comment.
    DHS recognizes the economic and societal value of nonimmigrants, 
immigration, and naturalization. DHS agrees that new citizens and 
naturalization are of tremendous economic and societal value and 
generally agrees with the points made by, and the studies cited by, 
commenters. DHS is not adjusting the USCIS fee schedule to impede, 
reduce, limit, or preclude naturalization and did not propose to adjust 
the USCIS fee schedule to reduce, limit, or preclude immigration in any 
way for any specific immigration benefit request, population, industry 
or group, including members of the working class.
    DHS acknowledges that some individuals will need to save, borrow, 
or use a credit card in order to pay fees because they may not receive 
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. However, 
DHS disagrees that the fees will result in the negative effects the 
commenters' suggested. DHS believes that immigration to the United 
States remains attractive to millions of individuals around the world 
and that its benefits continue to outweigh the costs noted by the 
commenters. DHS also does not believe that the NPRM is in any way 
discriminatory in its application and effect. DHS did not target any 
particular group or class of individuals. Therefore, DHS declines to 
make changes in this final rule in response to these comments.
    Comment: A commenter wrote that the RIA does not consider the costs 
to the families and communities of asylum seekers who will need to help 
cover fees for indigent individuals.
    Response: DHS did not consider the costs to the families and 
communities of asylum seekers, who will need assistance with fees for 
indigent individuals who are more likely to be asylum seekers. DHS 
expects that charging this fee will generate some revenue to offset 
adjudication costs but is not aligning with the beneficiary-pays

[[Page 46882]]

principle, as the estimated cost of adjudicating Form I-589 exceeds 
$50. DHS recognizes that these families and communities will have to 
find a way to pay, whether through their communities, friends, loans, 
or credit cards. DHS discusses the impact of the asylum fee and 
determines that some applicants may no longer apply for asylum in 
Section P, Charge a Fee for Form I-589 Application for Asylum and for 
Withholding, of the final RIA. DHS notes that some applicants would be 
able to find other means to pay for this application fee, such as 
borrowing money or using a credit card. DHS is not able to estimate the 
effect of the new $50 fee on asylum applicants who may not be able to 
afford the new fee and cannot accurately or reliably predict how many 
applicants would no longer apply for asylum as result of the $50 fee.
    Comment: Multiple commenters wrote that USCIS failed to 
sufficiently analyze the price elasticity or price sensitivity of 
naturalization applications, and as a result total agency revenue could 
actually decrease due to reduced naturalization applications from 
higher fees under the proposed rule. One commenter cited research 
demonstrating that subsidizing naturalization fees for low income 
individuals increased applications by 41 percent. A commenter wrote 
that USCIS argues that the lack of a fee waiver will not affect the 
number of requests filed, however research shows that fee waiver 
standardization increased applications for low income immigrants. A 
commenter wrote that USCIS fails to produce an incremental analysis 
considering the difference in money flow between the original situation 
and the proposed changes.
    Response: DHS acknowledges that one randomized control trial 
mentioned by the commenter observed a 41 percent increase in 
applications for naturalization amongst immigrants randomly selected to 
have their filing fees paid by an outside party. Commenters cited 
another study's findings that standardization of the fee waiver 
process, and incorporation of the FPG for determining eligibility 
resulted in the largest increases in naturalization rates for low-
income immigrants. While DHS acknowledges immigrants facing financial 
challenges encounter added difficulty paying filing fees, these studies 
highlight the impact of removing fees entirely on many immigrants who 
would not have naturalized without full subsidization or waiver, thus 
these effects are not informative of price sensitivity in the context 
of this rule.
    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 increases in 2007, 2010 and 2016 have had no discernible 
effect on the number of filings that USCIS received.\117\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \117\ See RIA, Section M: Fee Waivers
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: A commenter wrote that USCIS failed to present an accurate 
analysis of increased administrative processing costs under the 
proposed rule, wherein ``hundreds of thousands'' of means-tested 
applicants will begin submitting fee waiver requests under the 
household income basis.
    Response: Based on the OIDP survey, as described in the RIA, 
approximately 16.36 percent of all fee waiver applications become 
ineligible by lowering the income criteria from 150 percent to 125 
percent of the FPG. As a result, DHS estimates about 22,940 fewer fee 
waiver applications will be eligible for a fee waiver according to the 
approval eligibility criterion to limit fee waivers to households with 
income at or below 125 percent of FPG. See 8 CFR 106.3. Therefore, DHS 
disagrees that USCIS failed to present an accurate analysis of 
increased administrative processing costs under the proposed rule.
    Comment: A commenter wrote that the RIA suggests that USCIS cannot 
reliably predict the number of asylum applicants who would be deterred 
by the proposed rule's $50 fee, but then argues it would be a smaller 
number without providing any data to back the claim.
    Response: As stated in the NPRM RIA and in this Final Rule RIA 
(Section P), DHS agrees with the commenter that USCIS cannot reliably 
estimate the numbers of asylum applications who may not be able to 
afford the $50 fee for Form I-589. DHS does not believe that the new 
fee will deter asylum applications, and the commenter provides no data 
to support its claim that it will.
2. Methodology Issues
    Comment: Some commenters had issue with the timelines used in the 
RIA. A commenter wrote that the proposed rule covers a 10-year 
implementation period, but USCIS' calculations do not show the impact 
of fees on workload over a 10 year period. A commenter wrote that the 
RIA uses receipts from June 2016 to May 2017 to make revenue 
projections for FY 2019/2020, however USCIS does not explain why this 
time frame is used or why it doesn't align with the Federal 
government's fiscal quarters.
    Response: The calculations in this rule's RIA estimate the annual 
amounts of each proposed change in Table 1. In further detail of each 
proposed change, transfers, costs, or cost savings are displayed in 
relation to the affected population. USCIS then shows the total costs 
over 10-years discounted at 3 percent and 7 percent (see RIA Section 
2--Total Estimated Transfers and Costs of Regulatory Changes) as 
suggested by regulatory in guidance. See Circular A-4, (Sept. 17, 
2003).\118\ The preamble of this rule bases receipt and revenue 
projection data covering two years due to the biennial fee study. This 
study is repeated and analyzed every two years. However, USCIS does not 
choose to alter its fee schedule through regulation every two years. 
Therefore, the impacts in the RIA cover a longer timeline to estimate 
the perpetual impacts of this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \118\ Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf. (Sept. 17, 2003) 
(last viewed April 2, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: A commenter provided the following criticism of the 
methodologies and data used by USCIS in developing the RIA:
     USCIS estimates 1 hour and 10 minutes to complete Form I-
912 when the actual OMB approved burden is 2 hours and 20 minutes.
     USCIS states that data on fee waiver requests were not 
available due to limitations, but the agency does not explain what 
their limitations are.
     USCIS used fee waiver data from lockbox facilities in 
October 2017 but does not report any data related to the surveys and 
provides no insight into why data for just one month was appropriate 
for cost projections.
    Response: DHS agrees with the commenter that the time burden 
estimate utilized in the proposed rule was incorrect. For this final 
rule, USCIS has accounted for the new burden places on applicants as 
the current time burden for Form I-912 of 1 hour and 10 minutes to 2 
hours and 20 minutes under this rule. The cost calculations for the 
final rule have been updated accordingly. DHS used data that was 
collected from a statistically valid random sample from October 2, 2017 
to October 27, 2017 on approved fee waivers. Using a standard 
statistical formula based on the average annual fee waiver population, 
DHS determined that a random sample size of 384 applications was 
necessary to yield statistically significant results with a 95 percent 
confidence level and a 5 percent confidence interval. USCIS analyzed

[[Page 46883]]

data on 4,431 approved fee waiver requests, which exceeded the 
necessary sample size of 384 for statistical significance. The study of 
statistics allows us to apply the results from this statistically valid 
random sample to the population of fee waivers resulting in the same 
results 95 percent of the time. This data from the survey is in Section 
(E) of the Regulatory Impact Analysis and Table 10 of the RIA displays 
the overall approvals, denials, and foregone revenue estimates of a 5-
year average. Additionally, DHS has included the raw data of the survey 
questions and results in the appendix Office of Intake Production 
(OIDP) Fee Waiver Results from October 2, 2017 to October 27, 2017 
stand-alone RIA found in the docket of this final rulemaking.
    Comment: Similarly, another commenter provided the following 
critiques of the methodologies and data used by USCIS in developing the 
RIA:
     USCIS underestimates the need and subsequent costs that a 
number of applicants will have for legal representation in completing 
new form requirements as well as opportunity costs of time for HR 
specialists and attorneys used in the economic analysis.
     The economic analysis showed that services previously 
provided without user fees are a transfer from the Federal government 
to the applicant, however this is not accurate as tax revenues do not 
support the functions of USCIS.
    Response: While DHS acknowledges that some attorneys charge higher 
fees than those used in the economic analysis, the agency continues the 
standard practice of using BLS average occupational earnings estimates. 
Similarly, it is acknowledged that some petitioners may incur 
additional legal fees. The economic analysis does not describe every 
immigrants' situation, rather, DHS presents our best estimates of the 
impact of the rule. In addition, form fees that required no change in 
time burden, documentation, or biographical information will be a 
transfer from current fee-paying applicants and/or petitioners to those 
filing for a particular immigration benefit using a form with a revised 
form fee. The RIA calculates the new costs and/or cost savings to 
applicants/petitioners, from the impact of each policy decision. In 
this final rule, each policy justification is included in the RIA 
summary table, with the estimated benefits of the provision. Cost 
savings and benefits are displayed for both the applicant(s)/
petitioner(s) and the DHS. Once the new fees are established, DHS 
calculates the opportunity costs of the time burden required for 
completing the applicable impacted forms. If the only change in the 
rule to a specific benefit request is to increase the fee, the RIA does 
not specifically calculate the total amount of new fees per year that 
will be paid for all filings of that particular benefit because those 
amounts and the new fee times projected volume are already included in 
the tables and text describing the fee calculation model. Finally, DHS 
does not include the costs for applicants to hire legal representation 
in completing forms because DHS does not require that applicants hire 
anyone to assist them in preparing USCIS benefit requests.
    Comment: A commenter wrote that USCIS excludes savings and benefits 
already realized such as efficiencies gained through investments in IT, 
closure of international offices, and lower refugee intake. A commenter 
wrote that the RIA fails to present data and evidence on a number of 
recent changes designed to reduce costs including limiting the 
availability of printed study materials, no longer providing printed N-
400 forms, centralizing all customer inquiries and complaints on a call 
center, and introducing electronic filing for many benefits.
    Response: DHS acknowledges that there are these costs savings. The 
RIA calculates cost savings and efficiencies to applicants/petitioners 
that are built into the ABC model. Despite the money saved it still 
leads USCIS to these fee changes. In this final rule, each policy 
justification is included in the RIA summary table, with the estimated 
benefits of the provision. Cost savings and benefits are displayed for 
both the applicant(s)/petitioner(s) and the DHS. Once the new fees are 
established, DHS calculates the opportunity costs of the time burden 
required for completing the applicable impacted forms. If the only 
change in the rule to a specific benefit request is to increase the 
fee, the RIA does not specifically calculate the total amount of new 
fees per year that will be paid for all filings of that particular 
benefit because those amounts and the new fee times projected volume 
are already included in the tables and text describing the fee 
calculation model.
3. Other Comments on the Cost-Benefit Analysis
    Comment: A commenter wrote that the proposed rule does not consider 
less costly alternatives to raising fees such as reducing operating 
costs, drawing on carryover funds, or seeking discretionary 
appropriations from Congress. The commenter also suggested that USCIS 
should analyze the impacts of slowly increasing the proposed fees on a 
year by year basis until reaching the desired level in order to avoid 
disruption. Another commenter also said USCIS fails to consider less 
burdensome alternatives.
    Response: As mentioned in response to a previous comment, for FY 
2019 and FY 2020, Congress appropriated $10 million for the Citizenship 
and Integration Grant Program. See Consolidated Appropriations Act, 
2019, Public Law 116-6, div. A, tit. IV (Feb. 15, 2019) and 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, Public Law 116-93, div. D, tit. 
IV (Dec. 20, 2020). Other than that, USCIS receives no appropriations 
to offset the cost of adjudicating immigration benefit requests.\119\ 
As a consequence of this funding structure, taxpayers do not bear any 
costs related to the IEFA and bear only a nominal burden to fund USCIS. 
However, in the event appropriations that would materially change IEFA 
fees are provided, then DHS could pursue a rulemaking to adjust fees 
appropriately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \119\ Congress provides USCIS with appropriations for the E-
Verify program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS considered alternatives such as using existing carryover funds 
instead of adjusting fees. However, DHS determined that USCIS has 
insufficient carryover funds to obviate the need to adjust fees. As 
stated in the Supporting Documentation accompanying this rule, USCIS 
projected that, if DHS did not adjust fees, USCIS would exhaust all of 
its existing carryover funds during the FY 2019/2020 biennium, reaching 
a carryover balance of -$1.069 billion at the end of FY 2020. USCIS 
cannot have a negative carryover balance, as a negative carryover 
balance indicates that USCIS has incurred costs greater than its 
available financial resources. USCIS must maintain a positive carryover 
balance to ensure that USCIS is able meet its financial obligations at 
times when USCIS operating costs temporarily exceed its revenues.
    DHS does not believe that gradually adjusting the USCIS fee 
schedule over multiple years represents a reasonable alternative to 
this final rule, as such an approach would ensure that USCIS does not 
recover full cost and is not able to fully fund its operational 
requirements while the new fees are phased-in. DHS declines to make 
changes in this final rule in response to these comments.
    Comment: A commenter wrote that the cost analysis provided in the 
NPRM was ``incomplete and arbitrary'' and rejected the NPRM's 
``allegation'' that the agency's operations are conducted efficiently. 
The commenter cited Congressional testimony and an article from the 
American Immigration Lawyers Association that discussed

[[Page 46884]]

USCIS' decreased cost-effectiveness and changes to operational 
procedures that have increased costs without tangible improvements to 
adjudication quality.
    Response: USCIS analyzed the impacts of this rule using the best 
available data at the time the analysis was written in an objective 
manner. USCIS's goal in the analysis was to produce an objective 
assessment of the cost, benefits, and transfers associated with this 
rule as required by Executive Orders 12866 and 13563. DHS believes 
these operational changes are necessary to ensure that applicants 
seeking immigration benefits are properly vetted and eligible for the 
benefit for which they have applied.
4. Impacts on Lower-Income Individuals and Families
    Comment: One commenter cited research from the Kaiser Family 
Foundation, the Urban Institute and the Foundation for Child 
Development, demonstrating that even though U.S. citizen children with 
an immigrant parent are more likely to live in families with a full-
time worker, such families still experience economic hardships that 
carry adverse health and developmental outcomes for children. The 
commenter cited research from various other sources documenting the 
impact of economic hardships and stated that the proposal would 
exacerbate such hardships. The commenter wrote that changes to the fee 
waiver program would discourage low-income families from applying for 
needed benefits and may lead to family separation, an outcome that 
would carry profound negative impacts on child health and well-being. 
The commenter also said that ``decades of research'' demonstrates that 
family stability supports early childhood health and development and 
wrote that the fee increases making naturalization less accessible for 
low-income immigrants would yield poor health outcomes among children. 
A commenter addressed the proposed rule's potential impact on health 
care, including forgone medical care, increased detrimental health 
conditions, and increased costs to the health care system. The 
commenter suggested there would be cost increases for State Medicaid 
programs and urged USCIS to fully analyze and explain such costs.
    Response: DHS recognizes that the fee increases may create an 
economic hardship for some families. Furthermore, DHS acknowledges the 
studies and data cited suggesting that many families struggle to afford 
healthcare and connecting such financial risks to adverse health and 
developmental outcomes in children. However, collectively these studies 
suggest that the incomes of some immigrant families may result in 
adverse outcomes, rather than that present USCIS fees have caused such 
outcomes. The comments do not indicate that net costs of the final rule 
would be improved by shifting the costs of certain benefit requests to 
other requestors.
5. Impacts on Immigrant Populations in Distinct Geographic Areas
    Comments:
     Citing economic conditions in the State of California, 
including information about earnings, the State's high poverty rate, 
and the increasing costs of housing, commenters underscore their 
opposition to all aspects of the proposed rule that would act as a 
barrier between low-income immigrants and benefits for which they 
qualify.
     One million individuals would be adversely impacted by the 
proposed rule in Los Angeles County. There are 1.5 million immigrants 
in Los Angeles and the proposed rule would impede their ability to 
apply for, or renew, immigration benefits allowing them to work, attend 
school, and access critical community services.
     The immigrant community would have to choose between using 
their income to provide for their families or applying for immigration 
benefits for which they qualify.
     The proposal would make it nearly impossible for more than 
50,000 low-income non-citizens in San Francisco to seek or renew 
immigration benefits.
     Individuals in full-time, minimum wage jobs would need to 
dedicate a full month's salary towards green card applications and many 
immigrants earn even less and may not be able to afford immigration 
benefits at all.
     Alameda county is the fourth most diverse county in the 
nation with more than half a million immigrants, and that 90,000 adults 
eligible for naturalization in the county would be faced with 
insurmountable barriers in securing their status, keeping communities 
together, and participating fully in civic life. The proposal would 
exacerbate existing socio-economic and health disparities in San 
Joaquin Valley in California which suffers from socio-economic and 
health disparities, including the fact that over half of the area's 
residents are enrolled in Medicaid and nearly 20 percent use SNAP 
benefits and more than 40 percent of children are living with at least 
one foreign-born parent.
     The American Immigration Council found 357,652 Minnesota 
residents (or 6.6 percent of the State's total population) were U.S.-
born Americans with at least one immigrant parent, and that ``nearly 
half'' of all the immigrants in Minnesota were naturalized citizens. 
The rule would have a disproportionately negative impact on low-income 
and vulnerable immigrants and would limit access to essential 
immigration benefits to the wealthy.
    Response: This rule in no way is intended to reduce, limit, or 
preclude any specific immigration benefit request from any population, 
industry, or group. DHS acknowledges that individuals earning the 
federal minimum wage may need to use an entire paycheck to pay the 
filing fee for Form I-485. While studies indicate that some lawful 
immigrants who have not naturalized cite administrative and financial 
barriers as a reason for not naturalizing, this alone does not 
establish that previous fee levels were prohibitive. Similarly, 
financial support provided by communities to local immigrants does not 
establish that these immigrants would be unable to afford fees set by 
this rule. None of the studies cited by commenters conclude that the 
rule would explicitly preclude access to any specific immigration 
benefit request, population, industry, or group. USCIS must fund its 
operations from fees regardless of state and regional economic 
conditions, the costs of housing, household earnings, and poverty. This 
final rule provides for some fee waivers and does not preclude 
individuals from receiving public benefits or pursuing higher-paying 
opportunities for work in more affordable communities.
6. Immigrants' Access to Legal and Supportive Services
    Comment: One commenter wrote that workshops run by non-profit 
immigration legal service providers are ``the most efficient model'' to 
help vulnerable populations seek immigration relief and wrote that the 
proposed changes to the fee waiver forms would make it harder for these 
providers to complete applications in the workshop setting. The 
commenter also said the proposed rule would ``decrease the resources 
practitioners can dedicate to actual legal representation'' due to the 
increased burden associated with generating Forms I-912 that are 
already denied at a high rate, and without cause, by USCIS. One 
commenter said their organization, and other organizations like Kids in 
Need of Defense, provide social services and legal assistance to 
unaccompanied children, and wrote that if organizations that provide 
such

[[Page 46885]]

services pro bono ``must find ways to subsidize unreasonable fees,'' 
they may have to reduce the number of children they serve. Another 
commenter that provides services to survivors of gender-based violence 
said if their organization must divert resources towards fundraising 
for application fees it may be unable to serve the same volume of 
clients.
    Response: DHS recognizes the challenges that gender-based violence 
survivors face when fleeing from the violence of their abusers. In 
addition, there continues to be no fees for Form I-914 or I-918 for 
applications for T or U non-immigrant status. DHS believes that these 
fee exemptions and waivers mitigate concerns that other provisions of 
this final rule may harm victims of abuse and domestic violence. The 
RIA calculates the new costs and/or cost savings to applicants/
petitioners from the impact of each policy decision. In this final 
rule, each policy justification is included in the RIA summary table, 
with the estimated benefits of the provision. Cost savings and benefits 
are displayed for both the applicant(s)/petitioner(s) and the DHS.
    DHS does not include the costs for applicants to hire legal 
representation in completing forms because DHS does not require that 
applicants hire anyone to assist them in preparing USCIS benefit 
requests. Similarly, DHS recognizes comments concerning individuals and 
community organizations that choose to donate valuable assistance to 
applicants, but DHS finds no evidence that the rule prevents 
organizations from choosing to continue providing a level of 
assistance. DHS declines to make changes in this final rule in response 
to these comments.
7. Impacts on Students From Low Income Families
    Comment: One commenter stated the proposed rule would have ``far-
reaching effects'' on employers, international students, H-1B 
nonimmigrants, L-1 nonimmigrants, EB-5 investors, DACA recipients, 
asylum seekers, and those seeking naturalization, and provided a 
``visual representation'' of the proposed fee schedule increases that 
shows the average increase will be ``far greater'' than the 21 percent 
average increase cited in the proposal.
    Response: The commenter does not provide details or explanations of 
the far-reaching impacts that it estimates will result from an increase 
in USCIS immigration benefit request fees that DHS can address in this 
final rule short of abandoning the rule altogether. When DHS increased 
USCIS fees in 2007, 2010, and 2016 there were no far reaching impacts 
on the classifications and applicants that the comment mentions, aside 
from, as discussed elsewhere in this final rule, a large increase in 
the number of fee waivers granted to naturalization applicants since 
2010. DHS is increasing the fees that USCIS charges for immigration 
adjudication and naturalization services to recover the costs of 
running its programs. DHS can readjust the fees in its next fee 
rulemaking that follows its next biennial fee review if necessary. 
Still, in this final rule, DHS is addressing the issues that the 
commenter touches on by expanding fee waivers and exemptions from what 
was proposed, not charging a DACA renewal fee, and not transferring any 
fee revenue to ICE.
    Comment: One commenter cited research from the Community College 
Research Center at Columbia University demonstrating that more than a 
third of community college students come from families with incomes 
less than $20,000 per year, and research from the Migration Policy 
Institute showing immigrants and their children make up nearly a third 
of community colleges' student population. The commenter said 
immigrant-origin students at community colleges face unique challenges, 
and cited research demonstrating that such students are more likely to 
apply for financial aid, are typically ``debt inverse,'' and cover most 
of their own educational expenses. The commenter said the proposed fee 
increases and elimination of fee waivers will prove ``punishing'' for 
hard-working, low-income immigrant students by denying them 
opportunities to adjust their status, pursue citizenship, and apply for 
DACA renewal.
    A commenter said more than 600 Latina girls participate in one of 
its programs with a 99 percent high school graduation rate and wrote 
that the prohibitive costs for immigration benefits would hinder this 
success since many of these participants work full time while attending 
school. Another commenter said the proposal would generate additional 
cost burdens for economically disadvantaged students and their 
families, placing ``the dream of completing a degree'' out of reach for 
many students. The commenter also wrote that 46 percent of the Latino 
population aged 18 and over in its area were born outside the United 
States, while only 4 percent of Latinos under age 18 were born outside 
the United States. The commenter stated this statistic meant that the 
proposal would have a strong negative effect on immigrant families 
already struggling to support their college-age children.
    Response: DHS acknowledges the studies and statistics presented by 
commenters demonstrating that paying for college is a significant 
challenge for many students, more so for students of lower income. 
These studies also show that community college and student loans are 
among the existing market-oriented solutions available to mitigate the 
cost burden of pursuing higher education. DHS is changing USCIS fees to 
recover the costs of administering its adjudication and naturalization 
services. DHS is not changing USCIS fees with the intent to deter 
requests from low-income immigrants seeking to reunite with family or 
based on race, financial, or family situation.
8. Impacts on Victimized Groups and Other Vulnerable Populations
    Comment: A commenter suggested that the costs associated with the 
proposed rule vastly outweighed any benefits of the proposed rule and 
said DHS had not attempted to quantify the cost associated with being 
unable to receive protections under a winning asylum claim. The 
commenter said the proposal did not offer any evidence that a $50 fee 
for asylum applications would deter ``frivolous filings'' and wrote 
that DHS' goal in promulgating the proposal was simply to reduce the 
number of people filing asylum claims. The commenter also said the 
introduction of a $490 fee for employment authorization would 
negatively impact asylum seekers and the ``overstretched'' 
organizations that assist asylum seekers.
    Response: DHS does not believe that establishing an asylum 
application fee of $50 unduly burdens or harms any applicants. DHS 
carefully assessed the costs associated with the adjudication of asylum 
applications and other types of immigration benefits and concluded that 
the $50 fee for asylum applications is warranted. The approximate cost 
of adjudicating an asylum application is $366, and the $50 fee is well 
below the full cost of adjudicating the application. Moreover, the 
asylum application fee is in line with international treaty obligations 
under the 1951 Refugee Convention, as incorporated by reference in the 
1967 Refugee Protocol, and domestic law.
    DHS recognizes the economic challenges faced by asylum seekers. 
However, DHS does not believe that charging asylum seekers for a work 
authorization application will prevent them from obtaining legal 
counsel. DHS does not believe that the EAD fee is unduly burdensome for 
asylum seekers.

[[Page 46886]]

    Comment: Many commenters wrote that immigrants are particularly 
vulnerable to violence or abuse, and cited research from the Journal of 
Interpersonal Violence demonstrating that immigrant women are more 
likely than U.S. born women to suffer violence or death from intimate 
partners. The commenters wrote that this problem was especially acute 
among Asian and Pacific Islander populations, citing research from the 
Asian Pacific Institute on Gender-Based Violence. The commenters wrote 
that the proposed fee schedule increases would reinforce abusers' 
ability to use immigration status and financial circumstances as tools 
to abuse victims, citing research from various sources documenting the 
tactics used and the frequency of such abuse. The commenters said it 
was ``crucial'' for immigrant survivors of abuse to access immigration 
relief in order to ensure they can ``seek and find safety.'' One 
commenter said the proposal would make it harder for victims of abuse 
to apply for immigration relief independently of their abusers and said 
the proposed elimination of fee waivers was ``frustrating the intent of 
Congress'' to enable victims to escape ``unhealthy power dynamics.'' A 
commenter wrote that the proposal to limit the availability of fee 
waivers and increase fees would negatively impact survivors of domestic 
violence because the changes would deprive this vulnerable population 
of the opportunity to pursue immigration protections that Congress 
specifically provided for them.
    Response: In this final rule, VAWA self-petitions, applications for 
T nonimmigrant status application, petitions for U nonimmigrant status 
and applications for VAWA cancellation or suspension of deportation are 
fee exempt, and fee waivers will remain available for all ancillary 
forms associated with those categories. DHS believes that these fee 
exemptions and waivers mitigate concerns that other provisions of this 
final rule may harm victims of abuse and domestic violence. DHS 
declines to make changes in this final rule in response to these 
comments.
    Comment: One commenter wrote that the proposal would 
disproportionately impact women, children, and older adults because 
these populations often depend on means-tested public benefits or 
familial support due to their inability to find work. Another commenter 
cited research from various sources documenting the numbers of U.S. 
born children living with an undocumented family member and the fact 
that many of these children are born to DACA-eligible parents. The 
commenter described the consequences of children living with an 
undocumented parent, including the fear of being separated from their 
families and higher rates of post-traumatic stress disorder or similar 
mental health problems. The commenter cited research from several 
sources demonstrating how U.S. born children of undocumented parents 
stand to benefit when their parents achieve legal status. The commenter 
said the proposal would make it harder for undocumented parents to 
achieve adjustment of status and wrote that their children and families 
would be harmed by the family's reduction of disposable income due to 
the fee increases.
    Response: DHS is changing USCIS fees to recover the costs of 
administering its adjudication and naturalization services. DHS is not 
changing USCIS fees with the intent to deter requests from low-income 
immigrants seeking family unity or deterring requests from any 
immigrants based on their race, financial, or family situation. While 
one commenter shared survey results indicating many undocumented 
immigrants are eligible to adjust their status, this alone does not 
suggest this rule would preclude them from doing so. DHS recognizes 
such individuals will consider many factors, including future earnings 
and costs, before deciding if, how and when to adjust their status. DHS 
appreciates and acknowledges all of the positive contributions of 
immigrants to the United States.
    Comment: Some commenters cited data from a variety of sources to 
underscore their comment that the proposal would create barriers that 
disproportionately harm low-income immigrant women. The research cited 
by the commenters demonstrated that immigrant women are at a higher 
risk of economic insecurity due to pay disparities and other forms of 
discrimination, that domestic violence carries severe economic 
consequences including jeopardizing women's job prospects, that 
immigrant women are vulnerable to abuse from employers, and that women 
take on a disproportionate share of caregiving responsibilities. The 
commenters said these factors would make it more difficult for 
immigrant women to account for the ``onerous cost increases'' in the 
proposed rule and would be deprived of access to immigration benefits 
at a higher rate than males. Another commenter cited research from the 
National Women's Law Center demonstrating that Latinas make $0.54 cents 
for every dollar earned by a white, non-Hispanic male, and have less 
resources to spend on necessities despite the fact that Latinas are 
``breadwinners'' in more than 3 million households. The commenter wrote 
that the proposed fee increases and elimination of fee waivers would 
make it less likely that Latinas could become U.S. citizens.
    Response: DHS acknowledges the comments about Latina women, but DHS 
is not adjusting its fees with a planned effect on any particular group 
or class of individuals. This rule adjusts USCIS' fee schedule to 
recover its cost. With limited exceptions as noted in the NPRM and this 
final rule, DHS establishes its fees at the level estimated to 
represent the full cost of providing adjudication and naturalization 
services, including the cost of relevant overhead and similar services 
provided at no or reduced charge to asylum applicants or other 
immigrants. This is consistent with DHS's legal authorities. See INA 
section 286(m), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m).
    As stated previously, the USCIS fee changes in 2007, 2010 and 2016 
had no effect on the number of benefit requests received.\120\ The 
commenters simply assert that the fees are too high for certain 
potential benefit request filers without providing data to support 
their assertions. DHS has no way to effectively determine how these new 
fees will affect anyone, but DHS believes that benefit request filings 
will not decrease substantially.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \120\ See RIA, Section M: Fee Waivers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Some commenters wrote that survivors of violence may 
pursue immigration benefits through non-humanitarian channels and would 
no longer have access to fee waivers under the proposed rule. The 
commenters said the elimination of fee waivers, coupled with the 
increased fees for naturalization, would force LPR survivors to choose 
between providing basic necessities for their families and pursuing 
citizenship.\121\ A commenter said the heightened standards for fee 
waiver eligibility, combined with increased fees for naturalization or 
adjustment of status, would cause irreparable harm to survivors of 
gender-based violence. The commenter said that access to immigration 
relief and regularization of immigration status increases employment 
opportunities and decreases vulnerability to continued abuse for 
survivors, and that survivors should not have to choose between 
pursuing citizenship and

[[Page 46887]]

acquiring food and shelter for their families.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \121\ National Women's Law Center; California Partnership to End 
Domestic Violence; Illinois Coalition Against Domestic Violence; 
National Partnership for New Americans; Texas RioGrande Legal Aid, 
Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: DHS recognizes the challenges that gender-based violence 
survivors face when fleeing from the violence of their abusers. Victims 
of abuse that file a VAWA self-petition, an application T nonimmigrant 
status or petition for U nonimmigrant status, or an application for 
VAWA cancellation or suspension of deportation are fee exempt, and fee 
waivers remain available for filing all ancillary forms associated with 
those categories. DHS proposed adjustments to USCIS' fee schedule to 
ensure full cost recovery. DHS did not target any particular group or 
class of individuals. With limited exceptions as noted in the NPRM and 
this final rule, DHS establishes its fees at the level estimated to 
represent the full cost of providing adjudication and naturalization 
services.
    Comment: Another commenter wrote that removing the financial 
hardship grounds for fee waivers ``overlooks'' the financial challenges 
survivors of violence face, including ruined credit scores, high levels 
of debt, relocation costs, medical bills from injuries, and attorney 
and court costs. The commenter also said the heightened documentation 
requirements, including the time-consuming process of obtaining IRS 
documents, would negatively impact survivors because they often need to 
move quickly to meet deadlines and avoid delays in filing that would 
harm the merits of their applications in adjudication. The commenter 
wrote that the proposed rule falls short of the ``any credible 
evidence'' standard Congress mandated for humanitarian-based benefit 
requests by ``impermissibly requiring specific types of evidence,'' 
such as IRS documentation.
    Response: To obtain a fee waiver, an applicant must demonstrate 
that he or she is at or below 125 percent of the FPG, and submit the 
form along with the information and evidence available in order to 
establish eligibility. The applicant need only provide sufficient 
information to establish why the documentation is not available and not 
that it is unavailable directly or indirectly as a result of the 
victimization. The form provides space for explanations and attachments 
are accepted, but a separate declaration is unnecessary. Although not 
required by statute, USCIS has provided flexibilities in the 
instructions for the VAWA, T, and U populations, permitting them to 
submit information regarding their inability to obtain documentation on 
their income with their fee waiver request. DHS will presume that the 
inability of this group of applicants to submit certain evidence is the 
result of the victimization and abuse and not require proof of a nexus 
between victimization and the inability to pay, but the request must 
demonstrate inability to pay to the extent necessary for USCIS to grant 
a discretionary fee waiver. All applicants for a fee waiver are subject 
to the evidence requirements as provided in the revised form 
instructions, which include more flexible rules with respect to the 
groups these comments mention. If individuals are unable to obtain 
documents without risking further abuse, they can explain why they are 
unable to obtain such documentation and submit other evidence to 
demonstrate their eligibility. Obtaining information from the IRS in 
transcripts, a W-2, or proof of non-filing, if applicable, is 
sufficient documentation to establish the necessary income or no 
income.
    Comment: Several comments were submitted about LGBTQ asylum seekers 
and transgender applicants. These comments are summarized as follows:
     LGBTQ people suffer significant economic hardships, have 
past medical conditions and traumas, language barriers that make it 
more difficult to find housing and employment, difficulty finding legal 
services, and other challenges.
     The proposal would disproportionately impact transgender 
people because they are more likely to be indigent and are frequently 
seeking asylum as they seek to escape ``extraordinary levels of 
violence and persecution.''
     Violence and persecution towards transgender people was 
well-documented in reports and analyses from the U.S. Department of 
State and various other sources.
     LGBTQ asylum seekers face dangers in their countries of 
origin which do not protect them from violence and oppression.
     According to the United Nations High Commissioner for 
Refugees, 88 percent of LGBTQ asylum seekers and refugees fleeing 
persecution from the Northern Triangle have faced sexual or gender-
based violence in their home country.
     LGBTQ and HIV-positive individuals sometimes seek asylum 
in the United States as a result of persecution by their own families 
and communities and often cannot rely on family or community networks 
in the United States for financial support and therefore require the 
United States to intervene.
     A commenter that serves the LGBT community, survivors of 
misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, family rejection, and gang violence 
said the proposed fee increases would be especially burdensome for the 
populations it serves and increase filing fees for its clients by 
$22,700 annually.
     The proposal would further victimize and isolate LGBTQ 
refugees seeking asylum and many older LGBTQ people who have lived in 
the U.S. for many years.
     LGBTQ, women, and minors would be ``hardest hit'' by the 
proposed fee increases given the pervasive nature of gender inequity 
and prejudice against LGBTQ populations.
    Response: DHS acknowledges that asylum applicants face challenges. 
DHS is not adjusting the USCIS fee schedule to reduce, limit, or 
preclude any individuals or groups of individuals from requesting 
asylum or seeking any other type of immigration benefit and does not 
intend to discourage meritorious asylum claims or unduly burden any 
applicant or group of applicants. More broadly, DHS is adjusting the 
USCIS fee schedule to recover the full cost of providing immigration 
adjudication and naturalization services (with some exceptions, as 
stated earlier). However, in recognition of the circumstances 
particular to asylum applicants, DHS is not aligning the fee with the 
beneficiary-pays principle and does not intend to recover the full cost 
of adjudicating Form I-589 asylum applications. Instead, DHS is 
establishing a $50 fee for Form I-589 even though the estimated 
adjudication costs exceed $50. DHS has determined that the only 
exception to the fee should apply to unaccompanied alien children in 
removal proceedings who file Form I-589 with USCIS. DHS does not 
believe that it is reasonable or appropriate to make additional 
exceptions to the fee, particularly on the basis of factors tied to 
underlying asylum claims.
    DHS expects that charging a $50 fee to asylum applicants except for 
the narrow group of unaccompanied alien children will generate some 
revenue to offset adjudication costs. With respect to charging a fee to 
initial Form I-765 EAD applicants with pending asylum applications, DHS 
will be able to keep the fee for all fee-paying EAD applicants lower. 
Asylum applicants will pay no more and no less than any other EAD 
applicant (except for those who are eligible for a fee waiver) for the 
same service.
    DHS is acting in compliance with sections 208(d)(3) of the INA, 
which provides that, ``[n]othing in this paragraph shall be construed 
to require the Attorney General to charge fees for adjudication 
services provided to

[[Page 46888]]

asylum applicants, or to limit the authority of the Attorney General to 
set adjudication and naturalization fees in accordance with section 
286(m).'' DHS believes that charging asylum applicants for asylum 
applications and EADs does not impose an unreasonable burden on asylum 
seekers.
    Comment: One commenter wrote that foreign national students 
represent the majority of science, technology, engineering and 
mathematics (STEM) graduates from master's degree and Ph.D. programs, 
and that these students help fill the demand for ``high-level technical 
talent,'' permit U.S. universities to sustain competitive STEM 
programs, and help cement America's role as a leader in technological 
innovation. The commenter discussed the demand for highly skilled 
technical workers and cited research showing that there were 3.3 
million STEM job openings in 2016, but only 568,000 students graduating 
with STEM degrees. The commenter said that employers of all sizes, and 
across industries, faced challenges in securing high-skilled, available 
candidates, and that issues relating to ``employment immigration'' were 
of utmost importance to the technology industry. The commenter 
expressed their support for comprehensive immigration reform that meets 
employers' demands in a globally competitive and digital economy. 
Another commenter said the proposal would accelerate the loss of U.S. 
information technology jobs. The commenter said access to information 
technology workers on H-1B nonimmigrant workers was critical for the 
industry and wrote that the proposal would make U.S.-based information 
technology projects ``less economically viable.'' The commenter said 
proposed fee increases would make it more difficult to create and 
retain information technology jobs in the U.S.
    Response: DHS recognizes that immigrants and international students 
make significant contributions to the U.S. technology industry. The 
commenter's suggestion that high demand by globally competitive firms 
for high-skilled occupations would be affected by the fee changes is 
not clearly explained or supported with evidence.
9. Impacts to Industries That Use H-2A Workers
    Comment: A commenter provided statistics detailing the economic 
condition of farmworkers in the U.S. and said many of its farmworker 
clients struggle to meet their families' financial needs despite 
working long hours. The commenter cited figures from the Department of 
Labor (DOL) showing that farmworkers' average household income ranged 
from $20,000 to $24,999 per year, and that 33 percent of farmworkers 
have family incomes below 100 percent of FPG. The commenter said 
farmworkers' wages are low ``through no fault of their own'' and wrote 
that farm work is seasonal by nature, a fact that causes periods of 
unemployment and fluctuating incomes throughout the year. The commenter 
drew upon its experience serving farmworker clients in remarking that 
low-wage farm work should not indicate an immigrant's inability to be 
self-sufficient. The commenter also said a majority of its clients use 
fee waivers or other forms of financial assistance to pay for 
applications and wrote that the combination of fee increases and the 
elimination of fee waivers would mean that its communities will be hard 
hit.
    Response: The commenters do not offer evidence to support their 
claims that the new fees will result in the negative effects suggested. 
Seasonal farmworkers employed as H-2A workers are not required to pay 
any fees or expenses for recruitment, travel, or USCIS petitions, so it 
is assumed that the immigrant workers that the commenter is referencing 
immigrated to the U.S. as beneficiaries of a petition for a family 
member. In that case, the immigrant will be subject to an affidavit of 
support from a family member who must support them at an income above 
125 percent of FPG. If the farmworker is a TPS registrant, then they 
may request a fee waiver.
    DHS is changing USCIS fees to recover the costs of administering 
its adjudication and naturalization services. DHS is not changing USCIS 
fees with intent or effect of deterring requests from low-income 
immigrants seeking family unity or deterring requests from any 
immigrants based on their financial or family situation.
    Comment: Some commenters opposed the proposed rule increasing 
burdens on employers participating in the H-2A program. One commenter 
wrote that farmworkers help sustain the $47 billion agriculture 
industry and that immigrants have supplied the industry with a needed 
workforce. One commenter stated its members need H-2A workers because 
there are no domestic workers willing to perform jobs its members need. 
The commenter wrote that the proposal would diminish employers' use of 
the H-2A program, an outcome that the commenter also wrote would lead 
to the elimination of jobs in certain sectors, slowed economic growth, 
and reduced national security due to a less secure food supply. Another 
commenter said the proposal would make it cost prohibitive for small 
farms and ranchers to remain in production and suggested that the loss 
of agricultural production was a national security concern. One 
commenter suggested that the proposal, in conjunction with Policy Memo 
PM-602-0176, would increase ranchers costs by 274 percent (rather than 
87 percent). The commenter wrote that since agricultural producers are 
price takers, they are unable to pass these extra costs onto consumers 
and would see their margins depleted. The commenter said it would 
support a flat application fee with an additional add-on for each 
beneficiary (such as $425 per application and $10 per beneficiary). 
Other commenters stated that the proposed increase would hurt 
agriculture businesses because they cannot pass down additional costs 
to consumers. One commenter stated low-wage H-2A agricultural workers 
would have their fees increased by four times the amount of H-1B 
workers, who are more likely to be able to afford the proposed 
increased, which highlights the ``deeply flawed'' perspective that 
those workers that serve as the backbone of our agricultural industry 
are less necessary to the U.S. economy. A commenter wrote these 
increased fees could lead to decreased participation in the H-2A 
program. A commenter indicated that the proposed increase of H-2A 
filing fees would burden the livestock industry, substantially and 
disproportionately harming small businesses.
    Response: DHS understands the need for nonimmigrant workers to meet 
seasonal demands in agriculture in the United States and is sympathetic 
to the costs for agricultural employers involved in doing so. With that 
in mind, DHS notes, preliminarily, that the current fee for Form I-129 
is $460, and DHS is imposing a fee for new Forms I-129H2A of $415 for 
petitions for unnamed workers--an actual reduction in the filing fee 
from the current $460. We note that the filing fee for named H-2A 
workers, however, will be increasing from $460 to $850 per petition, 
with a maximum of 25 named workers per each H-2A petition. The change 
in these filing fees, as provided in this final rule, is consistent 
with the recommendation of the DHS Office of the Inspector General 
(OIG) of March 6, 2017.\122\ That report reviewed whether the fee 
structure associated with the filing of

[[Page 46889]]

H-2 petitions is equitable and effective, and recommended separate fees 
for petitions with named workers, which, due to the need to verify 
eligibility of individually named workers, is more costly to USCIS than 
the costs associated with adjudicating petitions filed on behalf of 
unnamed workers.\123\ Consistent with the OIG's recommendation, USCIS 
conducted a study to address the inequities identified in the OIG 
report, and, based on its study, USCIS determined that the filing fees 
in this final rule reflect the relative costs to USCIS in processing 
these two different types of H-2A petitions. USCIS also notes that 
limiting the number of beneficiaries in an H-2A petition with named 
workers to a maximum of 25 is intended not only to make the processing 
of such petitions more efficient, but to provide better data on the 
actual costs of adjudicating various nonimmigrant classifications, 
thereby permitting USCIS to refine its fee calculations in the future 
to better reflect relative costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \122\ DHS OIG, H-2 Petition Fee Structure Is Inequitable and 
Contributes to Processing Errors (Mar. 6, 2017), available at 
www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2017/OIG-17-42-Mar17.pdf.
    \123\ DHS OIG, H-2 Petition Fee Structure Is Inequitable and 
Contributes to Processing Errors (Mar. 6, 2017), available at 
https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2017/OIG-17-42-Mar17.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. Effects on Other Federal Agencies
    Many commenters wrote about their predictions of the problems that 
the fee rule would cause other Federal agencies and their employee. 
Those commenters wrote that the new USCIS fees would result in the 
following:
     Would place an unnecessary burden on the IRS by requiring 
fee waiver applicants to provide IRS documentation to demonstrate their 
eligibility.
     Would require IRS verification and did not consider 
whether the IRS was prepared to handle a substantial increase in 
requests for documents.
     The increases to employment authorization application fees 
may place vulnerable workers in exploitative arrangements which would 
make DOL incur increased burden for enforcing federal workplace laws.
     Increased immigrants' fear of government officials would 
hamper DOL workplace investigations and enforcement.
     Would cause the IRS to lose income revenue from a 
reduction in asylum applications and would need to dedicate more 
resources to investigations of tax liability for unauthorized 
employment.
     DOL would need to investigate more incidences of wage 
theft and unsafe working conditions because many asylum seekers would 
be forced into the unauthorized workforce due to their inability to 
afford work authorization fees.
    Response: With regard to the documentation required from the IRS 
for fee waivers, all other Federal agencies, including the Department 
of the Treasury and Department of Labor, reviewed the NPRM through the 
interagency review process and provided no objections, thus DHS 
believes that the IRS and DOL can handle any additional workload 
arising from this rule.

IV. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review), Executive 
Order 13563 (Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review), and Executive 
Order 13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs)

    The fee schedule that went into effect on December 23, 2016 was 
expected to yield approximately $3.4 billion of average annual revenue 
during the FY 2019/2020 biennial period. This represents a $0.9 
billion, or 36 percent, increase from the FY 2016/2017 fee rule 
projection of $2.5 billion. See 81 FR 26911. The projected revenue 
increase is due to higher fees as a result of the FY 2016/2017 fee rule 
and more anticipated fee-paying receipts. The FY 2016/2017 fee rule 
forecasted approximately 5.9 million total workload receipts and 4.9 
million fee-paying receipts, excluding biometric services. See 81 FR 
26923-4. However, the FY 2019/2020 fee review forecasts approximately 
8.5 million total workload receipts and 7.0 million fee-paying 
receipts, excluding biometric services. This represents a 44 percent 
increase to workload and a 43 percent increase to fee-paying receipt 
assumptions.\124\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \124\ See FY 2019/2020 Immigration Examinations Fee Account Fee 
Review Supporting Documentation with Addendum, which is part of the 
docket for this final rule. DHS revised the volumes to exclude DACA 
and change fee-paying assumptions for Forms N-400, N-600, and N-
600K, as discussed later in this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Executive Orders (E.O.) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess 
the costs and benefits of available alternatives, and if regulation is 
necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits 
(including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety 
effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the 
importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, 
of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rulemaking has 
been designated an ``economically significant regulatory action'' under 
section 3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed 
by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). E.O. 13771 directs 
agencies to reduce regulation and control regulatory costs. Because the 
estimated impacts range from costs to cost savings, this final rule is 
considered neither regulatory or deregulatory under E.O. 13771. Details 
on the estimated impacts of this final rule can be found in the rule's 
economic analysis, section 2.
    This final rule adjusts certain immigration and naturalization 
benefit request fees charged by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS). It also removes certain fee exemptions, changes fee 
waiver requirements,\125\ alters premium processing time limits, and 
modifies intercountry adoption processing. This final rule removes the 
proposed fee that was introduced in the NPRM of this rule for Form I-
821D; \126\ it does not provide for the proposed transfer of any 
Immigration Examination Fee Account (IEFA) funds collected by USCIS to 
ICE; \127\ it reassigns the proposed National Record Center (NRC) costs 
that do not directly apply to the genealogy program, thereby setting 
genealogy fees lower than proposed; \128\ and it now allows for a $10 
reduction in filing fee for applicants who file online for forms that 
are electronically available by USCIS rather than submit paper 
applications.\129\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \125\ Also, in this final rule DHS consolidates the Director's 
discretionary provision on fee waivers to remove redundancy. 84 FR 
62363. New 8 CFR 106.3.
    \126\ 84 FR 62320, 62362; proposed and new 8 CFR 
106.2(a)(2)(38).
    \127\ 84 FR 62287, 84 FR 67243. This final rule does not 
transfer funds to ICE. Therefore, DHS removes $207.6 million for ICE 
from its cost baseline, resulting in lower fees than if DHS pursued 
the transfer of funds.
    \128\ 84 FR 62315, 62316, 62362; proposed and new 8 CFR 
106.2(c)(1)-(c)(2); new 8 CFR 106.2(c)(1)-(c)(2).
    \129\ New 8 CFR 106.2(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    USCIS conducted a comprehensive biennial fee review and determined 
that current fees do not recover the full cost of providing 
adjudication and naturalization services. Therefore, DHS adjusts USCIS 
fees by a weighted average increase of 20 percent, adds new fees for 
certain immigration benefit requests, establishes multiple fees for 
nonimmigrant worker petitions, and limits the number of beneficiaries 
for certain forms. This final rule is intended to ensure that USCIS has 
the resources it needs to provide adequate service to applicants and 
petitioners. It also makes changes related to setting, collecting, and 
administering fees. DHS has kept certain fees, such as the fee for the 
Form

[[Page 46890]]

N-400, Application for Naturalization, below the level indicated by the 
fee setting model based on policy choices, or provided that certain 
fees may be waived, transferring the costs not covered by the lower or 
waived fee to other benefit requests. However, in this rule, DHS is 
focusing on the beneficiary pays principle and assigning fees to those 
who are going to directly reap the benefits of the applicable 
immigration benefit request. DHS's policy shift to the beneficiary-pays 
principle, as detailed in the preamble, recognizes that different 
immigration services provide varying levels of societal net benefits 
(whether economic or humanitarian), and previously DHS accounted for 
some aspects of the social benefit of specific services through holding 
fees below their cost.\130\ However, DHS believes that the beneficiary-
pays principle is generally more equitable and has largely adopted it 
in this fee rule. Regardless, fee schedule adjustments are necessary to 
recover the full operating costs of administering the nation's lawful 
immigration system, safeguarding its integrity and promise by 
efficiently and fairly adjudicating requests for immigration benefits, 
while protecting Americans, securing the homeland, and honoring our 
values. This final rule also makes certain adjustments to fee waiver 
eligibility, filing requirements for nonimmigrant workers, the premium 
processing service, and other administrative requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \130\ Government Accountability Office (GAO), Federal User Fees: 
A Design Guide (May 29, 2008), available at https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-386SP. (last accessed Feb. 24, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the 10-year implementation period of the rule, DHS estimates 
the annualized costs of the rule to be $13,856,291, annualized at 
either 3- and 7-percent discount rates. DHS estimates the annualized 
cost savings to be $6,192,201 to $22,546,053. DHS estimates the 
annualized net societal costs and savings of the rule to range from 
costs of $7,664,090 to savings of $8,689,762. Over the 10-year 
implementation period of the rule, DHS estimates annualized transfers 
to the government from applicants/petitioners to be $551,842,481 
annualized at either 3- and 7-percent discount rates. Over 10-year 
implementation period of the rule, DHS estimates the annualized 
transfers of the rule between different groups of fee-paying applicants 
and/or petitioners to specific form populations is $832,239,426, 
annualized at either 3- and 7-percent discount rates.
    The final revenue increase is based on USCIS costs and volume 
projections available at the time of the USCIS fee review. Table 7 
provides a detailed summary of the provisions of this final rule and 
their impacts.

    Table 7--Summary of Provisions and Impacts--Costs, Transfers, and
                   Benefits of This Final Rule Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Estimated costs      Estimated
    Provision          Purpose of      or transfers of     benefits of
                       provision          provision         provision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) Reduced Fees   USCIS does not     Quantitative:     Quantitative:
 for Filing         require that      Applicants--      Applicants--
 Online.            immigration        A         None.
 Form I-    benefit requests   transfer of      Qualitative:
 90, Application    be filed online.   $6.1 million     Applicants--
 to Replace         Voluntarily,       annually from    
 Permanent          filing on paper    applicants/       Facilitates
 Resident Card      remains a valid    petitioners who   electronic
 Form N-    option. However,   will pay $10      processing and
 336, Request for   for forms          more for those    adjudications
 a Hearing on a     currently          same filings on   which helps
 Decision in        eligible for       paper to fee-     streamline
 Naturalization     online filing,     paying            USCIS
 Proceedings        the fee will be    applicants/       processes. This
 (Under Section     $10 more if        petitioners       could reduce
 336 of the INA)    filed on paper.    filing eligible   costs and could
 Form N-                       forms online      speed
 400, Application                      for a             adjudication of
 for                                   particular        cases.
 Naturalization                        immigration       Results
 Form N-                       benefit or        in more
 565, Application                      request as a      accurately
 for Replacement                       result of the     prepared and
 Naturalization/                       final             supported
 Citizenship                           applicable        requests
 Document                              USCIS filing      accompanied by
 Form I-                       fees.             necessary
 130/130A,                            Qualitative:       evidence and
 Petition for                         Applicants--       documentation.
 Alien Relative                        None.     Reduces the
 Form N-                      DHS/USCIS--        need for USCIS
 600, Application                      None.     to request
 for Certificate                                         additional
 of Citizenship                                          data,
 Form N-                                         clarifying
 600K,                                                   information, or
 Application for                                         documents.
 Citizenship and                                         Reduce
 Issuance of                                             the collection
 Certificate                                             of unnecessary
 Under Section                                           or duplicative
 322                                                     information as
 Form I-                                         the system
 539/539A,                                               guides
 Application To                                          requestors to
 Extend/Change                                           provide
 Nonimmigrant                                            responses that
 Status                                                  comply with
 Form G-                                         requirements
 1041, Genealogy                                         and
 Index Search                                            instructions
 Request                                                 that are
 Form G-                                         pertinent to
 1041A, Genealogy                                        their benefit
 Records Request                                         requests
                                                        DHS/USCIS--
                                                         USCIS
                                                         will save in
                                                         reduced intake
                                                         and storage
                                                         costs at the
                                                         USCIS Lockbox
                                                         or other intake
                                                         facilities.
                                                         Based on
                                                         current USCIS
                                                         internal
                                                         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--benefit
                                                         s 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 requestors
                                                         via mail.
                                                        
                                                         Decrease the
                                                         risk of
                                                         mishandled,
                                                         misplaced, or
                                                         damaged files;
                                                         increase
                                                         availability of
                                                         administrative
                                                         records; and
                                                         decrease
                                                         occasionally
                                                         lost paper
                                                         files;
                                                         electronic
                                                         records would
                                                         not be
                                                         physically
                                                         moved around to
                                                         different
                                                         adjudication
                                                         offices. USCIS
                                                         could easily
                                                         redistribute
                                                         electronic
                                                         files among
                                                         adjudications
                                                         offices located
                                                         in different
                                                         regions, for
                                                         better
                                                         management of
                                                         workload
                                                         activities.

[[Page 46891]]

 
(b) Secure Mail    USCIS will use     Quantitative:     Quantitative:
 Initiative.        the Signature     Applicants--      Applicants--
                    Confirmation       None.    
                    Restricted        Qualitative:       Applicants with
                    Delivery as a     Applicants--       unstable
                    method of          None.     addresses or
                    delivery of       DHS/USCIS--        who move often
                    secure documents   DHS       will be more
                    for USCIS.         will experience   certain to
                                       a cost of $34.5   receive their
                                       million from      documents.
                                       the United       Qualitative:
                                       States Postal    Applicants--
                                       Service (USPS)    USCIS
                                       for total mail    and applicants
                                       cost, which       can track their
                                       includes          document using
                                       Signature         the USPS
                                       Confirmation      website up to
                                       Restricted        when the
                                       Delivery          document is
                                       confirmation to   delivered.
                                       re -send secure  
                                       documents to      Recipients will
                                       the proper        also have the
                                       recipient. When   ability to
                                       they fail to      change their
                                       make it to        delivery
                                       their proper      location by
                                       recipient.        going to the
                                                         USPS website
                                                         and selecting
                                                         ``hold for
                                                         pickup'' to
                                                         arrange for
                                                         pickup at a
                                                         post office at
                                                         a date and time
                                                         that suits
                                                         them.
                                                        DHS/USCIS--
                                                         Ensure
                                                         secure and
                                                         important
                                                         identity
                                                         documents
                                                         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        DHS is changing    Quantitative:     Quantitative:
 Dishonored Check   its provision in  Applicants--      Applicants--
 Re-presentment     this rule that     None.     None.
 Requirement and    if a check or     Qualitative:      Qualitative:
 Fee Payment        other financial   Applicants--      Applicants--
 Method, and Non-   instrument used    None.     None.
 refundability.     to pay a fee is   DHS/USCIS--       DHS/USCIS--
                    returned as        None.     By
                    unpayable                            clarifying the
                    because of                           dishonored fee
                    insufficient                         check re-
                    funds, USCIS                         presentment
                    will resubmit                        processes,
                    the payment to                       USCIS will
                    the remitter                         reduce
                    institution one                      administrative
                    time.                                burdens and
                   If the remitter                       processing
                    institution                          errors
                    returns the                          associated with
                    instrument used                      fee payments.
                    to pay a fee as                      In the
                    unpayable a                          event that the
                    second time,                         bank that
                    USCIS will                           issues the
                    reject the                           credit card
                    filing. USCIS                        rescinds the
                    will not re-                         payment of a
                    deposit                              fee to USCIS,
                    financial                            USCIS will be
                    instruments                          able to invoice
                    returned as                          the responsible
                    unpayable for a                      party
                    reason other                         (applicant,
                    than                                 petitioner, or
                    insufficient                         requestor) and
                    funds.                               pursue
                   In addition, DHS                      collection of
                    may reject a                         the unpaid fee
                    request that is                      in accordance
                    accompanied by a                     with 31 CFR
                    check that is                        900--904
                    dated more than                      (Federal Claims
                    365 days before                      Collection
                    the receipt                          Standards).
                    date.                                Clarifying that
                   DHS is also                           fees are due
                    clarifying that                      regardless of
                    fees are non-                        the result or
                    refundable                           how long the
                    regardless of                        decision takes,
                    the result of                        and there are
                    the immigration                      no refunds, is
                    benefit request                      expected to
                    or how much time                     result in USCIS
                    the request                          losing fewer
                    requires to be                       credit card
                    adjudicated.                         disputes.
(d) Eliminate $30  DHS is removing    Quantitative:     Quantitative:
 Returned Check     the $30 charge    Applicants--      Applicants--
 Fee.               for dishonored     None.     $0.17
                    payments.                            million annual
                                                         savings.
                   .................  Qualitative:      Qualitative:
                                      Applicants--      Applicants--
                                       None.     The
                                      DHS/USCIS--        current $30
                                       There     charge and the
                                       may be an         potential of
                                       increase in       having a
                                       insufficient      benefit request
                                       payments by       rejected
                                       applicants        encourages
                                       because the $30   applicants to
                                       fee may serve     provide the
                                       as a deterrent    correct filing
                                       for submitting    fees when
                                       a deficient       submitting an
                                       payment.          application or
                                                         petition.
                                                        
                                                         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     DHS is limiting    Quantitative:     Quantitative:
 Fee waivers.       fee waivers to    Applicants--      Applicants--
                    statutorily        A         Current
                    mandated fee       transfer of       fee-paying
                    waivers and two    $368.3 million    applicants are
                    other              annually to       no longer
                    humanitarian       those             burdened with
                    programs and to    applicants who    covering the
                    those applicants   previously        costs for those
                    who have an        received a fee    applicants who
                    annual household   waiver from       currently
                    income of less     different         receive fee
                    than 125% of the   groups of fee-    waivers.
                    Federal Poverty    paying           DHS/USCIS--
                    Guidelines         applicants.       None.
                    (FPG).             These transfers  Qualitative:
                    Additionally,      derive from      Applicants--
                    fee waiver         applicable        None.
                    applicants         USCIS filing     DHS/USCIS--
                    cannot have been   fees.             This
                    admitted into     DHS/USCIS--        provision may
                    the United         None.     reduce
                    States subject    Qualitative:       administrative
                    to an affidavit   Applicants--       costs to USCIS
                    of support under             of adjudicating
                    INA section        Limiting fee      fee waiver
                    213A, 8 U.S.C      waivers may       requests. It
                    1183a or be        adversely         may also reduce
                    subject to the     affect some       the amount of
                    public charge      applicants'       training or
                    inadmissibility    ability to        guidance
                    ground under INA   apply for         necessary to
                    section            immigration       adjudicate
                    212(a)(4), 8       benefits.         unique fee
                    U.S.C. 1182       DHS/USCIS--        waiver
                    (a)(4).            None.     requests.

[[Page 46892]]

 
(f) Fee            DHS is removing    Quantitative:     Quantitative:
 Exemptions.        the fee           Applicants--      Applicants--
                    exemptions for     A         None.
                    an initial         transfer of
                    request for an     $3.9 million
                    employment         annually in
                    authorization      filing fees to
                    document (EAD)     the categories
                    for the            listed in the
                    following          provision that
                    classifications:   are no longer
                                       exempted from
                                       different
                                       groups of fee-
                                       paying
                                       applicants of
                                       Form I-765.
                    Citizen   Qualitative:      Qualitative:
                    of Micronesia,    Applicants--      Applicants--
                    Marshall           This      The
                    Islands, or        could result in   removal of fee
                    Palau;             lost wages for    exemptions for
                    Granted    the workers who   these
                    Withholding of     may not be able   populations may
                    Deportation;       to afford the     reduce further
                               costs of filing   increases of
                    Temporary          Form I-765 and    other fees to
                    Protected Status   lost              the fee-paying
                    (TPS) if filing    productivity      population.
                    an initial TPS     for the          DHS/USCIS--
                    application for    employers that   
                    individuals        hire these        Continuing to
                    under 14 years     workers. The      provide these
                    of age or over     lost wages and    fee exemptions
                    65 years of age.   productivity      would result in
                               can be            the costs of
                    Applicant for      considered as     those services
                    Asylum and         costs of the      being
                    Withholding of     forgone           transferred to
                    Deportation or     benefits.         the fees for
                    Removal.          DHS/USCIS--        other forms.
                                       None.    
                                                         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     DHS is             Quantitative:     Quantitative:
 Biometric          incorporating     Applicants--      Applicants--
 Services Fee.      the biometric      $12.4     $15.0
                    services cost      million costs     million in
                    into the           for asylum        transfers from
                    underlying         applicants        the government
                    immigration        paying the        to fee paying
                    benefit request    biometrics        applicants/
                    fee instead of     service fee and   petitioners
                    charging a flat    for those         for, EOIR, TPS,
                    $85 biometric      completing and    and term CNMI
                    services fee.      submitting new    resident
                                       Form I-600A/600   applicants
                                       Supplement 3.     resulting from
                                                         a $55 reduction
                                                         in biometrics
                                                         service fees
                                                         per applicant.
                   DHS will require   Qualitative:      Qualitative:
                    a $30 biometric   Applicants--      Applicants--
                    services fee for   None.    
                    an applicant for  DHS/USCIS--        Simplifies the
                    asylum or an       None.     process to
                    alien approved                       submit
                    for parole who                       payments.
                    applies for                          May
                    employment                           result in fewer
                    authorization                        incorrect
                    (c)(8)'s, TPS                        payments and
                    initial                              therefore,
                    applications and                     fewer rejected
                    re-                                  applications.
                    registrations,                      
                    EOIR applicants,                     Biometric costs
                    and term CNMI                        incorporated
                    resident program                     into the fee
                    applicants.                          will actually
                                                         correspond to
                                                         the services
                                                         provided.
                                                        DHS/USCIS--
                                                        
                                                         Eliminating the
                                                         separate
                                                         payment of the
                                                         biometric
                                                         services fee
                                                         will decrease
                                                         the
                                                         administrative
                                                         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    DHS is requiring   Quantitative:     Quantitative:
 bundling of        separate fees     Applicants--      Applicants--
 interim benefits   for Forms I-765    A         Not
 when Forms I-765   and/or I-131       transfer of       estimated.
 and I-131 are      when filed         $597.3 million
 filed              concurrently       from those
 concurrently       with Form I-485    applicants who
 with pending       or when a Form I-  file for Forms
 Form I-485 or      485 is pending.    I-765 and/or I-
 when a Form I-                        131
 485 is pending.                       concurrently
                                       filed with Form
                                       I-485 or while
                                       it is pending
                                       to different
                                       groups of fee-
                                       paying
                                       applicants.
                   .................  Qualitative:      Qualitative:
                                      Applicants--      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 pending Form
                                                         I-485 will be
                                                         adjudicated the
                                                         same as all
                                                         other requests
                                                         for interim
                                                         benefits.
(i) Form I-485     DHS is requiring   Quantitative:     Quantitative:
 Fee for Children   payment of the    Applicants--      Applicants--
 Under 14, Filing   full $1,130 fee   A transfer of      Not
 with Parent.       for a child        $11.4 million     estimated.
                    under the age of   from applicants
                    14 years when      who
                    concurrently       concurrently
                    filing Form I-     file a Form I-
                    485 with a         485 with a
                    parent.            child under the
                                       age of 14 to
                                       different
                                       groups of fee-
                                       paying
                                       applicants.
                   .................  Qualitative:      Qualitative:
                                      Applicants--      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          DHS is expanding   Quantitative:     Quantitative:
 Individuals with   the population    Applicants--      Applicants--
 Advance Parole     eligible to use   A transfer of      None.
 to use Form I-     Form I-131A to     $10.1 annually
 131A,              include            to applicants
 Application for    individuals with   who file Form I-
 Travel Document    advance parole     131A from
 (Carrier           documents.         different
 Documentation)                        groups of
                                       applicants.

[[Page 46893]]

 
                                      Qualitative:      Qualitative:
                                      Applicants--      Applicants--
                                       In       
                                       addition to the   Individuals who
                                       filing fee, DHS   lose their
                                       estimated a       advance parole
                                       qualitative per   cards while
                                       unit cost per     abroad now have
                                       applicant for     a defined
                                       the opportunity   process to
                                       cost of time      receive carrier
                                       for completing    documentation
                                       Form I-131A and   to return to
                                       submitting one    the U.S.
                                       passport-sized   DHS/USCIS--
                                       photo of $32.66   None.
                                       per unit
                                       application
                                       cost.
                                      DHS/USCIS--
                                       None.
(k) Separating     DHS is separating  Quantitative:     Quantitative:
 Form I-129,        the Petition for  Applicants--      Applicants--
 Petition for a     a Nonimmigrant     A         $5.9
 Nonimmigrant       Worker, Form I-    transfer of       million if HR
 Worker, into       129, into          $75.1 million     specialist
 Different Forms,   several forms      in filing fees    file, $12.8
 and Limit          with different     of visa           million if in-
 Petitions Where    corresponding      category          house lawyers
 Multiple           fees.              specific          file, or $22.3
 Beneficiaries     DHS also is         petitions from    million if
 are Permitted to   imposing a limit   petitioners       outsourced
 25 Named           of 25 named        using the         lawyers file in
 Beneficiaries      beneficiaries      specific new      annual savings
 per Petition.      per petition       Form I-129        to the
                    where multiple     classification    petitioners
                    beneficiaries      forms to          filing Form I-
                    are permitted.     different         129 new visa
                                       groups of fee-    category
                                       paying            specific
                                       petitioners.      petitions. The
                                      DHS/USCIS--        annual savings
                                       Not       will be in the
                                       estimated.        Form I-129
                                                         opportunity
                                                         costs of time
                                                         to complete the
                                                         different form
                                                         classifications
                                                         .
                                                        DHS/USCIS--
                                                         None.
                   .................  Qualitative:      Qualitative:
                                      Applicants--      Applicants--
                                       None.    
                                      DHS/USCIS--        Separating
                                       None.     forms will
                                                         reduce the need
                                                         to navigate
                                                         lengthy
                                                         instructions
                                                         that do not
                                                         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         DHS is changing    Quantitative:     Quantitative:
 premium            the premium       Applicants--      Applicants--
 processing         processing         Not       Not
 timeframe from     timeframe from     estimated.        estimated.
 15 calendar days   15 calendar days
 to 15 business     to 15 business
 days.              days.
                   .................  Qualitative:      Qualitative:
                                      Petitioners--     Petitioners--
                                       An        Removes
                                       employer may      petitioner
                                       lose some         expectation of
                                       productivity      15 calendar day
                                       but USCIS has     processing to
                                       no way to         allow for
                                       estimate what     better business
                                       that loss may     planning.
                                       be.               Premium
                                                 processing is
                                       Applicants and    for quick
                                       employers may     adjudication
                                       have to wait 4    and certainty,
                                       days or longer    but they lose
                                       for decisions     no productivity
                                       on their cases    from the
                                      DHS/USCIS--        additional 4
                                       None.     days.
                                                        DHS/USCIS--
                                                         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
                                                         required when
                                                         premium
                                                         processing
                                                         request volumes
                                                         are high.
(m) Creation of    DHS is creating a  Quantitative:     Quantitative:
 Form I-600A/600    new form, Form I- Applicants--      Applicants--
 Supplement 3,      600 Supplement     $0.14     None.
 Request for        3, Request for     million costs
 Action on          Action on an       for completing
 Approved For I-    Approved Form I-   and submitting
 600A/I-600 and     600A/I-600 and     new Form I-600A/
 new fee.           new fee to         600 Supplement
                    clarify the        3.
                    regulations and
                    formalize
                    current practice
                    for requests for
                    action on
                    approved Forms I-
                    600A/I-600.
                   DHS is altering    Qualitative:      Qualitative:
                    the validity      Applicants--      Applicants--
                    period for a       None.     Improve
                    Form I-600A       DHS/USCIS--        and align the
                    approval in an     $0.13     adjudication
                    orphan case from   million in        and approval
                    18 to 15 months    costs for         processes for
                    to remove          processing and    adoptions from
                    inconsistencies    reviewing the     countries that
                    between Form I-    new Form I-600A/  are party to
                    600A approval      600 Supplement    the Hague
                    periods and        3.                Adoption
                    validity of the                      Convention and
                    Federal Bureau                       countries that
                    of Investigation                     are not.
                    (FBI) background                     Clarify
                    check.                               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 countries
                                                         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
                                                         multiple
                                                         expiration
                                                         dates.

[[Page 46894]]

 
(n) Changes to     DHS is changing    Quantitative:     Quantitative:
 Genealogy Search   how USCIS         Applicants--      Applicants--
 and Records        processes          DHS       Index
 Requests.          genealogy          estimates the     search and
                    requests.          new annual        records
                   DHS is expanding    costs to file     requestors who
                    the use of         Form G-1041       file online,
                    electronic         index search      will pay a
                    genealogy          requests and      reduced fee of
                    requests;          Form G-1041A      $10 dollars
                    changing the       records           compared to
                    search request     requests will     those who file
                    process so that    be $1.3 million   by paper.
                    USCIS can          annually.
                    provide
                    requesters with
                    digital records,
                    if they exist;
                    and changing the
                    genealogy fees.
                   DHS is also        Qualitative:      Qualitative:
                    offering an       Applicants--      Applicants--
                    online filing      In       
                    fee, for those     addition to the   Genealogy
                    genealogy          filing fee        search and
                    searches and       increase, DHS     records request
                    records            estimated         process changes
                    requests.          qualitative per   will increase
                                       unit cost of      accuracy and
                                       $14.70 per        decrease wait
                                       index search      times for
                                       requests and      requestors.
                                       records           Fewer
                                       request.          individuals may
                                      DHS/USCIS--        need to file
                                       USCIS     Form G-1041A to
                                       will still need   request a
                                       to mail some      record if it is
                                       records in        provided
                                       cases where       digitally in
                                       requestors who    response to a
                                       cannot submit     Form G-1041
                                       the forms         filing.
                                       electronically   DHS/USCIS--
                                       need to submit    Reduce
                                       paper copies of   costs for
                                       both forms with   mailing,
                                       required filing   records
                                       fees.             processing, and
                                                         storage costs
                                                         because
                                                         electronic
                                                         versions of
                                                         records
                                                         requests will
                                                         reduce the
                                                         administrative
                                                         burden on
                                                         USCIS.
                                                         USCIS
                                                         will save $16
                                                         to $45 per
                                                         index search
                                                         service and $26
                                                         to $55 for each
                                                         textual file
                                                         retrieved.
                                                         The
                                                         provisions are
                                                         streamlining
                                                         the genealogy
                                                         search and
                                                         records request
                                                         process
                                                         increases
                                                         accuracy.
(o) Remove         DHS is             Quantitative:     Quantitative:
 Reduced Fee for    eliminating the   Applicants--      Applicants--
 Naturalization     reduced fee        A         None.
 Applicants Using   option for Form    transfer of
 Form I-942,        N-400 that         $3.7 million
 Request for        applies to         annually from
 Reduced Fee.       applicants whose   applicants who
                    documented         previously
                    household income   filed Form N-
                    is greater than    400 with the
                    150 percent and    reduced fee.
                    not more than      These
                    200 percent of     individuals
                    the Federal        will no longer
                    Poverty            be able to
                    Guidelines.        request a
                                       reduced Form N-
                                       400 fee using
                                       Form I-942 from
                                       different fee-
                                       paying
                                       applicants.
                   .................  Qualitative:      Quantitative:
                                      Applicants--      Applicants--
                                                 $0.05
                                       Applicants will   million annual
                                       have a total      quantitative
                                       per unit cost     savings to the
                                       for N-400         applicants
                                       applications of   filing for a N-
                                       $182.12           400 will be in
                                       (opportunity      the I-942
                                       cost to file,     opportunity
                                       biometric         costs of time,
                                       collection and    to complete the
                                       travel) with      form being
                                       the increased     eliminated.
                                       filing fee.      DHS/USCIS--
                                      DHS/USCIS--        A
                                       None.     qualitative
                                                         benefit to DHS
                                                         by eliminating
                                                         the Form I-942
                                                         will reduced
                                                         the
                                                         administrative
                                                         burden on the
                                                         agency to
                                                         process the
                                                         Form I-942.
(p) Charge for an  DHS will require   Quantitative:     Quantitative:
 initial Form I-    a fee for an      Applicants--      Applicants--
 765 while an       initial            A         Other
 asylum             Application for    transfer of       EAD applicants
 application is     Employment         $118.8 million    will not be
 pending.           Authorization,     annually to       required to
                    Form I-765, when   applicants who    subsidize EADs
                    asylum             file an initial   for pending
                    applicants apply   Form I-765 with   asylum
                    for asylum or      a pending         applicants.
                    file an            asylum           Qualitative:
                    Application for    application      Applicants--
                    Asylum and for     from different    None.
                    Withholding of     fee-paying       DHS/USCIS--
                    Removal, Form I-   applicants.       None.
                    589. Currently,   
                    USCIS exempts      Applicants
                    these initial      could have
                    applicants from    costs in lost
                    a fee with         wages and
                    pending asylum     employers could
                    applications.      have costs in
                                       terms of lost
                                       productivity.
                                      DHS/USCIS--
                                       None.
(q) Charge a fee   DHS will require   Quantitative:     Quantitative:
 for Form I-589,    a $50 fee for     Applicants--      Applicants--
 Application for    Form I-589,        A         $0.74
 Asylum and for     Application for    transfer of       million in
 Withholding of     Asylum and for     $5.5 million      transfers from
 Removal.           Withholding of     from Asylum       the government
                    Removal.           applicants        to asylum I-589
                                       filing Form I-    applicants who
                                       589 to            will pay a
                                       different fee-    reduced fee of
                                       paying            $50 for Form I-
                                       applicants.       485 Application
                                                         to Register
                                                         Permanent
                                                         Residence or
                                                         Adjust Status
                                                         from $1,130 to
                                                         $1,080 because
                                                         their I-589 was
                                                         approved.
                   .................  Qualitative:      Qualitative:
                                      Applicants--      Applicants--
                                       Some      None.
                                       applicants may   DHS/USCIS--
                                       not be able to    None.
                                       afford this fee
                                       and will no
                                       longer be able
                                       to apply for
                                       asylum.
(r) Combining      DHS is combining   Quantitative:     Quantitative:
 Fees for Form I-   the current       Applicants--      Applicants--
 881, Application   multiple fees      A         $0.03
 for Suspension     charged for an     transfer of       million in
 of Deportation     individual or      $0.43 million     savings from
 or Special Rule    family into a      annually to       the reduced
 Cancellation of    single fee for     those who apply   passport-style
 Removal            each filing of     for suspension    photos
 (Pursuant to       Form I-881,        of deportation    requirement.
 Section 203 of     Application for    or special rule   They currently
 Public Law 105-    Suspension of      cancellation of   have to provide
 100 [NACARA]).     Deportation or     removal under     4 photos and
                    Special Rule       NACARA using      now they will
                    Cancellation of    Form I-881 from   only be
                    Removal            different         required to
                    (Pursuant to       groups of fee-    provide 2 which
                    Section 203 of     paying            will save each
                    Public Law 105-    individuals.      applicant money
                    100, the                             and by not
                    Nicaraguan                           traveling to
                    Adjustment and                       ASC facilities,
                    Central American                     for biometric
                    Relief Act                           collection/
                    [NACARA]).                           submission.
                   .................  Qualitative:      Qualitative:
                                      Applicants--      Applicants--
                                       None.     None.
                                      DHS/USCIS--       DHS/USCIS--
                                       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.

[[Page 46895]]

 
(s) Clarify who    DHS will apply     Quantitative:     Quantitative:
 must pay a 9-11    the 9-11          Applicants--      Applicants--
 Response and       Response and       A         None.
 Biometric Entry-   Biometric Entry-   transfer of      Qualitative:
 Exit Fee for H-    Exit Fee to all    $199.2 million   Applicants--
 1B and L-1.        covered            in petition       Fee
                    petitions          fees to the       will
                    (meaning those     government from   consistently be
                    meeting the 50     fee paying        applied to all
                    employee/50        petitioners for   H-1B or L-1
                    percent H-1B or    extensions into   petitions,
                    L test), whether   the 9-11          whether for new
                    for new            Response          employment or
                    employment or      Biometric Entry-  extension.
                    extension.         Exit account.    DHS/USCIS--
                                      Qualitative:       The
                                      Applicants--       collected fees
                                       None.     will help
                                      DHS/USCIS--        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 (RIA) of this final rule can be 
found in the docket at www.regulations.gov. In addition to the impacts 
summarized here, Table 8 presents the accounting statement as required 
by Circular A-4.\131\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \131\ OMB Circular A-4 is available at: www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/circulars/a004/a-4.pdf.
    \132\ See RIA, Section E: Removal Fee Waivers.

                                    Table 8--OMB A-4 Accounting Statement ($, 2019), Period of the Analysis 2020-2029
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Category                      Primary estimate               Minimum estimate               Maximum estimate            Source citation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits:
    Annualized Monetized Benefits    N/A..........................  N/A..........................  N/A.
     over 10 years.                  N/A..........................  N/A..........................  N/A..........................
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized quantified, but un-        USCIS sets fees at levels sufficient to cover the full cost of the corresponding services   RIA.
 monetized, benefits. Unquantified     associated with fairly and efficiently adjudicating immigration benefit requests and at a
 Benefits.                             level sufficient to fund overall requirements and general operations, including the full
                                      costs of processing immigration benefit requests 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 instead 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 adjudication process for USCIS more efficient.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs:
    Annualized monetized costs over  N/A..........................  (3%) $7,664,090..............  (3%) -$8,689,762.............  RIA.
     10 years (discount rate in      N/A..........................  (7%) $7,664,090..............  (7%) -$8,689,762.............
     parenthesis).
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Annualized quantified, but un-                                               N/A
     monetized, costs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 immigration 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 increases in 2007, 2010 and 2016 have had no discernible effect on the
                                       number of filings that USCIS received, and, in response to public comments, acknowledges
                                      that evidence presented indicating naturalization increases when previous fees were waived
                                      entirely does not support the claim that immigration 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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 46896]]


                              Table 8--OMB A-4 Accounting Statement ($, 2019), Period of the Analysis 2020-2029--Continued
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Category                      Primary estimate               Minimum estimate               Maximum estimate            Source citation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         DHS believes that immigration to the United States remains attractive to millions of
                                           individuals around the world and that its benefits continue to outweigh 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    (3%) $832,239,426............  .............................  .............................  RIA.
     specific form populations to    (7%) $832,239,426............
     different groups of fee-paying
     applicants/petitioners for a
     particular immigration benefit
     or request.
 Annualized monetized transfers:
 From whom to whom?
    Annual transfer payments to      (3%) $551,842,481............  .............................  .............................  RIA.
     Government from Fee-Paying      (7%) $551,842,481............
     applicants/petitions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Miscellaneous analyses/category                                              Effects.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Effects on state, local, and/or                                             None.                                             Preamble.
     tribal governments
                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Effects on small businesses....   The fees in this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number   FRFA and Small Entity
                                                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 filing 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 reduced 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 management 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 assumes 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

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996, Public Law 104-121 (March 29, 1996), requires Federal agencies to 
consider the potential impact of regulations on small businesses, small 
governmental jurisdictions, and small organizations during the 
development of their rules. The term ``small entities'' comprises small 
businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned 
and operated and are not dominant in their fields, or governmental 
jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.\133\ A detailed 
Small Entity Analysis is available in the docket of this rulemaking at 
http://www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \133\ A small business is defined as any independently owned and 
operated business not dominant in its field that qualifies as a 
small business per the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Individuals, rather than small entities, submit the majority of 
immigration and naturalization benefit applications and petitions. This 
final rule will primarily affect entities that file and pay fees for 
certain immigration benefit requests. Consequently, there are six 
categories of USCIS benefits that are subject to a small entity 
analysis for this final rule: Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, Form 
I-129; Immigrant Petition for an Alien Worker, Form I-140; Civil 
Surgeon Designation, Form I-910; Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or 
Special Immigrant, Form I-360; Genealogy Forms G-1041 and G-1041A, 
Index Search and Records Requests; and the Application for Regional 
Center Designation Under the Immigrant Investor Program, Form I-924.
    Following the review of available data, DHS does not believe that 
the increase in fees in this final rule will have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities that are 
filing Form I-129, Form I-140, Form I-910 or Form I-360. DHS does not 
have sufficient data on the revenue collected through administrative 
fees by regional centers to definitively determine the economic impact 
on small entities that may file Form I-924. DHS also does not have 
sufficient data on the requestors that file genealogy forms, Forms G-
1041 and G-1041A, to determine whether such filings were made by 
entities or individuals and thus is unable to determine if the fee 
increase for genealogy searches is likely to have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. DHS is 
publishing this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) to respond 
to public comments and provide further information on the likely impact 
of this rule on small entities.

[[Page 46897]]

1. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA)
a. A Statement of Need for, and Objectives of, the Rule
    DHS issues this final rule consistent with INA section 286(m),\134\ 
which authorizes DHS to charge fees for adjudication and naturalization 
services at a level to ``ensure recovery of the full costs of providing 
all such services, including the costs of similar services provided 
without charge to asylum applicants or other immigrants,'' and the CFO 
Act,\135\ which requires each agency's CFO to review, on a biennial 
basis, the fees imposed by the agency for services it provides, and to 
recommend changes to the agency's fees. DHS is adjusting the fee 
schedule for DHS immigration and naturalization benefit applications 
after conducting a comprehensive fee review for the FY 2019/2020 
biennial period and determining that current fees do not recover the 
full costs of services provided. DHS has determined that adjusting the 
fee schedule is necessary to fully recover costs adjustments are 
necessary to associated with administering the nation's lawful 
immigration system, safeguarding its integrity and promise by 
efficiently and fairly adjudicating requests for immigration benefits, 
while protecting Americans, securing the homeland, and honoring our 
values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \134\ See 8 U.S.C. 1356(m).
    \135\ See 31 U.S.C. 901-03.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. A Statement of the Significant Issues Raised by the Public Comments 
in Response to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, a Statement 
of the Assessment of the Agency of Such Issues, and a Statement of any 
Changes Made in the Proposed Rule as a Result of Such Comments
    Comment: Some commenters wrote that the proposed rate increase 
would certainly suppress the ability of hundreds of thousands of people 
to research their family history. These commenters stated this would 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities and prevent businesses from making profits providing 
information to others.
    Response: DHS acknowledges the scope of the increase in fees for 
Form G-1041 and G-1041A. DHS recognizes that some small entities may be 
impacted by these increased fees but cannot determine how many or the 
exact impact.\136\ USCIS receives fewer than 10,000 genealogy requests 
each year, so the fees should not affect hundreds of thousands of 
people as the commenter mentions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \136\ See economic analysis (RIA) Section M Changes to Genealogy 
Search and Records Requests and Section E in the SEA for further 
detailed information pertaining to the economic impact on small 
entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS took into consideration all of the comments pertaining to Form 
G-1041 Genealogy Index Search Request and G-1041A Genealogy Record 
Request fees from the proposed and lowered the fees in this final rule. 
The fee for the Genealogy Index Search Request, Form G-1041 is 
increasing from $65 to $160, an increase of $95 (146 percent) for those 
who use the electronic form. The fee for Form G-1041A will increase 
from $65 to $265, an increase of $200 (308 percent) for those who mail 
in this request. DHS is setting the fee $10 lower for requesters who 
use the electronic version and file this request online. The fee for 
Form G-1041A is increasing from $65 to $255, an increase of $190 (292 
percent) for those who use the electronic form.
    In this final rule, DHS adjusts the fees for all categories of Form 
I-129 to reflect the estimated full cost of adjudication. The evidence 
provided in the stand-along Small Entity Analysis available in the 
docket of this rulemaking suggests that the additional fees in this 
rule do not impose a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. As for the comment stating that low-wage H-2A 
agricultural workers would have their fees increased, this rule imposes 
no fees on H-2A workers because the petitioning entity is prohibited 
from passing any of the costs of the recruitment, hiring, petitioning, 
travel or housing to the H-2A worker. DHS declines to make changes in 
this final rule in response to these comments.
    Comment: A commenter said the proposed rule is contrary to the RFA 
because it fails to take into account the burdens of its regulatory 
actions on small entities, including small businesses and non-profits. 
Several commenters stated that USCIS should revise its RFA analysis to 
consider the economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities 
that file or pay for any immigration benefits applications.
    Response: As required by the RFA, DHS considered whether this rule 
will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. DHS also considered all types of entities as required 
by the RFA including small businesses, small not for profits, and small 
governmental jurisdictions that filed petitions with USCIS. The full 
analysis of these findings are found in the stand-alone Small Entity 
Analysis for this final rule found in the docket of this rulemaking.
    Comment: A commenter said the majority of livestock producers are 
family businesses that play a critical role in the production of food 
and fiber products in the United States and require labor during 
several different periods each year. The commenter stated these 
businesses must fill out named beneficiary petitions for extension of 
stay, and that with marginal cost increases between 44 and 87 percent, 
small business employers will ``disproportionately bear the burden'' of 
the proposed fee increases.
    Response: This final rule in no way is intended to reduce, limit, 
or prevent the filing of a request for any specific immigration benefit 
by any population, industry, or group. DHS agrees that immigrants are 
an important source of labor in the United States and contribute to the 
economy. DHS acknowledges that some employers will pay the increased 
Form I-129H-2A fee; however, they will only have to submit one petition 
based on the number of named beneficiaries.
    The SEA analyzed the impacts of this rule on entities that were 
considered small based on employee count or revenue. Entities with 
missing revenue data were excluded. Among the 346 small entities with 
reported revenue data, all experienced an economic impact of 
considerably less than 2 percent with the exception of 11 entities. 
Those 11 small entities with greater than a 2 percent impact filed 
multiple petitions and had a low reported revenue. Therefore, these 
small entities may file fewer petitions as a result of this rule. 
Depending on the immigration benefit request, the average impact on all 
346 small entities with revenue data ranges from -0.12 to 0.63 percent 
as shown in Table 7, of the SEA. In other words, no matter which 
version of the newly separated Form I-129 is applicable, the absolute 
value of the average impact on the described 346 small entities is less 
than 1 percent. DHS does not believe that the benefit request fees 
established by this final rule would make an individual forego filling 
a vacant position rather than submitting a petition for a foreign 
worker with USCIS.
    The SEA outlines using the subscription or public-use databases 
identified previously. DHS assembled revenue and employment information 
on these entities and determined that 556, or 85.5 percent of these 
petitioners met the definition of small entities. Of those that we 
determined could be classified as small entities, 71 percent had annual 
revenues of less than a

[[Page 46898]]

million and approximately 9 percent of them had petitioned for five or 
more workers over that year. Thus, DHS does not believe that the final 
rule will have a significant impact on a substantial number of small 
entities in any one industry, including agriculture.
    Comment: A commenter wrote that the Small Entity Analysis (SEA) 
presented in the NPRM was inaccurate because it failed to include the 
proposal's impact on hundreds of non-profit service providers that 
support LPRs' pursuit of naturalization. The commenter stated that many 
of these organizations cover costs related to legal consultation and 
preparation with their own resources, and that the agency should 
analyze how these organizations would be impacted by the proposal.
    Response: Organizations that help applicants complete 
naturalization applications are not the subject of the regulations 
being revised in this rule, or the relevant statute, INA section 
386(m), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m), which authorizes USCIS to set fees and 
provide discretionary fee waivers to applicants. See 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(4) 
(requiring only ``a description of the projected reporting, 
recordkeeping and other compliance requirements of the proposed rule, 
including an estimate of the classes of small entities which will be 
subject to the requirement'' (emphasis added)); see 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3) 
(requiring only ``a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of 
the number of small entities to which the proposed rule will apply'' 
(emphasis added)); see also Mid-Tex Elec. Co-op., Inc. v. FERC, 773 
F.2d 327, 342 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (finding ``Congress did not intend to 
require that every agency consider every indirect effect that any 
regulation might have on small businesses in any stratum of the 
national economy'' and limiting the impact analysis requirement ``to 
small entities subject to the proposed regulation''). Therefore, any 
impacts on such organizations are too indirect to require inclusion in 
the SEA since the RFA only requires consideration of direct impacts to 
small entities. Additionally, the naturalization applicants themselves 
are individuals and therefore are not subjects for RFA consideration.
    Comment: Another commenter stated that one example of how the 
rule's cost analysis is unsupported by evidence is USCIS' conclusion 
that only 1 percent of small businesses would be impacted. The 
commenter said the methodology used relies upon the lack of signups/
registrations on several website directories, but nowhere does the 
agency use the data it actually collects from businesses in every I-129 
form submitted (e.g., company size, gross and net income, number of 
employees requested), all of which the commenter said is readily 
available within USCIS. Moreover, the commenter said the DOL's Labor 
Condition Application and Program Electronic Review Management (PERM) 
usage listing employers and numbers of employees sought shows the top 
10-20 users are major corporations, while small and midsize businesses 
hire between 1-10 people a year, most often one-offs. The commenter 
said the fact that these companies mostly hire just one worker explains 
that the overall cost and bureaucracy is a barrier to employer 
participation.
    Response: USCIS does not collect revenue and the number of 
employees for all categories of Forms I-129, as stated in the stand-
alone SEA. Therefore, USCIS relied on a third-party sources (Hoover's, 
Cortera, Manta, and Guidestar) to obtain this information (see table 4 
of the SEA). DHS obtained petitioner data filed for Forms I-129 from 
internal databases for fiscal year 2017 (FY 2017), spanning from 
October 2016 to September 2017.\137\ This petitioner data included the 
employer firm name, city, state, ZIP code, employer identification 
number (EIN),\138\ number/type of filing, and petitioner or beneficiary 
name. Filing data did not include information needed to classify the 
entity according to size standards, such as revenue or number of 
employees, so DHS used third party sources to obtain this information. 
Therefore, for the analysis of the effects on Forms I-129, DHS used 
several data sources to capture information on the characteristics of 
entities required to pay these fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \137\ Source: DHS, USCIS, Office of Performance and Quality.
    \138\ An Employer Identification Number (EIN) is a nine-digit 
number that U.S. Internal Revenue Service assigns in the following 
format: XX-XXXXXXX. It is used to identify the tax accounts of 
employers. Employer Identification Number, p 2. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1635.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One of the databases used by USCS was Hoover's online database of 
U.S. entities, a subscription service of Dun & Bradstreet. Hoover's 
covers millions of companies and uses revenue from several years and is 
one of the largest and most respected databases of company data. A 
majority of the entities in the SEA sample size were found in Hoovers. 
From these sources, DHS determined the North American Industry 
Classification System (NAICS) code,\139\ revenue, and employee count 
for each entity in the sample. A list of NAICS codes for each entity 
matched in Forms I-129, I-140, I-910 and I-360 can be found in Appendix 
A, along with the SBA threshold for each industry cluster.\140\ In 
order to determine an entity's size, DHS first classified each entity 
by its NAICS code, and then used the SBA size standards to compare the 
requisite revenue or employee count threshold for each entity. Based on 
the NAICS code, some entities are classified as small based on their 
annual revenue and some based on the number of employees. Comment: A 
commenter wrote these fees would disproportionately affect small 
religious organizations that serve a charitable function in our 
society.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \139\ U.S. Census Bureau, NAICS code listing: http://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/.
    \140\ SBA size standards effective October, 2017. Visited April, 
2018. https://www.naics.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/SBA_Size_Standards_Table.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: DHS disagrees that these fees would disproportionately 
affect small religious organizations. USCIS used internal data as 
indicated below in section (B)(1)(d), of the FRFA, including entities 
who petition on behalf of foreign religious workers. DHS used the same 
databases mentioned previously to search for information on revenue and 
employee count. DHS used the same method as with Forms I-129 and I-140 
to conduct the SEA based on a representative sample of the impacted 
population. As detailed in Section of D of the SEA, DHS determined 
that, based on the standard statistical formula, 420 randomly selected 
entities from a population of 760 unique entities filed Form I-360 
petitions. Therefore, DHS was able to classify 388 of 420 entities as 
small entities that filed Form I-360 petitions, including combined non-
matches (5), matches missing data (74), and small entity matches (309). 
DHS also used the subscription-based, online databases mentioned above 
(Hoover's, Manta, Cortera, and Guidestar). The 74 matches missing data 
that were found in the databases lacked revenue or employee count data.
    DHS determined that 388 out of 420 (92.4 percent) entities filing 
Form I-360 petitions were small entities.
    Similar to other forms analyzed in this RFA, DHS calculated the 
economic impact of this rule on entities that filed Form I-360 by 
estimating the total costs associated with the final fee increase for 
each entity. Among the 309 small entities with reported revenue data, 
each would experience an economic impact considerably less than 1.0 
percent. The greatest economic impact imposed by this final fee change 
totaled 0.35 percent and the smallest totaled 0.000002 percent. The 
average impact on all 309 small entities with revenue

[[Page 46899]]

data was 0.01 percent. DHS also analyzed the final costs of this rule 
on the petitioning entities relative to the costs of the typical 
employee's salary. Guidelines suggested by the SBA Office of Advocacy 
indicate that the impact of a rule could be significant if the cost of 
the regulation exceeds 5 percent of the labor costs of the entities in 
the sector.\141\ According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the 
mean annual salary is $53,290 for clergy,\142\ $46,980 for directors of 
religious activities and education,\143\ and $35,860 for other 
religious workers.\144\ Based on an average of 1.5 religious workers 
\145\ petitioned for per entity, the additional average annual cost 
would be $22 per entity.\146\ The additional costs per entity in this 
final rule represent only 0.04 percent of the average annual salary for 
clergy, 0.05 percent of the average annual salary for directors of 
religious activities and education, and 0.06 percent of the average 
annual salary for all other religious workers.\147\ Therefore, using 
average annual labor cost guidelines, the additional regulatory 
compliance costs in this final rule are not significant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \141\ Office of Advocacy, Small Business Administration, ``A 
Guide for Government Agencies, How to Comply with the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act'', page 19: https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/How-to-Comply-with-the-RFA-WEB.pdf.
    \142\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, 
``Occupational Employment Statistics, May 2018, ``Clergy'': https://www.bls.gov/oes/2018/may/oes212011.htm.
    \143\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, 
``Occupational Employment Statistics, May 2018, ``Directors of 
Religious Activities and Education'': https://www.bls.gov/oes/2018/may/oes212099.htm.
    \144\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, 
``Occupational Employment Statistics, May 2018, ``Religious Workers, 
All Other'': https://www.bls.gov/oes/2018/may/oes212099.htm.
    \145\ USCIS calculated the average filing per entity of 1.5 
petitions, from the Form I-360 Sample with Petition Totals in 
Appendix E, of the SEA for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services Fee Schedule NPRM. Calculation: (total number of petitions 
from each sample id)/(total number of sample Form I-360 petitions) = 
618/420 = 1.5 average petitions filed per entity.
    \146\ Calculation: 1.5 average petitions per entity * $15 
increase in petition fees = approximately $22 additional total cost 
per entity.
    \147\ Calculation: $22 per entity/$53,290 clergy salary x 100 = 
.04 percent;
     $22 per entity/$46,980 directors of religious activities and 
education x 100 = .05 percent;
     $22 per entity/$35,860 other religious workers x 100 = .06 
percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. The Response of the Agency to Any Comments Filed by the Chief 
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in Response 
to the Rule, and a Detailed Statement of Any Change Made to the Final 
Rule as a Result of the Comments
    No comments were filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration (SBA).
d. A Description of and an Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to 
Which the Rule Will Apply or an Explanation of Why No Such Estimate Is 
Available
    Entities affected by this rule are those that file and pay fees for 
certain immigration benefit applications and petitions on behalf of a 
foreign national. These applications include Form I-129, Petition for a 
Nonimmigrant Worker; Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for an Alien 
Worker; Form I-910, Civil Surgeon Designation; Form I-360, Petition for 
Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant; Genealogy Forms G-1041 and 
G-1041A, Index Search and Records Requests; and Form I-924, Application 
for Regional Center Designation Under the Immigrant Investor Program. 
Annual numeric estimates of the small entities impacted by this fee 
increase total (in parentheses): Form I-129 (77,571 entities), Form I-
140 (22,165 entities), Form I-910 (428 entities), and Form I-360 (698 
entities).\148\ DHS was not able to determine the numbers of regional 
centers or genealogy requestors that would be considered small 
entities, therefore does not provide numeric estimates for Form I-924 
or Forms G-1041 and G-1041A.\149\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \148\ Calculation: 90,726 Form I-129 * 85.5 percent = 77,571 
small entities; 30,321 Form I-140 * 73.1 percent = 22,165 small 
entities; 476 Form I-910 * 90.0 percent = 428 small entities; 760 
Form I-360 * 91.9 percent = 698 small entities.
    \149\ Small entity estimates are calculated by multiplying the 
population (total annual receipts for the USCIS form) by the 
percentage of small entities, which are presented in subsequent 
sections of this analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This rule applies to small entities, including businesses, non-
profit organizations, and governmental jurisdictions filing for the 
above benefits. Forms I-129 and I-140, will see a number of industry 
clusters impacted by this rule. See Appendix A of the SEA for a list of 
impacted industry codes for Forms I-129, I-140, I-910, and I-360. Of 
the total 650 small entities in the sample for Form I-129, most 
entities were small businesses (556 or 85.5 percent) with 41 small not-
for-profit entities and only 4 small governmental jurisdictions. 
Similarly, of the total 550 small entities in the sample for Form I-
140, most entities were small businesses (402 or 73.1 percent) with 6 
small not-for-profit entities and 0 small governmental jurisdictions. 
The fee for the application for civil surgeon designation (Form I-910) 
will apply to physicians requesting such designation. There were 300 
small entities in the sample for Form I-910, consisting of 270 small 
governmental jurisdictions and 270 (or 90 percent) small entities that 
were either small businesses or small not-for-profits. The fee for 
Amerasian, widow(er), or special immigrants will apply to any entity 
petitioning on behalf of a religious worker. Finally, Form I-924 will 
impact any entity seeking designation as a regional center under the 
Immigrant Investor Program or filing an amendment to an approved 
regional center application. Captured in the dataset for Form I-924 is 
also Form I-924A, which regional centers must file annually to 
establish continued eligibility for regional center designation for 
each fiscal year.
    DHS does not have sufficient data on the requestors for the 
genealogy forms, Forms G-1041 and G-1041A, to determine if entities or 
individuals submitted these requests. DHS has previously determined 
that requests for historical records are usually made by 
individuals.\150\ If professional genealogists and researchers 
submitted such requests in the past, they did not identify themselves 
as commercial requestors and therefore could not be segregated within 
the pool of data. Genealogists typically advise clients on how to 
submit their own requests. For those that submit requests on behalf of 
clients, DHS does not know the extent to which they can pass along the 
fee increases to their individual clients. DHS assumes genealogists 
have access to a computer and the internet. DHS is unable to estimate 
the online number of index searches and records requests; however, some 
will receive a reduced fee and cost 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. though 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \150\ See Genealogy Program, 73 FR 28026 (May 15, 2008) (final 
rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker, Form I-129
    DHS is separating Form I-129, Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker,

[[Page 46900]]

into several forms with different corresponding fees, from the previous 
$460. Currently, employers may use Form I-129, to petition for CW, E, 
H-1B, H-2A, H-2B, H-3, L-1, O-1, O-2, P-1, P-1S, P-2, P-2S, P-3, P-3S, 
Q-1, or R-1 nonimmigrant workers. As applicable, employers also may use 
Form I-129 to apply for E-1, E-2, E-3, or TN nonimmigrant status for 
eligible workers. DHS is separating the Petition for a Nonimmigrant 
Worker, Form I-129, into several forms. These forms will include 
information from the various supplemental forms for specific types of 
workers. DHS will have different fees for these new forms. The final 
fees are calculated at a more detailed level than the current fees.
    The current fee for Form I-129 is $460. DHS will impose the 
following fees for new Forms I-129 (separated into new forms by worker 
type):

 Form I-129H1, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker: H-1 
Classifications--$555
 Form I-129H2A, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker: H-2A 
Classification (Named Beneficiaries)--$850
 Form I-129H2B, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker: H-2B 
Classification (Named Beneficiaries)--$715
 Form I-129L, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker: L 
Classifications--$805
 Form I-129O, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker: O 
Classifications--$705
 I-129E&TN, Application for Nonimmigrant Worker: E and TN 
Classifications; and I-129MISC, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker: H-3, 
P, Q, or R Classification--$695
 Form I-129H2A, Petition for Nonimmigrant Work Classification: 
H-2A Classification (Unnamed Beneficiaries)--$415
 Form I-129H2B, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker: H-2B 
Classification (Unnamed Beneficiaries)--$385.

    For petitioners filing Form I-129 for H-2A and H-2B workers with 
only unnamed beneficiaries, DHS will impose a lower fee than the 
current filing fee. DHS will increase the fee when filed for all other 
worker types. The fee adjustments and percentage increases or decreases 
are summarized in Table 9.

                     Table 9--USCIS Fees for Separated Forms I-129 for Fiscal Year 2019/2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Fee increase/
           Immigration benefit request              Current fee      Final fee       decrease     Percent 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 the number of Form I-129 
petitions filed from October 1, 2016 to September 31, 2017, DHS 
collected internal data for each filing organization including the 
name, Employer Identification Number (EIN), city, state, zip code, and 
number/type of filings. Each entity may make multiple filings. For 
instance, there were receipts for 530,442 Form I-129 petitions, but 
only 90,726 unique entities that filed those petitions. Since the 
filing statistics do not contain information such as the revenue of the 
business, DHS used third party sources of data to collect this 
information. DHS used a subscription-based, online database--Hoover's--
as well as three open-access databases--Manta, Cortera, and Guidestar--
to help determine an organization's small entity status and then 
applied Small Business Administration size standards to the entities 
under examination.\151\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \151\ U.S. Small Business Administration, Office of Advocacy, 
Size Standards Table effective August 19, 2019. Available at https://www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The method DHS used to conduct the SEA was based on a 
representative sample of the impacted population with respect to each 
form. To identify a representative sample, DHS used a standard 
statistical formula to determine a minimum sample size of 384 entities, 
which included using a 95 percent confidence level and a 5 percent 
confidence interval for a population of 90,726 unique entities filing 
Form I-129 petitions. Based on previous experience conducting small 
entity analyses, DHS expects to find 40 to 50 percent of the filing 
organizations in the online subscription and public databases. 
Accordingly, DHS selected a sample size that was approximately 69 
percent larger than the necessary minimum to allow for non-matches 
(filing entities that could not be found in any of the four databases). 
Therefore, DHS conducted searches on 650 randomly selected entities 
from a population of 90,726 unique entities that filed Form I-129 
petitions.
    Of the 650 searches for small entities that filed Form I-129 
petitions, 473 searches returned a successful match of a filing 
entity's name in one of the databases and 177 searches did not match a 
filing entity. Based on previous experience conducting regulatory 
flexibility analyses, DHS assumes filing entities not found in the 
online database are likely to be small entities. As a result, in order 
to prevent underestimating the number of small entities this rule would 
affect, DHS conservatively considers all of the non-matched entities as 
small entities for the purpose of this analysis. Among the 473 matches 
for Form I-129, DHS determined 346 to be small entities based on 
revenue or employee count and according to their assigned North 
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code. Therefore, DHS 
was able to classify 556 of 650 entities as small entities that filed 
Form I-129 petitions, including combined non-matches (177), matches 
missing data (33), and small entity matches (346). Using the 
subscription-based, online databases mentioned above (Hoover's, Manta, 
Cortera, and Guidestar), the 33 matches missing data found in the 
databases lacked applicable revenue or employee count data.
    DHS determined that 556 of 650 (85.5 percent) of the entities 
filing Form I-129 petitions were small entities. Furthermore, DHS 
determined that 346 of the 650 entities searched were small entities 
based on sales revenue data,

[[Page 46901]]

which were needed to estimate the economic impact of this final rule. 
Since these 346 small entities were a subset of the random sample of 
650 entity searches, they were statistically significant in the context 
of this research. In order to calculate the economic impact of this 
rule, DHS estimated the total costs associated with the final fee 
increase for each entity and divided that amount by the sales revenue 
of that entity.\152\ Based on the final fee increases for Form I-129, 
DHS calculated the average economic impact on the 346 small entities 
with revenue data as summarized in Table 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \152\ Total Economic Impact to Entity = (Number of Petitions 
Submitted per Entity * $X difference in current fee from final fee)/
Entity Sales Revenue.

     Table 10--Economic Impacts on Small Entities With Revenue Data
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fee increase/  Average impact
       Immigration benefit request           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 reported revenue data, all 
experienced an economic impact of considerably less than 2 percent with 
the exception of 11 entities. Those 11 small entities with greater than 
a 2 percent impact filed multiple petitions and had a low reported 
revenue, for any immigration benefit request made using separate Forms 
I-129. Therefore, these small entities may file fewer petitions as a 
result of this rule. Depending on the type of immigration benefit 
request, the average impact on all 346 small entities with revenue data 
ranges from -0.12 to 0.63 percent, as shown in the supporting 
comprehensive SEA. Therefore, the average economic impact on the 
described 346 small entities is less than 1 percent, regardless of 
which newly separate Form I-129 petition is applicable. The evidence 
suggests that the changes in fees imposed by this rule do not represent 
a significant economic impact on these entities.
b. Immigrant Petition for an Alien Worker, Form I-140
    USCIS is decreasing the fee to file Immigrant Petition for an Alien 
Worker, Form I-140, from $700 to $555, a decrease of $145 (21 percent). 
Using a 12-month period of data on the number of Form I-140 petitions 
filed from October 1, 2016 to September 31, 2017, DHS collected 
internal data similar to that of Form I-129. The total number of Form 
I-140 petitions filed was 139,439, with 30,321 unique entities that 
filed petitions. DHS used the same databases previously mentioned to 
search for information on revenue and employee count.
    DHS used the same method as with Form I-129 to conduct the SEA 
based on a representative sample of the impacted population. To 
identify a representative sample, DHS used a standard statistical 
formula to determine a minimum sample size of 383 entities, which 
included using a 95 percent confidence level and a 5 percent confidence 
interval on a population of 30,321 unique entities for Form I-140 
petitions. Based on previous experience conducting small entity 
analyses, DHS expected to find 40 to 50 percent of the filing 
organizations in the online subscription and public databases. 
Accordingly, DHS selected a sample size that was approximately 44 
percent larger than the necessary minimum to allow for non-matches 
(filing entities that could not be found in any of the four databases). 
Therefore, DHS conducted searches on 550 randomly selected entities 
from a population of 30,321 unique entities that filed Form I-140 
petitions.
    Of the 550 searches for small entities that filed Form I-140 
petitions, 480 searches successfully matched the name of the filing 
entity to names in the databases and 70 searches did not match the name 
of a filing entity. Based on previous experience conducting regulatory 
flexibility analyses, DHS assumes filing entities not found in the 
online databases are likely to be small entities. As a result, in order 
to prevent underestimating the number of small entities this rule would 
affect, DHS conservatively considers all of the non-matched entities as 
small entities for the purpose of this analysis. Among the 480 matches 
for Form I-140, DHS determined 324 to be small entities based on 
revenue or employee count and according to their NAICS code. Therefore, 
DHS was able to classify 402 of 550 entities as small entities that 
filed Form I-140 petitions, including combined non-matches (70), 
matches missing data (8), and small entity matches (324). Using the 
subscription-based, online databases mentioned above (Hoover's, Manta, 
Cortera, and Guidestar), the 8 matches missing data that were found in 
the databases lacked applicable revenue or employee count statistics.
    DHS determined that 402 out of 550 (73.1 percent) entities filing 
Form I-140 petitions were small entities. Furthermore, DHS determined 
that 324 of the 550 searched were small entities based on sales revenue 
data, which were needed to estimate the economic impact of the final 
rule. Since these 324 were a small entity subset of the random sample 
of 550 entity searches, they were considered statistically significant 
in the context of this research. Similar to Form I-129, DHS calculated 
the economic impact of this rule on entities that filed Form I-140 by 
estimating the total cost savings associated with the final fee 
decrease for each entity and divided that amount by sales revenue of 
that entity.
    Among the 324 small entities with reported revenue data, each would 
experience an economic impact of less than -2 percent. Using the above 
methodology, the greatest economic

[[Page 46902]]

impact by this fee change totaled -1.74 percent and the smallest 
totaled -0.00000006 percent, resulting in a cost savings as shown in 
the supporting comprehensive SEA. The average impact on all 324 small 
entities with revenue data was -0.06 percent. Because of the fee 
decrease, these small entities will see a cost savings per application 
in filing fees based on petitions. The negative number represents cost 
savings to the petitioner. Therefore, the larger it is, the greater the 
cost savings for the petitioners. The average impact on all 324 small 
entities with revenue data was -0.06 percent. The evidence suggests 
that the decreased fee in this final rule does not represent a 
significant economic impact on these entities.
    In addition to the individual Form I-129 and Form I-140 analyses, 
USCIS analyzed any cumulative impacts of these form types to determine 
if there were any impacts to small entities when analyzed together. 
USCIS isolated those entities that overlapped in both samples of Forms 
I-129 and I-140 by EIN. Only 1 entity had an EIN that overlapped in 
both samples; this was a small entity that submitted 3 Form I-129 
petitions and 1 Form I-140 petition. Due to little overlap in entities 
in the samples and the relatively minor impacts on revenue of fee 
increases of Forms I-129 and I-140, USCIS does not expect the combined 
impact of these two forms to be an economically significant burden on a 
substantial number of small entities.
c. Application for Civil Surgeon Designation, Form I-910
    By law, a civil surgeon is a physician designated by USCIS to 
conduct immigration medical examinations for individuals applying for 
an immigration benefit in the United States. Form I-910 is used by a 
physician to request that USCIS designate him or her as a civil surgeon 
to perform immigration medical examinations in the United States and 
complete USCIS Form I-693, Report of Medical Examination and 
Vaccination Record.
    DHS is decreasing the fee for Civil Surgeon Designations, Form I-
910, from $785 to $635, a decrease of $150 (19 percent). Using a 12-
month period of data from October 1, 2016 to September 31, 2017, DHS 
reviewed collected internal data for Form I-910 filings. The total 
number of Form I-910 applications was 757, with 476 unique entities 
that filed applications. The third-party databases mentioned previously 
were used again to search for revenue and employee count information.
    Using the same methodology as the Forms I-129 and I-140, USCIS 
conducted the SEA based on a representative sample of the impacted 
population. To identify a representative sample, DHS used a standard 
statistical formula to determine a minimum sample size of 213 entities, 
which included using a 95 percent confidence level and a 5 percent 
confidence interval on a population of 476 unique entities for Form I-
910. USCIS conducted searches on 300 randomly selected entities from a 
population of 476 unique entities for Form I-910 applications, a sample 
size approximately 40 percent larger than the minimum necessary.
    Of the 300 searches for small entities that filed Form I-910 
applications, 266 searches successfully matched the name of the filing 
entity to names in the databases and 34 searches did not match the name 
of a filing entity. DHS assumes filing entities not found in the online 
databases are likely to be small entities. DHS also assumes all of the 
non-matched entities as small entities for the purpose of this 
analysis. Among the 266 matches for Form I-910, DHS determined 189 to 
be small entities based on their revenue or employee count and 
according to their NAICS code. Therefore, DHS was able to classify 270 
of 300 entities as small entities that filed Form I-910 applications, 
including combined non-matches (34), matches missing data (47), and 
small entity matches (189). DHS also used the subscription-based, 
online databases mentioned above (Hoover's, Manta, Cortera, and 
Guidestar), and the 8 matches missing data that were found in the 
databases lacked revenue or employee count statistics.
    DHS determined that 270 out of 300 (90 percent) entities filing 
Form I-910 applications were small entities. Furthermore, DHS 
determined that 189 of the 300 entities searched were small entities 
based on sales revenue data, which were needed in order to estimate the 
economic impact of this final rule. Since the 189 entities were a small 
entity subset of the random sample of 300 entity searches, they were 
statistically significant in the context of this research.
    Similar to the Forms I-129 and I-140, DHS calculated the economic 
impact of this rule on entities that filed Form I-910 by estimating 
estimated the total savings associated with the final fee decrease for 
each entity and divided that amount by sales revenue of that entity. 
Among the 189 small entities with reported revenue data, all 
experienced an economic impact considerably less than 1.0 percent. The 
greatest economic impact imposed by this final fee change totaled -1.50 
percent and the smallest totaled -0.001 percent. The average impact on 
all 189 small entities with revenue data was -0.116 percent. The 
decreased fee will create cost savings for the individual applicant of 
$150. The negative number represents cost savings to the applicant. 
Therefore, the larger it is, the greater the cost savings for the 
applicants. The evidence suggests that the decreased fee by this final 
rule does not represent a significant economic impact on these 
entities.
d. Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant, Form I-360
    DHS is increasing the fee for applicants who file using Form I-360 
from $435 to $450, an increase of $15 (4 percent), including entities 
who petition on behalf of foreign religious workers. Using a 12-month 
period of data on the number of Form I-360 petitions filed from October 
1, 2016 to September 31, 2017, DHS collected internal data on filings 
of Form I-360 petitioners who file for foreign religious workers. The 
total number of Form I-360 petitions was 2,446, with 760 unique 
entities that filed petitions. DHS used the same databases mentioned 
previously to search for information on revenue and employee count.
    DHS used the same method as with Forms I-129 and I-140 to conduct 
the SEA based on a representative sample of the impacted population. To 
identify a representative sample, DHS used a standard statistical 
formula to determine a minimum sample size of 332 entities, which 
included using with a 95 percent confidence level and a 5 percent 
confidence interval on a population of 760 unique entities for Form I-
360 petitions. To account for missing organizations in the online 
subscription and public databases, DHS selected a sample size that was 
approximately 27 percent larger than the necessary minimum to allow for 
non-matches (filing entities that could not be found in any of the four 
databases). Therefore, DHS conducted searches on 420 randomly selected 
entities from a population of 760 unique entities that filed Form I-360 
petitions.
    Of the 420 searches for small entities that filed Form I-360 
petitions, 415 searches successfully matched the name of the filing 
entity to names in the databases and 5 searches did not match the name 
of the filing entities in the databases. DHS assumes that filing 
entities not found in the online databases are likely to be small 
entities. As a result, in order to prevent underestimating the number 
of small

[[Page 46903]]

entities this rule would affect, DHS conservatively assumes to consider 
all of the non-matched entities as small entities for the purpose of 
this analysis. Among the 415 matches for Form I-360, DHS determined 309 
to be small entities based on revenue or employee count and according 
to their NAICS code. Therefore, DHS was able to classify 388 of 420 
entities as small entities that filed Form I-360 petitions, including 
combined non-matches (5), matches missing data (74), and small entity 
matches (309). DHS also used the subscription-based, online databases 
mentioned above (Hoover's, Manta, Cortera, and Guidestar), the 74 
matches missing data that were found in the databases lacked revenue or 
employee count data.
    DHS determined that 388 out of 420 (92.4 percent) entities filing 
Form I-360 petitions were small entities. Furthermore, DHS determined 
that 309 of the 420 searched were small entities based on sales revenue 
data, which were needed to estimate the economic impact of this final 
rule. Since 309 small entities were a subset of the random sample of 
420 entity searches, they were statistically significant in the context 
of this research.
    Similar to other forms analyzed in this RFA, DHS calculated the 
economic impact of this rule on entities that filed Form I-360 by 
estimating the total costs associated with the final fee increase for 
each entity. Among the 309 small entities with reported revenue data, 
each would experience an economic impact considerably less than 1.0 
percent. The greatest economic impact imposed by this final fee change 
totaled 0.35 percent and the smallest totaled 0.000002 percent. The 
average impact on all 309 small entities with revenue data was 0.01 
percent.
    DHS also analyzed the final costs of this rule on the petitioning 
entities relative to the costs of the typical employee's salary. 
Guidelines suggested by the SBA Office of Advocacy indicate that the 
impact of a rule could be significant if the cost of the regulation 
exceeds 5 percent of the labor costs of the entities in the 
sector.\153\ According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the 
mean annual salary is $53,290 for clergy,\154\ $46,980 for directors of 
religious activities and education,\155\ and $35,860 for other 
religious workers.\156\ Based on an average of 1.5 religious workers 
\157\ petitioned for per entity, the additional average annual cost 
would be $22 per entity.\158\ The additional costs per entity in this 
final rule represent only 0.04 percent of the average annual salary for 
clergy, 0.05 percent of the average annual salary for directors of 
religious activities and education, and 0.06 percent of the average 
annual salary for all other religious workers.\159\ Therefore, using 
average annual labor cost guidelines, the additional regulatory 
compliance costs in this final rule are not significant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \153\ Office of Advocacy, Small Business Administration, ``A 
Guide for Government Agencies, How to Comply with the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act'', page 19: https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/How-to-Comply-with-the-RFA-WEB.pdf
    \154\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, 
``Occupational Employment Statistics, May 2018, ``Clergy'': https://www.bls.gov/oes/2018/may/oes212011.htm
    \155\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, 
``Occupational Employment Statistics, May 2018, ``Directors of 
Religious Activities and Education'': https://www.bls.gov/oes/2018/may/oes212099.htm
    \156\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, 
``Occupational Employment Statistics, May 2018, ``Religious Workers, 
All Other'': https://www.bls.gov/oes/2018/may/oes212099.htm.
    \157\ USCIS calculated the average filing per entity of 1.5 
petitions, from the Form I-360 Sample with Petition Totals in 
Appendix E, of the SEA for the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services Fee Schedule NPRM. Calculation: (total number of petitions 
from each sample id)/(total number of sample Form I-360 petitions) = 
618/420 = 1.5 average petitions filed per entity.
    \158\ Calculation: 1.5 average petitions per entity * $15 
increase in petition fees = approximately $22 additional total cost 
per entity.
    \159\ Calculation: $22 per entity/$53,290 clergy salary x 100 = 
.04 percent;
     $22 per entity/$46,980 directors of religious activities and 
education x 100 = .05 percent;
     $22 per entity/$35,860 other religious workers x 100 = .06 
percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. Genealogy Requests. Genealogy Index Search Request Form G-1041 and 
Genealogy Record Request, Form G-1041A
    DHS is increasing the fee to file both types of genealogy requests: 
Form G-1041, Genealogy Index Search Request, and Form G-1041A, 
Genealogy Record Request. The fee to file Form G-1041 will increase 
from $65 to $170, an increase of $105 (162 percent increase) for those 
who mail in this request on paper. In this rule, increases the fee for 
requestors who use the online electronic Form G-1041 version from the 
current $65 to $160, an increase of $95 (146 percent). The fee for Form 
G-1041A will increase from $65 to $265, an increase of $200 (308 
percent) for those who mail in this request on paper. The fee for Form 
G-1041A is increasing from $65 to $255, an increase of $190 (292 
percent) for those who use the electronic form.
    Based on DHS records for calendar years 2013 to 2017, there was an 
annual average of 3,840 genealogy index search requests made using Form 
G-1041 and there was an annual average of 2,152 genealogy records 
requests made using Form G-1041A. DHS does not have sufficient data on 
the requestors for the genealogy forms to determine if entities or 
individuals submitted these requests.
    DHS has previously determined that individuals usually make 
requests for historical records.\160\ If professional genealogists and 
researchers submitted such requests in the past, they did not identify 
themselves as commercial requestors and, therefore, DHS could not 
separate these data from the dataset. Genealogists typically advise 
clients on how to submit their own requests. For those that submit 
requests on behalf of clients, DHS does not know the extent to which 
they can pass along the fee increases to their individual clients. 
Therefore, DHS currently does not have sufficient data to definitively 
assess the impact on small entities for these requests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \160\ See ``Establishment of a Genealogy Program; Proposed 
Rule,'' 71 FR 20357--20368 (April 20, 2006). Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=USCIS-2006-0013-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, DHS must still recover the full costs of this program. As 
stated in the preamble to this rule, reducing the filing fee for any 
one benefit request submitted to DHS simply transfers the additional 
cost to process this request to other immigration and naturalization 
filing fees.
    For this rule, DHS is expanding the use of electronic genealogy 
requests to encourage requesters to use the electronic versions of Form 
G-1041 and Form G-1041A. DHS is changing the search request process so 
that USCIS may provide requesters with electronic records, if they 
exist, in response to the initial index request. These final changes 
may reduce the time it takes to request and receive genealogy records, 
and, in some cases, it will eliminate the need to make multiple search 
requests and submit separate fees. Moreover, DHS notes that providing 
digital records in response to a Form G-1041 request may reduce the 
number of Form G-1041A requests that will be filed because there would 
already be a copy of the record if it was previously digitized. As a 
result, the volume of Form G-1041A requests USCIS receives may 
decrease, though DHS is unable to estimate by how much. DHS recognizes 
that some small entities may be impacted by these proposed increased 
but cannot determine how many or the exact impact.
    DHS recognizes that some small entities may be impacted by these 
increased fees but cannot determine how many or the exact impact.

[[Page 46904]]

f. Regional Center Under the Immigrant Investor Program, Form I-924 and 
I-924A
    As part of the Immigration Act of 1990, Public Law 101-649, 104 
Stat. 4978 (Nov. 29, 1990), Congress established the EB-5 immigrant 
visa classification to incentivize employment creation in the United 
States. Under the EB-5 program, lawful permanent resident (LPR) status 
is available to foreign nationals who invest the required amount in a 
new commercial enterprise that will create at least 10 full-time jobs 
in the United States. See INA section 203(b)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5). A 
foreign national may also invest a lower amount in a targeted 
employment area defined to include rural areas and areas of high 
unemployment. Id.; 8 CFR 204.6(f). The INA allots 9,940 immigrant visas 
each fiscal year for foreign nationals seeking to enter the United 
States under the EB-5 classification.\161\ See INA section 201(d), 8 
U.S.C. 1151(d); INA section 203(b)(5), 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(5). Not fewer 
than 3,000 of these visas must be reserved for foreign nationals 
investing in targeted employment areas. See INA section 203(b)(5)(B), 8 
U.S.C. 1153(b)(5)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \161\ An immigrant investor, his or her spouse, and children (if 
any) will each use a separate visa number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Enacted in 1992, section 610 of the Departments of Commerce, 
Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations 
Act of 1993, Public Law 102-395, 106 Stat. 1828 (Oct. 6, 1992), 
established a pilot program that requires the allocation of a limited 
number of EB-5 immigrant visas to individuals who invest through DHS-
designated regional centers.\162\ Under the Regional Center Program, 
foreign nationals base their EB-5 petitions on investments in new 
commercial enterprises located within USCIS-designated ``regional 
centers.'' DHS regulations define a regional center as an economic 
unit, public or private, that promotes economic growth, including 
increased export sales, improved regional productivity, job creation, 
and increased domestic capital investment. See 8 CFR 204.6(e). While 
all EB-5 petitioners go through the same petition process, those 
petitioners participating in the Regional Center Program may meet 
statutory job creation requirements based on economic projections of 
either direct or indirect job creation, rather than only on jobs 
directly created by the new commercial enterprise. See 8 CFR 
204.6(j)(4)(iii), (m)(3). As of August 12, 2019, there were 826 USCIS-
approved Regional Centers.\163\ Requests for regional center 
designation must be filed with USCIS on Form I-924, Application for 
Regional Center Designation Under the Immigrant Investor Program. See 8 
CFR 204.6(m)(3)-(4). Once designated, regional centers must provide 
USCIS with updated information to demonstrate continued eligibility for 
the designation by submitting a Form I-924A, Annual Certification of 
Regional Center, on an annual basis or as otherwise requested. See 8 
CFR 204.6(m)(6)(i)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \162\ Current law requires that DHS annually set aside 3,000 EB-
5 immigrant visas for regional center investors. Public Law 105-119, 
sec. 116, 111 Stat. 2440 (Nov. 26, 1997). If this full annual 
allocation is not used, remaining visas may be allocated to foreign 
nationals who do not invest in regional centers.
    \163\ USCIS Immigrant Investor Regional Centers: https://www.uscis.gov/working-united-states/permanent-workers/employment-based-immigration-fifth-preference-eb-5/immigrant-investor-regional-centers (last reviewed/updated Aug. 20, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DHS will not adjust the fee for Form I-924. The current fee to file 
Form I-924 is $17,795. However, DHS is increasing the fee for Form I-
924A from $3,035 to $4,465 per filing, an increase of $1,430 (47 
percent). Using a 12-month period of data on the number of Forms I-924 
and I-924A from October 1, 2016 to September 31, 2017, DHS collected 
internal data on these forms. DHS received a total of 280 Form I-924 
applications and 847 Form I-924A applications.
    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. Such a determination is also 
difficult because regional centers can be structured in a variety of 
different ways and can involve multiple business and financial 
activities, some of which may play a direct or indirect role in linking 
investor funds to new commercial enterprises and job-creating projects 
or entities.
    Regional centers also pose a challenge for analysis as the 
structure is often complex and can involve many related business and 
financial activities not directly involved with EB-5 activities. 
Regional centers can be made up of several layers of business and 
financial activities that focus on matching foreign investor funds to 
development projects to capture above market return differentials. In 
the past, DHS has attempted to treat the regional centers similar to 
the other entities in this analysis. DHS was not able to identify most 
of the entities in any of the public or private databases. Furthermore, 
while regional centers are an integral component of the EB-5 program, 
DHS does not collect data on the administrative fees the regional 
centers charge to the foreign investors who are investing in one of 
their projects. DHS did not focus on the bundled capital investment 
amounts (either $900,000 for TEA projects or $1.8 million for a non-TEA 
projects per investor) \164\ that get invested into an NCE. Such 
investments amounts are not necessarily indicative of whether the 
regional center is appropriately characterized as a small entity for 
purposes of the RFA. Due to the lack of regional center revenue data, 
DHS assumes regional centers collect revenue primarily through the 
administrative fees charged to investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \164\ U.S. Department of Homeland Security, USCIS--EB-5 
Immigrant Investor Program Modernization, Final Rule. See 84 FR 
35750. Dated July 24, 2019. Available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-07-24/pdf/2019-15000.pdf. This amount by 
investor is determined between a designated Target Employment Area 
and non-Target Employment Area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The information provided by regional centers as part of the Forms 
I-924 and I-924A does not include adequate data to allow DHS to 
reliably identify the small entity status of individual applicants. 
Although regional center applicants typically report the NAICS codes 
associated with the sectors they plan to direct investor funds toward, 
these codes do not necessarily apply to the regional centers 
themselves. In addition, information provided to DHS concerning 
regional centers generally does not include regional center revenues or 
employment.
    DHS was able to obtain some information under some specific 
assumptions in an attempt to analyze the small entity status of 
regional centers.\165\ In the DHS final rule ``EB-5 Immigrant Investor 
Program Modernization,'' DHS analyzed the estimated administrative fees 
and revenue amounts for regional centers. DHS found both the mean and 
median for administrative fees to be $50,000 and the median revenue 
amount to be $1,250,000 over the period fiscal years 2014 to 2017. DHS 
does not know the extent to which these regional centers can pass along 
the fee increases to the individual investors. Passing along the costs 
from this rule can reduce or eliminate the economic impacts to the 
regional centers. While DHS cannot definitively claim there is no 
significant economic impact to these small entities

[[Page 46905]]

based on existing information, DHS would assume existing regional 
centers with revenues equal to or less than $446,500 per year (some of 
which DHS assumes would be derived from administrative fees charged to 
individual investors) could experience a significant economic impact. 
If DHS assumes a fee increase that represents 1 percent of annual 
revenue is a ``significant'' economic burden under the RFA.\166\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \165\ The methodology used to analyze the small entity status of 
regional centers is explained in further detail in Section D of the 
RFA section within DHS final rule ``EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program 
Modernization,'' available at 84 FR 35750.
    \166\ Calculation: 1 percent of $446,500 = $4,465 (the new fee 
for Form I-924A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. A Description of the Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements of the Rule, Including an Estimate of the 
Classes of Small Entities That Will Be Subject to the Requirement and 
the Type of Professional Skills Necessary for Preparation of the Report 
or Record
    This final rule imposed lower or higher fees for filers of Forms I-
129. DHS is changing the following fees for new Forms I-129 (separated 
into new forms by worker type). The new fee structure as it applies to 
the small entities outline above, resulting the following fees: I-129H1 
($555), I-129H2A (Named Beneficiaries, $850) I-129H2A (Unnamed 
Beneficiaries, $415), I-129H2B (Named, $715), I-129H2B (Unnamed, $385), 
I-129O ($705), I-129L ($805), I-129CW ($695), I-129E&TN ($695), I-
129MISC (Includes H-3, P, Q, or R Classifications, $695), I-140 ($555), 
I-910 ($635), I-924 ($17,795), I-924A ($4,465), Form I-360 ($450), G-
1041 ($170 paper, $160 online) and G-1041A ($265 paper, $255 online). 
This final rule does not require any new professional skills for 
reporting.
f. Description of the Steps the Agency Has Taken To Minimize the 
Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities Consistent With the 
Stated Objectives of Applicable Statutes, Including a Statement of 
Factual, Policy, and Legal Reasons for Selecting the Alternative 
Adopted in the Final Rule and Why Each One of the Other Significant 
Alternatives to the Rule Considered By the Agency Which Affect the 
Impact on Small Entities Was Rejected
    The INA provides for the collection of fees at a level that will 
ensure recovery of the full costs of providing adjudication and 
naturalization services, including services provided without charge to 
asylum applicants and certain other applicants. In addition, DHS must 
fund the costs of providing services without charge by using a portion 
of the filing fees collected for other immigration benefits. Without an 
increase in fees, DHS will not be able to maintain the level of service 
for immigration and naturalization benefits that it now provides. DHS 
has considered the alternative of maintaining fees at the current level 
with reduced services and increased processing times but has determined 
that this will not be in the interest of applicants and petitioners. 
Therefore, this alternative was rejected. While most immigration 
benefit fees apply to individuals, as described previously, some also 
apply to small entities. DHS seeks to minimize the impact on all 
parties, but in particular small entities.
    Another alternative to the increased economic burden of the fee 
adjustment is to maintain fees at their current level for small 
entities. The strength of this alternative is that it assures that no 
additional fee-burden is placed on small entities; however, small 
entities will experience negative effects due to the service reductions 
that will result in the absence of the fee adjustments in this final 
rule. Without the fee adjustments provided in this final rule, 
significant operational changes to USCIS would be necessary. Given 
current filing volume considerations, DHS requires additional revenue 
to prevent immediate and significant cuts in planned spending. These 
spending cuts would include reductions in areas such as Federal and 
contract staff, infrastructure spending on information technology and 
facilities, and training. Depending on the actual level of workload 
received, these operational changes could result in longer processing 
times, a degradation in customer service, and reduced efficiency over 
time. These cuts would ultimately represent an increased cost to small 
entities by causing delays in benefit processing and reductions in 
customer service.
    For reasons explained more fully elsewhere in the preamble to the 
final rule, DHS chose the approach contained in this final rule.

C. Congressional Review Act

    DHS has sent this final rule to the Congress and to the Comptroller 
General under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. The 
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has 
determined that this final rule is a ``major rule'' within the meaning 
of the Congressional Review Act. This rule will would be effective at 
least 60 days after the date on which Congress receives a report 
submitted by DHS under the Congressional Review Act, or 60 days after 
the final rule's publication, whichever is later.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) is intended, among 
other things, to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal 
mandates on State, local, and tribal governments. Title II of UMRA 
requires each Federal agency to prepare a written statement assessing 
the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency rule 
that may result in a $100 million or more expenditure (adjusted 
annually for inflation) in any one year by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. The inflation-
adjusted value equivalent of $100 million in 1995 adjusted for 
inflation to 2019 levels by the Consumer Price Index for All Urban 
Consumers (CPI-U) is approximately $168 million based on the Consumer 
Price Index for All Urban Consumers.\167\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \167\ See U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Historical Consumer 
Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): U.S. City Average, All 
Items, available at https://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables/supplemental-files/historical-cpi-u-202003.pdf (last visited June 2, 2020).
    Calculation of inflation: (1) Calculate the average monthly CPI-
U for the reference year (1995) and the current year (2019); (2) 
Subtract reference year CPI-U from current year CPI-U; (3) Divide 
the difference of the reference year CPI-U and current year CPI-U by 
the reference year CPI-U; (4) Multiply by 100 = [(Average monthly 
CPI-U for 2019 - Average monthly CPI-U for 1995)/(Average monthly 
CPI-U for 1995)] * 100 = [(255.657 - 152.383)/152.383] * 100 = 
(103.274/152.383) *100 = 0.6777 * 100 = 67.77 percent = 68 percent 
(rounded)
    Calculation of inflation-adjusted value: $100 million in 1995 
dollars * 1.68 = $168 million in 2019 dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While this final rule may result in the expenditure of more than 
$100 million by the private sector annually, the rulemaking is not a 
``Federal mandate'' as defined for UMRA purposes.\168\ The payment of 
immigration benefit fees by individuals or other private sector 
entities is, to the extent it could be termed an enforceable duty, one 
that arises from participation in a voluntary Federal program, applying 
for immigration status in the United States.\169\ This final rule does 
not contain such a mandate. The requirements of Title II of UMRA, 
therefore, do not apply, and DHS has not prepared a statement under 
UMRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \168\ See 2 U.S.C. 658(6).
    \169\ See 2 U.S.C. 658(7)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    This final rule does not have federalism implications because it 
does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. Therefore, in

[[Page 46906]]

accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, it is determined 
that this final rule does not have sufficient federalism implications 
to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

F. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform)

    This final rule was drafted and reviewed in accordance with E.O. 
12988, Civil Justice Reform. This final rule was written to provide a 
clear legal standard for affected conduct and was carefully reviewed to 
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguities, so as to minimize litigation 
and undue burden on the Federal court system. DHS has determined that 
this final rule meets the applicable standards provided in section 3 of 
E.O. 12988.

G. Executive Order 13175 Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This final rule does not have ``tribal implications'' because it 
does not have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, 
on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal Government and Indian tribes. Accordingly, E.O. 13175, 
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, requires 
no further agency action or analysis.

H. Family Assessment

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family 
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. 
Agencies must assess whether the regulatory action: (1) Impacts the 
stability or safety of the family, particularly in terms of marital 
commitment; (2) impacts the authority of parents in the education, 
nurture, and supervision of their children; (3) helps the family 
perform its functions; (4) affects disposable income or poverty of 
families and children; (5) if the regulatory action financially impacts 
families, are justified; (6) may be carried out by State or local 
government or by the family; and (7) establishes a policy concerning 
the relationship between the behavior and personal responsibility of 
youth and the norms of society. If the determination is affirmative, 
then the Agency must prepare an impact assessment to address criteria 
specified in the law. DHS has no data that indicates that the rule will 
have any impacts on disposable income or the poverty of certain 
families and children, including U.S. citizen children. A family may 
have to delay applying until they have saved funds for a fee set by 
this final rule, or pay the fee using a credit card. Nevertheless, DHS 
believes that the benefits of the new fees justify the financial impact 
on the family. DHS determined that this rulemaking's impact is 
justified and no further actions are required. DHS also determined that 
this final rule will not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity 
of the family as an institution.

I. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    This final rule adjusts certain immigration and naturalization 
benefit request fees charged by USCIS. It also makes changes related to 
setting, collecting, and administering fees. Fee schedule adjustments 
are necessary to recover the full operating costs associated with 
administering the nation's lawful immigration system, safeguarding its 
integrity and promise by efficiently and fairly adjudicating requests 
for immigration benefits, while protecting Americans, securing the 
homeland, and honoring our values. This final rule also makes certain 
adjustments to fee waiver eligibility, filing requirements for 
nonimmigrant workers, premium processing service, and other 
administrative requirements.
    DHS analyzes actions to determine whether NEPA applies to them and 
if so what degree of analysis is required. DHS Directive (Dir) 023-01 
Rev. 01 and Instruction Manual (Inst.) 023-01-001 Rev. 01 establish the 
procedures that DHS and its components use to comply with NEPA and the 
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations for implementing 
NEPA, 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508. The CEQ regulations allow Federal 
agencies to establish, with CEQ review and concurrence, categories of 
actions (``categorical exclusions'') which experience has shown do not 
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human 
environment and, therefore, do not require an Environmental Assessment 
(EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 40 CFR 1507.3(b)(1)(iii), 
1508.4. DHS Instruction 023-01-001 Rev. 01 establishes such Categorical 
Exclusions that DHS has found to have no such effect. Inst. 023-01-001 
Rev. 01 Appendix A Table 1. For an action to be categorically excluded, 
DHS Inst. 023-01-001 Rev. 01 requires the action to satisfy each of the 
following three conditions:
    (1) The entire action clearly fits within one or more of the 
Categorical Exclusions;
    (2) the action is not a piece of a larger action; and
    (3) no extraordinary circumstances exist that create the potential 
for a significant environmental effect. Inst. 023-01-001 Rev. 01 
section V.B(1)-(3).
    DHS has analyzed this action and has concluded that NEPA does not 
apply due to the excessively speculative nature of any effort to 
conduct an impact analysis. This final rule fits within the Categorical 
Exclusion found in DHS Inst. 023-01-001 Rev. 01, Appendix A, Table 1, 
number A3(d): ``Promulgation of rules . . . that interpret or amend an 
existing regulation without changing its environmental effect.'' This 
final rule is not part of a larger action. This final rule presents no 
extraordinary circumstances creating the potential for significant 
environmental effects. Therefore, this final rule is categorically 
excluded from further NEPA review.

J. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501-12, DHS 
must submit to OMB, for review and approval, any reporting requirements 
inherent in a rule, unless they are exempt. See Public Law 104-13, 109 
Stat. 163 (May 22, 1995). The Information Collection table 11 below 
shows the summary of forms that are part of this rulemaking.

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

[[Page 46907]]

 
1615-0079............................  I-102..................  Application for          No material or non-
                                                                 Replacement/Initial      substantive change to
                                                                 Nonimmigrant Arrival-    a currently approved
                                                                 Departure Document.      collection.
1615-0111............................  I-129CW................  Petition for a CNMI-     No material or non-
                                                                 Only Nonimmigrant        substantive change to
                                                                 Transitional Worker.     a currently approved
                                                                                          collection.
                                       I-129CWR...............  Semiannual Report for
                                                                 CW-1 Employers.
1615-0146............................  I-129E&TN..............  Application for          New Collection.
                                                                 Nonimmigrant Worker: E
                                                                 and TN Classifications.
1615-0001............................  I-129F.................  Petition for Alien       No material or non-
                                                                 Fianc[eacute](e).        substantive change to
                                                                                          a currently approved
                                                                                          collection.
1615-0009............................  I-129H1................  Petition for             Revision of a Currently
                                                                 Nonimmigrant Worker: H-  Approved Collection.
                                                                 1 Classifications.
1615-0150............................  I-129H2A...............  Petition for             New Collection.
                                                                 Nonimmigrant Worker: H-
                                                                 2A Classification.
1615-0149............................  I-129H2B...............  Petition for             New Collection.
                                                                 Nonimmigrant Worker: H-
                                                                 2B Classification.
1615-0147............................  I-129L.................  Petition for             New Collection.
                                                                 Nonimmigrant Worker: L
                                                                 Classifications.
1615-0145............................  I-129MISC..............  Petition for             New Collection.
                                                                 Nonimmigrant Worker: H-
                                                                 3, P, Q, or R
                                                                 Classifications.
1615-0148............................  I-129O.................  Petition for             New Collection.
                                                                 Nonimmigrant Worker: O
                                                                 Classifications.
1615-0012............................  I-130..................  Petition for Alien       No material or non-
                                                                 Relative.                substantive change to
                                                                                          a currently approved
                                                                                          collection.
                                       I-130A.................  Supplemental
                                                                 Information for Spouse
                                                                 Beneficiary.
1615-0013............................  I-131..................  Application for Travel   Revision of a Currently
                                                                 Document.                Approved Collection.
1615-0135............................  I-131A.................  Application for Travel   Revision of a Currently
                                                                 Document (Carrier        Approved Collection.
                                                                 Documentation).
1615-0015............................  I-140..................  Immigrant Petition for   No material or non-
                                                                 Alien Worker.            substantive change to
                                                                                          a currently approved
                                                                                          collection.
1615-0016............................  I-191..................  Application for Relief   No material or non-
                                                                 Under Former Section     substantive change to
                                                                 212(c) of the            a currently approved
                                                                 Immigration and          collection.
                                                                 Nationality Act.
1615-0017............................  I-192..................  Application for Advance  No material or non-
                                                                 Permission to Enter as   substantive change to
                                                                 Nonimmigrant.            a currently approved
                                                                                          collection.
1615-0018............................  I-212..................  Application for          No material or non-
                                                                 Permission to Reapply    substantive change to
                                                                 for Admission Into the   a currently approved
                                                                 United States After      collection.
                                                                 Deportation or Removal.
1615-0095............................  I-290B.................  Notice of Appeal or      No material or non-
                                                                 Motion.                  substantive change to
                                                                                          a currently approved
                                                                                          collection.
1615-0020............................  I-360..................  Petition for Amerasian,  No material or non-
                                                                 Widow(er), or Special    substantive change to
                                                                 Immigrant.               a currently approved
                                                                                          collection.
1615-0023............................  I-485..................  Application to Register  No material or non-
                                                                 Permanent Residence or   substantive change to
                                                                 Adjust Status.           a 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
                                                                 Request for Job
                                                                 Portability Under INA
                                                                 Section 204(j).
1615-0026............................  I-526..................  Immigrant Petition by    No material or non-
                                                                 Alien.                   substantive change to
                                                                                          a currently approved
                                                                                          collection.
1615-0003............................  I-539..................  Application to Extend/   No material or non-
                                                                 Change Nonimmigrant      substantive change to
                                                                 Status.                  a currently approved
                                                                                          collection.
1615-0003............................  I-539A.................  Supplemental             No material or non-
                                                                 Information for          substantive change to
                                                                 Application to Extend/   a currently approved
                                                                 Change Nonimmigrant      collection.
                                                                 Status.
1615-0067............................  I-589..................  Application for Asylum   Revision of a Currently
                                                                 and for Withholding of   Approved Collection.
                                                                 Removal.
1615-0028............................  I-600..................  Petition to Classify     Revision of a Currently
                                                                 Orphan as an Immediate   Approved Collection.
                                                                 Relative.
                                       I-600A.................  Application for Advance
                                                                 Processing of an
                                                                 Orphan 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   No material or non-
                                                                 of Grounds of            substantive change to
                                                                 Inadmissibility.         a currently approved
                                                                                          collection.
1615-0123............................  I-601A.................  Application for          No material or non-
                                                                 Provisional Unlawful     substantive change to
                                                                 Presence Waiver.         a currently approved
                                                                                          collection.

[[Page 46908]]

 
1615-0030............................  I-612..................  Application for Waiver   No material or non-
                                                                 of the Foreign           substantive change to
                                                                 Residence Requirement    a currently approved
                                                                 (Under Section 212(e)    collection.
                                                                 of the INA, as
                                                                 Amended).
1615-0032............................  I-690..................  Application for Waiver   No material or non-
                                                                 of Grounds of            substantive change to
                                                                 Inadmissibility.         a currently approved
                                                                                          collection.
1615-0034............................  I-694..................  Notice of Appeal of      No material or non-
                                                                 Decision Under           substantive change to
                                                                 Sections 245A or 210     a currently approved
                                                                 of the Immigration and   collection.
                                                                 Nationality Act.
1615-0035............................  I-698..................  Application to Adjust    No material or non-
                                                                 Status From Temporary    substantive change to
                                                                 to Permanent Resident    a currently approved
                                                                 (Under Section 245A of   collection.
                                                                 the INA).
1615-0038............................  I-751..................  Petition to Remove       No material or non-
                                                                 Conditions on            substantive change to
                                                                 Residence.               a currently approved
                                                                                          collection.
1615-0040............................  I-765..................  Application for          Revision of a Currently
                                                                 Employment               Approved Collection.
                                                                 Authorization.
1615-0005............................  I-817..................  Application for          No material or non-
                                                                 Benefits Under the       substantive change to
                                                                 Family Unity Program.    a currently approved
                                                                                          collection.
1615-0043............................  I-821..................  Application for          No material or non-
                                                                 Temporary Protected      substantive change to
                                                                 Status.                  a currently approved
                                                                                          collection.
1615-0044............................  I-824..................  Application for Action   No material or non-
                                                                 on an Approved           substantive change to
                                                                 Application or           a currently approved
                                                                 Petition.                collection.
1615-0045............................  I-829..................  Petition by Investor to  No material or non-
                                                                 Remove Conditions on     substantive change to
                                                                 Permanent Resident       a currently approved
                                                                 Status.                  collection.
1615-0072............................  I-881..................  Application for          No material or non-
                                                                 Suspension of            substantive change to
                                                                 Deportation or Special   a currently approved
                                                                 Rule Cancellation of     collection.
                                                                 Removal (Pursuant to
                                                                 Sec. 203 of Pub. L.
                                                                 105-100).
1615-0082............................  I-90...................  Application to Replace   No material or non-
                                                                 Permanent Resident       substantive change to
                                                                 Card.                    a currently approved
                                                                                          collection.
1615-0048............................  I-907..................  Request for Premium      No material or non-
                                                                 Processing Service.      substantive change to
                                                                                          a currently approved
                                                                                          collection.
1615-0114............................  I-910..................  Application for Civil    No material or non-
                                                                 Surgeon Designation.     substantive change to
                                                                                          a currently approved
                                                                                          collection.
1615-0116............................  I-912..................  Request for Fee Waiver.  Revision of a Currently
                                                                                          Approved Collection.
1615-0099............................  I-914..................  Application for T        No material or non-
                                                                 nonimmigrant status.     substantive change to
                                                                                          a currently approved
                                                                                          collection.
1615-0104............................  I-918..................  Petition for U           No material or non-
                                                                 nonimmigrant status.     substantive change to
                                                                                          a currently approved
                                                                                          collection.
1615-0061............................  I-924..................  Application for          No material or non-
                                                                 Regional Designation     substantive change to
                                                                 Center Under the         a currently approved
                                                                 Immigrant Investor       collection.
                                                                 Program.
                                       I-924A.................  Annual Certification of
                                                                 Regional Center.
1615-0106............................  I-929..................  Petition for Qualifying  No material or non-
                                                                 Family Member of a U-1   substantive change to
                                                                 Nonimmigrant.            a currently approved
                                                                                          collection.
1615-0136............................  I-941..................  Application for          No material or non-
                                                                 Entrepreneur Parole.     substantive change to
                                                                                          a currently approved
                                                                                          collection.
1615-0133............................  I-942..................  Application for Reduced  Discontinuation
                                                                 Fee.
1615-0122............................  Immigrant Fee..........  Fee paid for immigrant   No material or non-
                                                                 visa processing.         substantive change to
                                                                                          a currently approved
                                                                                          collection.
1615-0050............................  N-336..................  Request for a Hearing    No material or non-
                                                                 on a Decision in         substantive change to
                                                                 Naturalization           a currently approved
                                                                 Proceedings Under        collection.
                                                                 Section 336.
1615-0052............................  N-400..................  Application for          No material or non-
                                                                 Naturalization.          substantive change to
                                                                                          a currently approved
                                                                                          collection.
1615-0056............................  N-470..................  Application to Preserve  No material or non-
                                                                 Residence for            substantive change to
                                                                 Naturalization           a currently approved
                                                                 Purposes.                collection.
1615-0091............................  N-565..................  Application for          No material or non-
                                                                 Replacement of           substantive change to
                                                                 Naturalization/          a currently approved
                                                                 Citizenship Document.    collection.
1615-0057............................  N-600..................  Application for          No material or non-
                                                                 Certification of         substantive change to
                                                                 Citizenship.             a currently approved
                                                                                          collection.
1615-0087............................  N-600K.................  Application for          No material or non-
                                                                 Citizenship and          substantive change to
                                                                 Issuance of              a currently approved
                                                                 Certificate under        collection.
                                                                 Section 322.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Various USCIS Forms
    This final rule will require non-substantive edits to the forms 
listed above where the Type of Information Collection column states, 
``No material/non-substantive change to a currently approved 
collection.'' These edits include: Updates to the fees collected, 
including changes to the collection of biometric services fees; 
modification of various form instructions to conform with changes to 
USCIS Form I-912; modification to USCIS Form N-400 to conform with the 
discontinuation of USCIS Form I-942; modification to various form 
instructions to conform with changes to the conditions for fee 
exemptions; removal of the returned check fee; text clarifying that a 
second presentment is limited to NSF checks, addition of language 
regarding delivery requirements of certain secured documents; general 
language modification of fee activities within various USCIS forms. 
Accordingly, USCIS has submitted a Paperwork Reduction Act Change 
Worksheet, Form

[[Page 46909]]

OMB 83-C, and amended information collection instruments to OMB for 
review and approval in accordance with the PRA.\170\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \170\ As stated earlier DHS is removing the $30 fee for 
dishonored fee payment instruments. EOIR will make conforming 
changes to its affected forms separately. . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

USCIS Form I-129H1
    Overview of information collection:
    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Petition for a Nonimmigrant 
Worker: H-1B Classifications.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-129H1; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Business or other for-profit; Not-
for-profit institutions. USCIS uses the data collected on this form to 
determine eligibility for the requested nonimmigrant classification 
and/or requests to extend or change nonimmigrant status. An employer 
(or agent, where applicable) uses this form to petition USCIS for 
classification of an alien as an H-1B nonimmigrant. An employer (or 
agent, where applicable) also uses this form to request an extension of 
stay of an H-1B or H-1B1 nonimmigrant worker or to change the status of 
an alien currently in the United States as a nonimmigrant to H-1B or H-
1B1. The form serves the purpose of standardizing requests for H-1B and 
H-1B1 nonimmigrant workers and ensuring that basic information required 
for assessing eligibility is provided by the petitioner while 
requesting that beneficiaries be classified under the H-1B or H-1B1 
nonimmigrant employment categories. It also assists USCIS in compiling 
information required by Congress annually to assess effectiveness and 
utilization of certain nonimmigrant classifications.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-129H1 
is 402,034 and the estimated hour burden per response is 4 hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection is 1,608,136 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $207,047,510.
USCIS Form I-129H2A
    Overview of information collection:
    (1) Type of Information Collection: New Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Petition for a Nonimmigrant 
Worker: H-2A Classifications.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-129H2A; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Business or other for-profit; Not-
for-profit institutions. USCIS uses the data collected on this form to 
determine eligibility for the requested H-2A nonimmigrant petition and/
or requests to extend or change nonimmigrant status. An employer or 
agent uses this form to petition USCIS for classification of an alien 
as an H-2A nonimmigrant. An employer or agent also uses this form to 
request an extension of stay or change of status on behalf of the alien 
worker. The form serves the purpose of standardizing requests for H-2A 
nonimmigrant workers and ensuring that basic information required for 
assessing eligibility is provided by the petitioner. It also assists 
USCIS in compiling information required by Congress annually to assess 
effectiveness and utilization of certain nonimmigrant classifications.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-
129H2A is 12,008 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3 hours; 
the estimated total number of respondents for the information 
collection Named Worker Attachment for Form I-129H2A is 65,760 and the 
estimated hour burden per response is 0.5 hours; the estimated total 
number of respondents for the information collection Joint Employer 
Supplement for Form I-129H2A is 5,000 and the estimated hour burden per 
response is 0.167 hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection is 69,739 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $6,184,120.
USCIS Form I-129H2B
    Overview of information collection:
    (1) Type of Information Collection: New Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker: 
H-2B Classification.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-129H2B; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Business or other for-profit; Not-
for-profit institutions. USCIS uses the data collected on this form to 
determine eligibility for the requested H-2B nonimmigrant petition and/
or requests to extend or change nonimmigrant status. An employer or 
agent uses this form to petition USCIS for classification of an alien 
as an H-2B nonimmigrant. An employer or agent also uses this form to 
request an extension of stay or change of status on behalf of the alien 
worker. The form serves the purpose of standardizing requests for 
nonimmigrant workers and ensuring that basic information required for 
assessing eligibility is provided by the petitioner. It also assists 
USCIS in compiling information required by Congress annually to assess 
effectiveness and utilization of certain nonimmigrant classifications.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-
129H2B is 6,340 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3 hours; 
the estimated total number of respondents for the information 
collection Named Worker Attachment for Form I-129H2B is 58,104 and the 
estimated hour burden per response is 0.5 hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection is 48,072 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $3,265,100.
USCIS Form I-129L
    Overview of information collection:
    (1) Type of Information Collection: New Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker: 
I-129L Classification.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS

[[Page 46910]]

sponsoring the collection: I-129L; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Business or other for-profit; Not-
for-profit institutions. USCIS uses the data collected on Form I-129L 
to determine a petitioner and beneficiary's eligibility for L-1A and L-
1B classification. The form is also used to determine eligibility for 
an LZ Blanket petition. An employer uses this form to petition USCIS 
for classification of the beneficiary as an L-1 nonimmigrant. An 
employer also uses this form to request an extension of stay or change 
of status on behalf of the beneficiary. The form standardizes these 
types of petitioners and ensures that the information required for 
assessing eligibility is provided by the petitioner about themselves 
and the beneficiary. The form also enables USCIS to compile data 
required for an annual report to Congress assessing the effectiveness 
and utilization of certain nonimmigrant classifications.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-129L 
is 42,871 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3 hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection is 128,613 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $22,078,565.
USCIS Form I-129O
    Overview of information collection:
    (1) Type of Information Collection: New Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker: 
O Classification.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-129O; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Business or other for-profit; Not-
for-profit institutions. USCIS uses the data collected on this form to 
determine eligibility for the requested nonimmigrant petition and/or 
requests to extend or change nonimmigrant status. An employer or agent 
uses this form to petition USCIS for classification of an alien as an O 
nonimmigrant worker. An employer or agent also uses this form to 
request an extension of stay or change of status on behalf of the alien 
worker. The form serves the purpose of standardizing requests for 
nonimmigrant workers and ensuring that basic information required for 
assessing eligibility is provided by the petitioner while requesting 
that beneficiaries be classified under certain nonimmigrant employment 
categories. It also assists USCIS in compiling information required by 
Congress annually to assess effectiveness and utilization of certain 
nonimmigrant classifications.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-129O 
is 25,516 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3 hours; the 
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection 
Attachment 1--Additional Beneficiary for Form I-129O is 1,189 and the 
estimated hour burden per response is 0.5 hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection is 77,143 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $13,140,740.
USCIS Form I-129MISC
    Overview of information collection:
    (1) Type of Information Collection: New Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker: 
H-3, P, Q, or R Classification.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-129MISC; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Business or other for-profit; Not-
for-profit institutions. USCIS uses the data collected on this form to 
determine eligibility for the requested nonimmigrant classification 
and/or requests to extend or change nonimmigrant status. An employer 
(or agent, where applicable) uses this form to petition USCIS for 
classification of an alien as an H-3, P, Q, or R nonimmigrant. An 
employer (or agent, where applicable) also uses this form to request an 
extension of stay of an H-3, P, Q, or R nonimmigrant worker or to 
change the status of an alien currently in the United States as a 
nonimmigrant to H-3, P, Q, or R. The form serves the purpose of 
standardizing requests for H-3, P, Q, or R nonimmigrant workers, and 
ensuring that basic information required for assessing eligibility is 
provided by the petitioner while requesting that beneficiaries be 
classified under the H-3, P, Q, or R nonimmigrant employment 
categories. It also assists USCIS in compiling information required by 
Congress annually to assess effectiveness and utilization of certain 
nonimmigrant classification.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-
129MISC is 28,799 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3 
hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information 
collection H-3 Classification Supplement to Form I-129MISC, Petition 
for Nonimmigrant Worker: H-3, P, Q, or R Classification is 1,449 and 
the estimated hour burden per response is 0.25 hours; the estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection P 
Classification Supplement to Form I-129MISC is 18,524 and the estimated 
hour burden per response is 0.5 hours; the estimated total number of 
respondents for the information collection Q-1 International Cultural 
Exchange Alien Supplement to Form I-129MISC is 295 and the estimated 
hour burden per response is 0.167 hours; the estimated total number of 
respondents for the information collection R-1 Classification 
Supplement to Form I-129MISC is 1 and the estimated hour burden per 
response is 1 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the 
information collection Attachment 1-Additional Beneficiary for Form I-
129MISC is 8,531 and the estimated hour burden per response is 0.5 
hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection is 107,847 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $14,831,485.
USCIS Form I-129E&TN
    Overview of information collection:
    (1) Type of Information Collection: New Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker: 
E and TN Classification.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS

[[Page 46911]]

sponsoring the collection: I-129E&TN USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Business or other for-profit; Not-
for-profit institutions. USCIS uses the data collected on this form to 
determine eligibility for the requested nonimmigrant classification 
and/or requests to extend or change nonimmigrant status. An employer 
agent, or applicant uses this form to apply to USCIS for classification 
of an alien as an E-1, E-2, E-3, or TN nonimmigrant. An employer, 
agent, applicant, or CNMI investor also uses this form to request an 
extension of stay in one of these classifications for an alien or for 
themselves, or to change the status of an alien currently in the United 
States as a nonimmigrant or their own status if they are currently in 
the United States as a nonimmigrant to E-1, E-2, E-3, or TN. The form 
serves the purpose of standardizing requests for nonimmigrant workers 
in these classifications and ensuring that basic information required 
for assessing eligibility is provided by the applicant. It also assists 
USCIS in compiling information required by Congress annually to assess 
effectiveness and utilization of certain nonimmigrant classification.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-
129E&TN is 12,709 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3 
hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information 
collection E-1/E-2 Classification Supplement to Form I-129E&TN is 4,236 
and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.45 hours; the estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection E-3 
Classification Supplement to Form I-129E&TN is 2,824 and the estimated 
hour burden per response is 1 hours; the estimated total number of 
respondents for the information collection NAFTA Supplement to Form I-
129E&TN is 7,349 and the estimated hour burden per response is 0.5 
hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection is 50,768 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $6,545,135.
USCIS Form I-131
    Overview of information collection:
    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Travel Document, 
Form I-131; Extension, Without Change, of a Currently Approved 
Collection.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-131; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Certain 
aliens, principally permanent or conditional residents, refugees or 
asylees, applicants for adjustment of status, aliens in Temporary 
Protected Status (TPS), and aliens abroad seeking humanitarian parole 
who need to apply for a travel document to lawfully enter or reenter 
the United States. Lawful permanent residents may now file requests for 
travel permits (transportation letter or boarding foil).
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection I-131 is 
464,900 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.9 hours; the 
estimated total number of respondents for biometrics processing is 
86,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.17 hours, the 
estimated total number of respondents for passport-style photos is 
360,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 0.5 hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection is 1,163,930 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $143,654,100.
USCIS Form I-131A
    Overview of information collection:
    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Carrier 
Documentation.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-131A; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. USCIS 
uses the information provided on Form I-131A to verify the status of 
permanent or conditional residents, and aliens traveling abroad on an 
Advance Parole Document (Form I-512 or I-512L) or Employment 
Authorization Documents (EAD) with travel endorsement (Form I-766) and 
to determine whether the applicant is eligible for the requested travel 
document.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-131A 
is 5,100 and the estimated hour burden per response is .92 hours; 
biometrics processing is 5,100 and the estimated hour burden per 
response is 1.17 hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection is 10,659 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $919,275.
USCIS Form I-589
    Overview of information collection:
    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Asylum and for 
Withholding of Removal.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-589; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Form I-
589 is necessary to determine whether an alien applying for asylum and/
or withholding of removal in the United States is classified as a 
refugee and is eligible to remain in the United States.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of USCIS respondents for the information collection in 
Form I-589 is approximately 114,000, and the estimated annual 
respondents for Form I-589 filed with DOJ is approximately 150,000. The 
estimated hour burden per response is 13 hours per response; and the 
estimated number of respondents providing biometrics to USCIS is 
110,000, and to DOJ (collected on their behalf by USCIS) is 150,000. 
The estimated hour burden per response for biometrics submissions is 
1.17 hours.

[[Page 46912]]

    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection for USCIS is 1,610,700 hours, and for DOJ is 
2,125,500.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information for USCIS is estimated to be 
$46,968,000 and for DOJ is $61,800,000.
USCIS Form I-600, I-600A, Supplement 1, Supplement 2, Supplement 3
    Overview of information collection:
    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Petition to Classify Orphan as an 
Immediate Relative; Application for Advance Processing of an Orphan 
Petition; Supplement 1, Listing of an Adult Member of the Household; 
Supplement 2, Consent to Disclose Information; Supplement 3, Request 
for Action on Approved Form I-600A/I-600.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-600, Form I-600A, Form I-600A/I-
600 Supplement 1, Form I-600A/I-600 Supplement 2, Form I-600A/I-600 
Supplement 3; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. A U.S. 
citizen prospective/adoptive parent may file a petition to classify an 
orphan as an immediate relative under section 201(b)(2)(A) of the INA. 
A U.S. citizen adoptive parent may file a petition to classify an 
orphan as an immediate relative through Form I-600 under section 
101(b)(1)(F) of the INA. A U.S. citizen prospective adoptive parent may 
file Form I-600A in advance of the Form I-600 filing and USCIS will 
make a determination regarding the prospective adoptive parent's 
eligibility to file Form I-600A and his or her suitability and 
eligibility to properly parent an orphan. If there are other adult 
members of the U.S. citizen prospective/adoptive parent's household, as 
defined at 8 CFR 204.301, the prospective/adoptive parent must include 
Form I-600A/I-600 Supplement 1 when filing both Form I-600A and Form I-
600. A Form I-600A/I-600 Supplement 2, Consent to Disclose Information, 
is an optional form that a U.S. citizen prospective/adoptive parent may 
file to authorize USCIS to disclose case-related information that would 
otherwise be protected under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, to 
adoption service providers or other individuals. Form I-600A/I-600 
authorize d disclosures will assist USCIS in the adjudication of Forms 
I-600A and I-600. USCIS has created a new Form I-600A/I-600 Supplement 
3, Request for Action on Approved Form I-600A/I-600, for this 
information collection. Form I-600A/I-600 Supplement 3 is a form that 
prospective/adoptive parents must use if they need to request action 
such as an extended or updated suitability determination based upon a 
significant change in their circumstances or change in the number or 
characteristics of the children they intend to adopt, a change in their 
intended country of adoption, or a request for a duplicate notice of 
their approved Form I-600A suitability determination.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection Form I-600 
is 1,200 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1 hour; the 
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection 
Form I-600A is 2,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1 
hour; the estimated total number of respondents for the information 
collection Form I-600/I-600A Supplement 1 is 301 and the estimated hour 
burden per response is 1 hour; the estimated total number of 
respondents for the information collection Form I-600/I-600A Supplement 
2 is 1,260 and the estimated hour burden per response is 0.25 hours; 
the estimated total number of respondents for the information 
collection Form I-600/I-600A Supplement 3 is 1,286 and the estimated 
hour burden per response is 1 hours; the estimated total number of 
respondents for the Home Study information collection is 2,500 and the 
estimated hour burden per response is 25 hours; the estimated total 
number of respondents for the Biometrics information collection is 
2,520 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.17 hours; the 
estimated total number of respondents for the Biometrics--DNA 
information collection is 2 and the estimated hour burden per response 
is 6 hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection is 70,562.40 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $7,759,232.
USCIS Form I-765
    Overview of information collection:
    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Employment 
Authorization.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-765; USCIS.
    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. USCIS 
uses Form I-765 to collect information needed to determine if an alien 
is eligible for an initial EAD, a new replacement EAD, or a subsequent 
EAD upon the expiration of a previous EAD under the same eligibility 
category. Aliens in many immigration statuses are required to possess 
an EAD as evidence of work authorization.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection I-765 is 
2,286,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 4.5 hours; the 
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection I-
765WS is 302,000 and the estimated hour burden per response is 0.5 
hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information 
collection biometrics is 302,535 and the estimated hour burden per 
response is 1.17 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for 
the information collection passport photos is 2,286,000 and the 
estimated hour burden per response is 0.5 hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection is 11,934,966 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $400,895,820.
USCIS Form I-912
    Overview of information collection:
    (1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently 
Approved Collection.
    (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Request for Fee Waiver.
    (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the 
DHS sponsoring the collection: I-912; USCIS.

[[Page 46913]]

    (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as 
well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. USCIS 
uses the data collected on this form to verify that the applicant is 
unable to pay for the immigration benefit being requested. USCIS will 
consider waiving a fee for an application or petition when the 
applicant or petitioner clearly demonstrates he or she is eligible 
based on 8 CFR 106.3. Form I-912 standardizes the collection and 
analysis of statements and supporting documentation provided by the 
applicant with the fee waiver request. Form I-912 also streamlines and 
expedites USCIS' approval, or rejection of the fee waiver request by 
clearly laying out the most salient data and evidence necessary for the 
determination of inability to pay. Officers evaluate all information 
and evidence supplied in support of a fee waiver request when making a 
final determination. Each case is unique and is considered on its own 
merits. If the fee waiver is granted, the application will be 
processed. If the fee waiver is not granted, USCIS will notify the 
applicant and instruct him or her to file a new application with the 
appropriate fee.
    (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount 
of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated 
total number of respondents for the information collection I-912 is 
116,832 and the estimated hour burden per response is 2.33 hours; the 
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection 
DACA Exemptions is 108 and the estimated hour burden per response is 
1.17 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the 
information collection Director's Exemption Provision in new 8 CFR 
106.3(e) is 20 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.17 
hours.
    (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated 
with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated 
with this collection is 272,368 hours.
    (7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated 
with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated 
with this collection of information is $438,600.
USCIS Form I-942
    This final rule discontinues the use of Form I-942, Request for 
Reduced Fee, because DHS is eliminating the option to request a reduced 
fee. Accordingly, USCIS has submitted a Paperwork Reduction Act Change 
Worksheet, Form OMB 83-D, and amended information collection 
instruments to OMB for review and approval in accordance with the PRA.

Differences in information collection request respondent volume and fee 
model filing volume projections.
    DHS acknowledges that the estimates of annual filing volume in the 
PRA section of this preamble are not the same as those used in the ABC 
model used to calculate the fee amounts in this rule. For example, the 
fee calculation model estimates 163,000 annual Form I-589 filings while 
the PRA section estimates the average annual number of respondents will 
be 114,000. The model projects 2,455,000 Form I-765 filings while the 
estimated total number of respondents for the information collection I-
765 is 2,096,000. As stated in the NPRM and section III.L.1 of this 
preamble, the VPC forecasts USCIS workload volume based on short- and 
long-term volume trends and time series models, historical receipts 
data, patterns (such as level, trend, and seasonality) or correlations 
with historical events to forecast receipts. Workload volume is used to 
determine the USCIS resources needed to process benefit requests and is 
the primary cost driver for assigning activity costs to immigration 
benefits and biometric services in the USCIS ABC model. DHS uses a 
different method for estimating the average annual number of 
respondents for the information collection over the three-year OMB 
approval of the control number, generally basing the estimate on the 
average filing volumes in the previous 3 or 5 year period, with less 
consideration of the volume effects of planned or past policy changes. 
Nevertheless, when the information collection request is nearing 
expiration, USCIS will update the estimates of annual respondents based 
on actual filing volumes that occur after this final rule takes effect 
in the submission to OMB. The PRA burden estimates are generally 
updated at least every three years. Thus, DHS expects that the PRA 
estimated annual respondents will be updated to reflect the actual 
effects of this proposed rule within a relatively short period after a 
final rule takes effect.

K. Signature

    The Acting Secretary of Homeland Security, Chad F. Wolf, having 
reviewed and approved this document, is delegating the authority to 
electronically sign this document to Chad R. Mizelle, who is the Senior 
Official Performing the Duties of the General Counsel for DHS, for 
purposes of publication in the Federal Register.

List of Subjects

8 CFR Part 103

    Administrative practice and procedures, Authority delegations 
(government agencies), Freedom of Information, Privacy, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, and Surety bonds.

8 CFR Part 106

    Immigration, User fees.

8 CFR Part 204

    Administrative practice and procedure, Immigration, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

8 CFR Part 211

    Immigration, Passports and visas, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

8 CFR Part 212

    Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Immigration, 
Passports and visas, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

8 CFR Part 214

    Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Cultural exchange 
program, Employment, Foreign officials, Health professions, Reporting 
and recordkeeping, requirements, Students.

8 CFR Part 216

    Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens.

8 CFR Part 217

    Air carriers, Aliens, Maritime carriers, Passports and visas.

8 CFR Part 223

    Aliens, Refugees, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

8 CFR Part 235

    Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Immigration, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirement.

8 CFR Part 236

    Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Immigration.

8 CFR Part 240

    Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens.

8 CFR Part 244

    Administrative practice and procedure; Immigration.

8 CFR Parts 245 and 245a

    Aliens, Immigration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

[[Page 46914]]

8 CFR Parts 248 and 264

    Aliens, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

8 CFR Part 274a

    Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Employment, 
Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

8 CFR Part 286

    Air carriers, Immigration, Maritime carriers, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

8 CFR Parts 301 and 319

    Citizenship and naturalization, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

8 CFR Parts 320 and 322

    Citizenship and naturalization, Infants and children, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

8 CFR Part 324

    Citizenship and naturalization, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Women.

8 CFR Part 334

    Administrative practice and procedure, Citizenship and 
naturalization, Courts, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

8 CFR Parts 341, 343a, 343b, and 392

    Citizenship and naturalization, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Accordingly, DHS proposes to amend chapter I of title 8 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 103--IMMIGRATION BENEFIT REQUESTS; USCIS FILING REQUIREMENTS; 
BIOMETRIC REQUIREMENTS; AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS

0
1. The authority citation for part 103 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a; 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1304, 
1356, 31 U.S.C. 9701; 48 U.S.C. 1806; Pub. L.107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 
(6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.); E.O. 12356, 47 FR 14874, 15557, 3 CFR, 1982 
Comp., p. 166; 8 CFR part 2; Pub. L. 112-54, 125 Stat 550. Pub. L. 
115-218.


0
2. The heading for part 103 is revised to read as set forth above.

0
3. Section 103.2 amended:
0
a. By revising the last sentence of paragraph (a)(1) and adding a new 
last sentence;
0
b. By revising paragraph (a)(7)(ii)(D);
0
c. In paragraph (b)(9) introductory text, by removing ``8 CFR 
103.7(b)(1)(i)(C)'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR 106.2'' in the 
second sentence; and
0
d. By revising paragraph (b)(19)(iii).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  103.2   Submission and adjudication of benefit requests.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * * All USCIS fees are generally are non-refundable 
regardless of if the benefit request or other service is approved, 
denied, or selected, or how much time the adjudication or processing 
requires. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter I, fees must be 
paid when the request is filed or submitted.
* * * * *
    (7) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (D) Submitted with the correct fee(s). If a check or other 
financial instrument used to pay a fee is returned as unpayable because 
of insufficient funds, USCIS will resubmit the payment to the remitter 
institution one time. If the instrument used to pay a fee is returned 
as unpayable a second time, the filing may be rejected. Financial 
instruments returned as unpayable for a reason other than insufficient 
funds will not be redeposited. If a check or other financial instrument 
used to pay a fee is dated more than one year before the request is 
received, the payment and request may be rejected.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (19) * * *
    (iii) Secure identity documents. (A) USCIS may send secure 
identification documents, such as a Permanent Resident Card or 
Employment Authorization Document, only to the applicant or self-
petitioner unless the applicant or self-petitioner specifically 
consents to having his or her secure identification document sent to a 
designated agent, their attorney or accredited representative or 
record, as specified on the form instructions.
    (B) The designated agent, or attorney or accredited representative, 
will be required to provide identification and sign for receipt of the 
secure document.
* * * * *


Sec.  103.3  [Amended]

0
4. Section 103.3 is amended in paragraph (a)(2)(i) by removing ``Sec.  
103.7 of this part'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR 106.2''.


Sec.  103.5   [Amended]

0
5. Section 103.5 is amended in paragraph (a)(1)(iii)(B) by removing 
``Sec.  103.7'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR 106.2''.

0
6. Section 103.7 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  103.7  Fees.

    (a) DOJ fees. Fees for proceedings before immigration judges and 
the Board of Immigration Appeals are described in 8 CFR 1003.8, 
1003.24, and 1103.7.
    (1) USCIS may accept DOJ fees. Except as provided in 8 CFR 1003.8, 
or as the Attorney General otherwise may provide by regulation, any fee 
relating to any EOIR proceeding may be paid to USCIS. Payment of a fee 
under this section does not constitute filing of the document with the 
Board or with the immigration court. DHS will provide the payer with a 
receipt for a fee and return any documents submitted with the fee 
relating to any immigration court proceeding.
    (2) DHS-EOIR biometric services fee. Fees paid to and accepted by 
DHS relating to any immigration proceeding as provided in 8 CFR 
1103.7(a)(3) must include an additional $30 for DHS to collect, store, 
and use biometric information.
    (3) Waiver of Immigration Court fees. An immigration judge or the 
Board may waive any fees prescribed under this chapter for cases under 
their jurisdiction to the extent provided in 8 CFR 1003.8 and 1003.24.
    (b) USCIS fees. USCIS fees will be required as provided in 8 CFR 
part 106.
    (c) Remittances. Remittances to the Board of Immigration Appeals 
must be made payable to the ``United States Department of Justice,'' in 
accordance with 8 CFR 1003.8.
    (d) Non-USCIS DHS immigration fees. The following fees are 
applicable to one or more of the immigration components of DHS:
    (1) DCL System Costs Fee. For use of a Dedicated Commuter Lane 
(DCL) located at specific U.S. ports-of-entry by an approved 
participant in a designated vehicle:
    (i) $80.00, or
    (ii) $160.00 for a family (applicant, spouse and minor children); 
plus,
    (iii) $42 for each additional vehicle enrolled.
    (iv) The fee is due after approval of the application but before 
use of the DCL.
    (v) This fee is non-refundable, but may be waived by DHS.
    (2) Petition for Approval of School for Attendance by Nonimmigrant 
Student (Form I-17). (i) For filing a petition for school 
certification: $3,000 plus, a site visit fee of $655 for each location 
required to be listed on the form;
    (ii) For filing a petition for school recertification: $1,250 plus 
a site visit

[[Page 46915]]

fee of $655 for each new location required to be listed on the form.
    (3) Form I-68. For application for issuance of the Canadian Border 
Boat Landing Permit under section 235 of the Act:
    (i) $16.00, or
    (ii) $32 for a family (applicant, spouse and unmarried children 
under 21 years of age, and parents of either spouse).
    (4) Form I-94. For issuance of Arrival/Departure Record at a land 
border port-of-entry: $6.00.
    (5) Form I-94W. For issuance of Nonimmigrant Visa Waiver Arrival/
Departure Form at a land border port-of-entry under section 217 of the 
Act: $6.00.
    (6) Form I-246. For filing application for stay of deportation 
under 8 CFR part 243: $155.00.
    (7) Form I-823. For application to a PORTPASS program under section 
286 of the Act:
    (i) $25.00, or
    (ii) $50.00 for a family (applicant, spouse, and minor children).
    (iii) The application fee may be waived by DHS.
    (iv) If biometrics, such as fingerprints, are required, the 
inspector will inform the applicant of the current Federal Bureau of 
Investigation fee for conducting background checks prior to accepting 
the application fee.
    (v) The application fee (if not waived) and fingerprint fee must be 
paid to CBP before the application will be processed. The fingerprint 
fee may not be waived.
    (vi) For replacement of PORTPASS documentation during the 
participation period: $25.00.
    (8) Fee Remittance for F, J, and M Nonimmigrants (Form I-901). The 
fee for Form I-901 is:
    (i) For F and M students: $350.
    (ii) For J-1 au pairs, camp counselors, and participants in a 
summer work or travel program: $35.
    (iii) For all other J exchange visitors (except those participating 
in a program sponsored by the Federal Government): $220.
    (iv) There is no Form I-901 fee for J exchange visitors in 
federally funded programs with a program identifier designation prefix 
that begins with G-1, G-2, G-3, or G-7.
    (9) Special statistical tabulations: The DHS cost of the work 
involved.
    (10) Monthly, semiannual, or annual ``Passenger Travel Reports via 
Sea and Air'' tables. (i) For the years 1975 and before: $7.00.
    (ii) For after 1975: Contact: U.S. Department of Transportation, 
Transportation Systems Center, Kendall Square, Cambridge, MA 02142.
    (11) Request for Classification of a citizen of Canada to engage in 
professional business activities pursuant to section 214(e) of the Act 
(Chapter 16 of the North American Free Trade Agreement): $50.00.
    (12) Request for authorization for parole of an alien into the 
United States: $65.00.
    (13) Global Entry. Application for Global Entry: $100.
    (14) U.S. Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Business Travel 
Card. Application fee: $70.
    (15) Notice of Appeal or Motion (Form I-290B) filed with ICE SEVP. 
For a Form I-290B filed with the Student and Exchange Visitor Program 
(SEVP): $675.

0
7. Section 103.17 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  103.17  Biometric services fee.

    DHS may charge a fee to collect biometric information, to provide 
biometric collection services, to conduct required national security 
and criminal history background checks, to verify an individual's 
identity, and to store and maintain this biometric information for 
reuse to support other benefit requests. If a benefit request as 
defined in 8 CFR 1.2 must be submitted with a biometric services fee, 8 
CFR part 106 will contain the requirement. When a biometric services 
fee is required, a benefit request submitted without the correct 
biometric services fee may be rejected.

0
8. Section 103.40 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  103.40  Genealogical research requests.

    (a) Nature of requests. Genealogy requests are requests for 
searches and/or copies of historical records relating to a deceased 
person, usually for genealogy and family history research purposes.
    (b) Forms. USCIS provides on its website at https://www.uscis.gov/genealogy the required forms in electronic versions: Genealogy Index 
Search Request, or Genealogy Records Request.
    (c) Required information. Genealogical Research Requests may be 
submitted to request one or more separate records relating to an 
individual. A separate request must be submitted for each individual 
searched. All requests for records or index searches must include the 
individual's:
    (1) Full name (including variant spellings of the name and/or 
aliases, if any).
    (2) Date of birth, at least as specific as a year.
    (3) Place of birth, at least as specific as a country and 
preferably the country name at the time of the individual's immigration 
or naturalization.
    (d) Optional information. To better ensure a successful search, a 
Genealogical Research Request may include each individual's:
    (1) Date of arrival in the United States.
    (2) Residence address at time of naturalization.
    (3) Names of parents, spouse, and children if applicable and 
available.
    (e) Additional information required to retrieve records. For a 
Genealogy Records Request, requests for copies of historical records or 
files must:
    (1) Identify the record by number or other specific data used by 
the Genealogy Program Office to retrieve the record as follows:
    (i) C-Files must be identified by a naturalization certificate 
number.
    (ii) Forms AR-2 and A-Files numbered below 8 million must be 
identified by Alien Registration Number.
    (iii) Visa Files must be identified by the Visa File Number. 
Registry Files must be identified by the Registry File Number (for 
example, R-12345).
    (2) [Reserved]
    (f) Information required for release of records. (1) Documentary 
evidence must be attached to a Genealogy Records Request or submitted 
in accordance with the instructions on the Genealogy Records Request 
form.
    (2) Search subjects will be presumed deceased if their birth dates 
are more than 100 years before the date of the request. In other cases, 
the subject is presumed to be living until the requestor establishes to 
the satisfaction of USCIS that the subject is deceased.
    (3) Documentary evidence of the subject's death is required 
(including but not limited to death records, published obituaries or 
eulogies, published death notices, church or bible records, photographs 
of gravestones, and/or copies of official documents relating to payment 
of death benefits).
    (g) Index search. Requestors who are unsure whether USCIS has any 
record of their ancestor, or who suspect a record exists but cannot 
identify that record by number, may submit a request for index search. 
An index search will determine the existence of responsive historical 
records. If no record is found, USCIS will notify the requestor 
accordingly. If records are found, USCIS will give the requestor 
electronic copies of records stored in digital format for no additional 
fee. For records found that are stored in paper format, USCIS will give 
the requestor the search results, including the type of record found 
and the file number or other information identifying the record. The 
requestor can use index search results to submit a Genealogy Records 
Request.
    (h) Processing of paper record copy requests. This service is 
designed for

[[Page 46916]]

requestors who can identify a specific record or file to be retrieved, 
copied, reviewed, and released. Requestors may identify one or more 
files in a single request.


Sec.  103.41  [Removed and Reserved]

0
9. Section 103.41 is removed and reserved.

0
10. Part 106 is added to read as follows:

PART 106--USCIS FEE SCHEDULE

Sec.
106.1 Fee requirements.
106.2 Fees.
106.3 Fee waivers and exemptions.
106.4 Premium processing service.
106.5 Authority to certify records.
106.6 DHS severability.

    Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1254a, 1254b, 1304, 1356; Pub. 
L. 107-609; 48 U.S.C. 1806; Pub. L. 115-218.


Sec.  106.1  Fee requirements.

    (a) Fees must be submitted with any USCIS benefit request or other 
request in the amount and subject to the conditions provided in this 
part and remitted in the manner prescribed in the relevant form 
instructions, on the USCIS website, or in a Federal Register document. 
The fees established in this part are associated with the benefit, the 
adjudication, or the type of request and not solely determined by the 
form number listed in 8 CFR 106.2.
    (b) Fees must be remitted from a bank or other institution located 
in the United States and payable in U.S. currency. The fee must be paid 
using the method that USCIS prescribes for the request, office, filing 
method, or filing location, as provided in the form instructions or by 
individual notice.
    (c) If a remittance in payment of a fee or any other matter is not 
honored by the bank or financial institution on which it is drawn:
    (1) The provisions of 8 CFR 103.2(a)(7)(ii) apply, no receipt will 
be issued, and if a receipt was issued, it is void and the benefit 
request loses its receipt date; and
    (2) If the benefit request was approved, the approval may be 
revoked upon notice. If the approved benefit request requires multiple 
fees, this provision will apply if any fee submitted is not honored. 
Other fees that were paid for a benefit request that is revoked under 
this provision will be retained and not refunded. A revocation of an 
approval because the fee submitted is not honored may be appealed to 
the USCIS Administrative Appeals Office, in accordance with 8 CFR 103.3 
and the applicable form instructions.


Sec.  106.2   Fees.

    (a) I Forms--(1) Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card, 
Form I-90. For filing an application for a Permanent Resident Card, 
Form I-551, to replace an obsolete card or to replace one lost, 
mutilated, or destroyed, or for a change in name: $415.
    (2) Application for Replacement/Initial Nonimmigrant Arrival-
Departure Document, Form I-102. For filing an application for Arrival/
Departure Record, Form I-94, or Crewman's Landing Permit, Form I-95, to 
replace one lost, mutilated, or destroyed: $485.
    (i) For nonimmigrant member of the U.S. armed forces: No fee for 
initial filing;
    (ii) For a nonimmigrant member of the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization (NATO) armed forces or civil component: No fee for initial 
filing;
    (iii) For nonimmigrant member of the Partnership for Peace military 
program under the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA): No fee for initial 
filing.
    (3) Petition or Application for a Nonimmigrant Worker, Form I-129. 
For filing a petition or application for a nonimmigrant worker:
    (i) Petition for H-1B Nonimmigrant Worker or H-1B1 Free Trade 
Nonimmigrant Worker, Form I-129H1: $555.
    (ii) Petition for H-2A Nonimmigrant Worker, Form I-129H2A, with 1 
to 25 named beneficiaries: $850.
    (iii) Petition for H-2A Nonimmigrant Worker, Form I-129H2A, with 
only unnamed beneficiaries: $415.
    (iv) Petition for H-2B Nonimmigrant Worker, Form I-129H2B, with 1 
to 25 named beneficiaries: $715.
    (v) Petition for H-2B Nonimmigrant Worker, Form I-129H2B, with only 
unnamed beneficiaries: $385.
    (vi) Petition for L Nonimmigrant Worker, Form I-129L: $805.
    (vii) Petition for O Nonimmigrant Worker, Form I-129O, with 1 to 25 
named beneficiaries: $705.
    (viii) Petition or Application for E, H-3, P, Q, R, or TN 
Nonimmigrant Worker, Forms I-129E or I-129MISC, with 1 to 25 named 
beneficiaries: $695.
    (4) Petition for a CNMI-Only Nonimmigrant Transitional Worker, Form 
I-129CW. For an employer to petition on behalf of beneficiaries in the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI): $695, plus the 
following fees:
    (i) CNMI education funding fee:
    (A) $200 per beneficiary per year.
    (B) DHS may adjust this fee once per year by notice in the Federal 
Register based on the amount of inflation according to the change in 
the unadjusted All Items Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers 
(CPI-U) for the U.S. City Average published by the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics since the fee was set on June 18, 2020.
    (ii) A fraud prevention and detection fee: $50 per employer filing 
a petition.
    (iii) For filing Form I-129CWR, Semiannual Report for CW-1 
Employers: No fee.
    (5) Petition for Alien Fianc[eacute](e), Form I-129F. (i) For 
filing a petition to classify a nonimmigrant as a fianc[eacute]e or 
fianc[eacute] under section 214(d) of the Act: $510.
    (ii) For a K-3 spouse as designated in 8 CFR 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: No fee.
    (6) Petition for Alien Relative, Form I-130. For filing a petition 
to classify status of a foreign national relative for issuance of an 
immigrant visa under section 204(a) of the Act: $560.
    (7) Application for Travel Document, Form I-131. For filing an 
application for travel document:
    (i) $145 for a Refugee Travel Document for someone 16 or older.
    (ii) $115 for a Refugee Travel Document for a child under 16.
    (iii) $590 for advance parole and any other travel document except 
Form I-131A.
    (iv) There is no fee for applicants who filed USCIS Form I-485 on 
or after July 30, 2007, and before October 2, 2020, and paid the Form 
I-485 fee, or for applicants for Special Immigrant Status based on an 
approved Form I-360 as an Afghan or Iraqi Interpreter, or Iraqi 
National employed by or on behalf of the U.S. Government or Afghan 
National employed by the U.S. Government or the International Security 
Assistance Forces (``ISAF'').
    (8) Application for Travel Document (Carrier Documentation), Form 
I-131A. For filing an application to allow a lawful permanent resident, 
conditional permanent resident or other alien traveling abroad on an 
Advance Parole Document (Form I-512 or I-512L) or Employment 
Authorization Documents (EAD) with travel endorsement (Form I-766), to 
apply for carrier documentation to board an airline or other 
transportation carrier to return to the United States: $1,010.
    (9) Immigrant Petition for Alien Workers, Form I-140. For filing a 
petition to classify preference status of an alien on the basis of 
profession or occupation under section 204(a) of the Act: $555.
    (10) Application for Relief Under Former Section 212(c) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), Form I-191. For filing an 
application for

[[Page 46917]]

discretionary relief under section 212(c) of the Act: $790.
    (11) Application for Advance Permission to Enter as Nonimmigrant, 
Form I-192. For filing an application for discretionary relief under 
section 212(d)(3), (d)(13), or (d)(14) of the Act, except in an 
emergency case or where the approval of the application is in the 
interest of the U.S. Government: $1,400.
    (12) Application for Waiver of Passport and/or Visa, Form I-193. 
For filing an application for waiver of passport and/or visa: $2,790.
    (13) Application for Permission to Reapply for Admission into the 
United States After Deportation or Removal, Form I-212. For filing an 
application for permission to reapply for admission by an excluded, 
deported or removed alien, an alien who has fallen into distress, an 
alien who has been removed as an alien enemy, or an alien who has been 
removed at government expense: $1,050.
    (14) Notice of Appeal or Motion, Form I-290B. For appealing a 
decision under the immigration laws in any type of proceeding over 
which the Board of Immigration Appeals does not have appellate 
jurisdiction: $700. In addition:
    (i) The fee will be the same for appeal or a motion to reopen a 
denial of a benefit request with one or multiple beneficiaries.
    (ii) There is no fee for an appeal or motion associated with a 
denial of a petition for a special immigrant visa filed by or on behalf 
of an individual seeking special immigrant status as an Afghan or Iraqi 
Interpreter, or Iraqi National employed by or on behalf of the U.S. 
Government or Afghan National employed by the U.S. Government or the 
International Security Assistance Forces (``ISAF'').
    (15) Request for Cancellation of Public Charge Bond, Form I-356. 
$25.
    (16) Petition for Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special Immigrant, Form 
I-360. For filing a petition for an Amerasian, Widow(er), or Special 
Immigrant: $450. The following requests are exempt from this fee:
    (i) A petition seeking classification as an Amerasian;
    (ii) A self-petition for immigrant classification as an 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
    (iii) A petition for special immigrant juvenile classification; or
    (iv) 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. Government or Afghan National employed by the U.S. Government or 
the International Security Assistance Forces (``ISAF'').
    (17) Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, 
Form I-485--(i) Most permanent residence applications. For filing an 
application for permanent resident status or creation of a record of 
lawful permanent residence: $1,130.
    (ii) Asylees. For the first Form I-485, Application to Register 
Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, filed by individuals who have 
paid the $50 fee for Form I-589 and are subsequently granted asylum 
based on that Form I-589: $1,080.
    (iii) Refugees and Special Immigrants. There is no fee if an 
applicant is filing as a refugee under section 209(a) of the Act or for 
applicants for Special Immigrant Status based on an approved Form I-360 
as an Afghan or Iraqi Interpreter, or Iraqi National employed by or on 
behalf of the U.S. Government or Afghan National employed by the U.S. 
Government or the International Security Assistance Forces (``ISAF'').
    (iv) Adjustment of Status Under Section 245(i), Form I-485 
Supplement A. Persons seeking to adjust status under the provisions of 
section 245(i) of the Act must submit a sum of $1,000 in addition to 
the fee for filing the Form I-485, unless payment of the additional sum 
is not required under section 245(i) of the Act. The additional sum is 
not required when the applicant is an unmarried child less than 17 
years of age, when the applicant is the 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.
    (18) Immigrant Petition by Alien Investor, Form I-526. For filing a 
petition for an alien investor: $4,010.
    (19) Application To Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status, Form I-539. 
For filing an application to extend or change nonimmigrant status: 
$400. For nonimmigrant A, G, and NATO: No fee.
    (20) Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, Form I-
589. For filing an application for asylum status: $50. There is no fee 
for applications filed by unaccompanied alien children who are in 
removal proceedings.
    (21) Petition to Classify Orphan as an Immediate Relative, Form I-
600. For filing a petition to classify an orphan as an immediate 
relative for issuance of an immigrant visa under section 204(a) of the 
Act.
    (i) There is no fee for the first Form I-600 filed for a child on 
the basis of an approved Application for Advance Processing of an 
Orphan Petition, Form I-600A, during the Form I-600A approval or 
extended approval period.
    (ii) Except as specified in paragraph (a)(21)(iii) of this section, 
if more than one Form I-600 is filed during the Form I-600A approval 
period, the fee is $805 for the second and each subsequent Form I-600 
petition submitted.
    (iii) If more than one Form I-600 is filed during the Form I-600A 
approval period on behalf of beneficiary birth siblings, no additional 
fee is required.
    (22) Application for Advance Processing of an Orphan Petition, Form 
I-600A. For filing an application for determination of suitability and 
eligibility to adopt an orphan: $805.
    (23) Request for Action on Approved Form I-600A/I-600, Form I-600A/
I-600 Supplement 3: $400.
    (i) This filing fee:
    (A) Is not charged if Form I-600A/I-600 Supplement 3 is filed in 
order to obtain a first extension of the approval of the Form I-600A or 
to obtain a first time change of non-Hague Adoption Convention country 
during the Form I-600A approval period.
    (B) Is charged if Form I-600A/I-600 Supplement 3 is filed in order 
to request a new approval notice based on a significant change and 
updated home study, unless a first extension of the Form I-600A 
approval or first time change of non-Hague Adoption Convention country 
is also being requested on the same Supplement 3.
    (C) Is $400 for second or subsequent extensions of the approval of 
the Form I-600A, second or subsequent changes of non-Hague Adoption 
Convention country, requests for a new approval notice based on a 
significant change and updated home study, and requests for a duplicate 
approval notice permitted with Form I-600A/I-600 Supplement 3 with the 
filing fee.
    (ii) Form I-600A/I-600 Supplement 3 cannot be used to:
    (A) Extend eligibility to proceed as a Hague Adoption Convention 
transition case beyond the first extension once the Convention enters 
into force for the new Convention country.
    (B) Request a change of country to a Hague Adoption Convention 
transition country for purposes of becoming a transition case if 
another country was already designated on the Form I-600A or prior 
change of country request.
    (iii) Form I-600A/I-600 Supplement 3 may only be used to request an 
increase the number of children the applicant/petitioner is approved to 
adopt from a transition country if the additional child is a birth 
sibling of a child who the applicant/petitioner has adopted or is in 
the process of adopting, as a transition case, and is identified and 
petitioned for

[[Page 46918]]

while the Form I-600A approval is valid, unless the new Convention 
country prohibits such birth sibling cases from proceeding as 
transition cases.
    (24) Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility, Form I-
601. For filing an application for waiver of grounds of 
inadmissibility: $1,010.
    (25) Application for Provisional Unlawful Presence Waiver, Form I-
601A. For filing an application for provisional unlawful presence 
waiver: $960.
    (26) Application for Waiver of the Foreign Residence Requirement 
(under Section 212(e) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as 
Amended), Form I-612. For filing an application for waiver of the 
foreign-residence requirement under section 212(e) of the Act: $515.
    (27) Application for Status as a Temporary Resident under Section 
245A of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Form I-687. For filing an 
application for status as a temporary resident under section 245A(a) of 
the Act: $1,130.
    (28) Application for Waiver of Grounds of Inadmissibility, Form I-
690. For filing an application for waiver of a ground of 
inadmissibility under section 212(a) of the Act as amended, in 
conjunction with the application under sections 210 or 245A of the Act, 
or a petition under section 210A of the Act: $765.
    (29) Notice of Appeal of Decision under Sections 245A or 210 of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (or a petition under section 210A of 
the Act), Form I-694. For appealing the denial of an application under 
sections 210 or 245A of the Act, or a petition under section 210A of 
the Act: $715.
    (30) Application to Adjust Status from Temporary to Permanent 
Resident (Under Section 245A of the INA), Form I-698. For filing an 
application to adjust status from temporary to permanent resident (Pub. 
L. 99-603): $1,615.
    (31) Petition to Remove Conditions on Residence, Form I-751. For 
filing a petition to remove the conditions on residence based on 
marriage: $760.
    (32) Application for Employment Authorization, Form I-765: $550.
    (i) A $30 biometric services must be included with a Form I-765 
filed by:
    (A) An asylum applicant with a pending Form I-589.
    (B) An applicant for status as a long-term resident of the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
    (ii) There is no fee for an initial Employment Authorization 
Document for:
    (A) An applicant who filed USCIS Form I-485 on or after July 30, 
2007, and before October 2, 2020, and paid the Form I-485 fee;
    (B) Refugees and aliens paroled as a refugee;
    (C) Aliens granted asylee status;
    (D) Victims of Severe Forms of Trafficking (T-1);
    (E) Nonimmigrant Victim of Criminal Activity (U-1);
    (F) Dependents of certain government and internal organizations or 
NATO personnel;
    (G) N-8 (Parent of alien classed as SK3) and N-9 (Child of N-8) 
nonimmigrants;
    (H) Principal VAWA Self-Petitioners who have approved petitions 
pursuant to section 204(a) of the Act;
    (I) VAWA Self-Petitioners as defined in section 101(a)(51)(D), (E), 
and (F) of the Act;
    (J) Applicants for Special Immigrant Status based on an approved 
Form I-360 as an Afghan or Iraqi Interpreter, or Iraqi National 
employed by or on behalf of the U.S. Government or Afghan National 
employed by the U.S. Government or the International Security 
Assistance Forces (``ISAF''); and
    (iii) Request for replacement Employment Authorization Document 
based on USCIS error: No fee.
    (iv) There is no fee for a renewal or replacement Employment 
Authorization Document for:
    (A) Any current Adjustment of Status or Registry applicant who 
filed for adjustment of status on or after July 30, 2007, and before 
October 2, 2020, and paid the appropriate Form I-485 filing fee.
    (B) Applicants for Special Immigrant Status based on an approved 
Form I-360 as an Afghan or Iraqi Translator or Interpreter, Iraqi 
National employed by or on behalf of the U.S. Government, or Afghan 
National employed by or on behalf of the U.S. government or employed by 
the International Security Assistance Forces: And
    (C) Dependent of certain foreign government, international 
organization, or NATO personnel.
    (v) An Application for Employment Authorization for Abused 
Nonimmigrant Spouse, Form I-765V: No fee.
    (vi) The Form I-765 fee for initial and renewal requestors of 
Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals is $410. 
Requestors of Consideration of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals 
must also pay a biometric services fee of $85 for an initial, renewal 
of, or to replace their employment authorization document.
    (33) Petition to Classify Convention Adoptee as an Immediate 
Relative, Form I-800. (i) There is no fee for the first Form I-800 
filed for a child on the basis of an approved Application for 
Determination of Suitability to Adopt a Child from a Convention 
Country, Form I-800A, during the Form I-800A approval period.
    (ii) Except as specified in paragraph (a)(33)(iii) of this section, 
if more than one Form I-800 is filed during the Form I-800A approval 
period, the fee is $805 for the second and each subsequent Form I-800 
petition submitted.
    (iii) If more than one Form I-800 is filed during the Form I-800A 
approval period on behalf of beneficiary birth siblings, no additional 
fee is required.
    (34) Application for Determination of Suitability to Adopt a Child 
from a Convention Country, Form I-800A. For filing an application for 
determination of suitability and eligibility to adopt a child from a 
Hague Adoption Convention country: $805.
    (35) Request for Action on Approved Application for Determination 
of Suitability to Adopt a Child from a Convention Country, Form I-800A 
Supplement 3: $400.
    (i) This filing fee:
    (A) Is not charged if Form I-800A Supplement 3 is filed in order to 
obtain a first extension of the approval of the Form I-800A or to 
obtain a first time change of Hague Adoption Convention country during 
the Form I-800A approval period.
    (B) Is charged if Form I-800A Supplement 3 is filed in order to 
request a new approval notice based on a significant change and updated 
home study, unless a first extension of the Form I-800A approval or 
first time change of Hague Adoption Convention country is also being 
requested on the same Supplement 3.
    (ii) Is $400 for second or subsequent extensions of the Form I-800A 
approval, second or subsequent changes of Hague Adoption Convention 
country, requests for a new approval notice based on a significant 
change and updated home study, and requests for a duplicate approval 
notice, permitted with the filing of a Form I-800A, Supplement 3 and 
the required filing fee: $400.
    (36) Application for Family Unity Benefits, Form I-817. For filing 
an application for voluntary departure under the Family Unity Program: 
$590.
    (37) Application for Temporary Protected Status, Form I-821. (i) 
For first time applicants: $50 or the maximum permitted by section 
244(c)(1)(B) of the Act.
    (ii) There is no fee for re-registration.
    (iii) A Temporary Protected Status (TPS) applicant or re-registrant 
must pay $30 for biometric services unless

[[Page 46919]]

exempted in the applicable form instructions.
    (38) Application for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, Form 
I-821D. No fee.
    (39) Application for Action on an Approved Application, Form I-824: 
$495.
    (40) Petition by Investor to Remove Conditions, Form I-829. For 
filing a petition by an investor to remove conditions: $3,900.
    (41) Application for Suspension of Deportation or Special Rule 
Cancellation of Removal (Pursuant to Section 203 of Pub. L. 105-100), 
Form I-881.
    (i) $1,810 for adjudication by DHS.
    (ii) $165 for adjudication by EOIR. If the Form I-881 is referred 
to the immigration court by DHS, the $1,810 fee is required.
    (42) Application for Authorization to Issue Certification for 
Health Care Workers, Form I-905: $230.
    (43) Request for Premium Processing Service, Form I-907. The 
Request for Premium Processing Service fee will be as provided in 8 CFR 
106.4.
    (44) Application for Civil Surgeon Designation, Form I-910: $635. 
There is no filing fee for:
    (i) A medical officer in the U.S. Armed Forces or
    (ii) A civilian physician employed by the U.S. Government who 
examines members and veterans of the U.S. Armed Forces and their 
dependents at a military, Department of Veterans Affairs, or U.S. 
Government facility in the United States.
    (45) Application for T Nonimmigrant Status, Form I-914: No fee.
    (46) Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status, Form I-918: No fee.
    (47) Application for Regional Center Designation under the 
Immigrant Investor Program, Form I-924: $17,795.
    (48) Annual Certification of Regional Center, Form I-924A. To 
provide updated information and certify that a Regional Center under 
the Immigrant Investor Program has maintained its eligibility: $4,465.
    (49) Petition for Qualifying Family Member of a U-1 Nonimmigrant, 
Form I-929. For a principal U-1 nonimmigrant to request immigration 
benefits on behalf of a qualifying family member who has never held U 
nonimmigrant status: $1,485.
    (50) Application for Entrepreneur Parole, Form I-941. For filing an 
application for parole for an entrepreneur: $1,200.
    (51) Public Charge Bond, Form I-945: $25.
    (b) N Forms--(1) Application to File Declaration of Intention, Form 
N-300. For filing an application for declaration of intention to become 
a U.S. citizen: $1,305.
    (2) Request for a Hearing on a Decision in Naturalization 
Proceedings (under section 336 of the Act), Form N-336. For filing a 
request for hearing on a decision in naturalization proceedings under 
section 336 of the Act: $1,735. There is no fee for an applicant who 
has filed an Application for Naturalization under sections 328 or 329 
of the Act with respect to military service and whose application has 
been denied.
    (3) Application for Naturalization, Form N-400. For filing an 
application for naturalization: $1,170. No fee is charged an applicant 
who meets the requirements of sections 328 or 329 of the Act with 
respect to military service.
    (4) Application to Preserve Residence for Naturalization Purposes, 
Form N-470. For filing an application for benefits under section 316(b) 
or 317 of the Act: $1,585.
    (5) Application for Replacement Naturalization/Citizenship 
Document, Form N-565: $545.
    (i) This fee is for filing an application for:
    (A) A certificate of naturalization or certificate of citizenship;
    (B) A declaration of intention in place of a certificate or 
declaration alleged to have been lost, mutilated, or destroyed;
    (C) A changed name under section 343(c) of the Act; or
    (D) A special certificate of naturalization to obtain recognition 
as a citizen of the United States by a foreign state under section 
343(b) of the Act;
    (ii) There is no fee when this application is submitted under 8 CFR 
338.5(a) or 343a.1 to request correction of a certificate of 
naturalization or certificate of citizenship that contains an error.
    (6) Application for Certificate of Citizenship, Form N-600. For 
filing an application for a certificate of citizenship under section 
309(c) or section 341 of the Act: $1,000. There is no fee for any 
application filed by a member or veteran of any branch of the U.S. 
Armed Forces.
    (7) Application for Citizenship and Issuance of Certificate Under 
Section 322, Form N-600K. For filing an application for citizenship and 
issuance of certificate under section 322 of the Act: $945.
    (c) G Forms, Statutory Fees, and Non-Form Fees--(1) Genealogy Index 
Search Request, Form G-1041: $170. The fee is due regardless of the 
search results.
    (2) Genealogy Records Request, Form G-1041A: $265. USCIS will 
refund the records request fee when it is unable to locate any file 
previously identified in response to the index search request.
    (3) USCIS Immigrant Fee. For DHS domestic processing and issuance 
of required documents after an immigrant visa is issued by the U.S. 
Department of State: $190.
    (4) American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act (ACWIA) 
fee. For filing certain H-1B petitions as described in 8 CFR 
214.2(h)(19) and USCIS form instructions: $1,500 or $750.
    (5) Fraud detection and prevention fee. (i) For filing certain H-1B 
and L petitions as described in 8 U.S.C. 1184(c) and USCIS form 
instructions: $500.
    (ii) For filing certain H-2B petitions as described in 8 U.S.C. 
1184(c) and USCIS form instructions: $150.
    (6) Fraud detection and prevention fee for CNMI. For employer 
petitions in CNMI as described in Public Law 115-218 and USCIS form 
instructions: $50.
    (7) 9-11 Response and Biometric Entry-Exit Fee for H-1B Visa. For 
all petitioners filing an H-1B petition who employ 50 or more employees 
in the United States if more than 50 percent of the petitioner's 
employees in the aggregate are in H-1B, L-1A or L-1B nonimmigrant 
status, except for petitioners filing an amended petition without an 
extension of stay request: $4,000. This fee will apply to petitions 
filed on or before September 30, 2027.
    (8) 9-11 Response and Biometric Entry-Exit Fee for L-1 Visa. For 
all petitioners filing an L-1 petition who employ 50 or more employees 
in the United States, if more than 50 percent of the petitioner's 
employees in the aggregate are in H-1B, L-1A or L-1B nonimmigrant 
status, except for petitioners filing an amended petition without an 
extension of stay request: $4,500. This fee will apply to petitions 
filed on or before September 30, 2027.
    (9) Claimant under section 289 of the Act: No fee.
    (10) Registration requirement for petitioners seeking to file H-1B 
petitions on behalf of cap-subject aliens. For each registration 
submitted to register for the H-1B cap or advanced degree exemption 
selection process: $10. This fee will not be refunded if the 
registration is not selected or is withdrawn.
    (d) Online forms. The fee for the following forms is $10.00 lower 
than the fee established in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this 
section when submitted to USCIS online and not in paper form:
    (1) I-90, Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card;

[[Page 46920]]

    (2) N-336, Request for a Hearing on a Decision in Naturalization 
Proceedings (Under Section 336 of the INA);
    (3) N-400, Application for Naturalization;
    (4) N-565, Application for Replacement Naturalization/Citizenship 
Document;
    (5) I-130/130A, Petition for Alien Relative;
    (6) N-600, Application for Certificate of Citizenship;
    (7) N-600K, Application for Citizenship and Issuance of Certificate 
Under Section 322;
    (8) I-539/539A, Application To Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status;
    (9) G-1041, Genealogy Index Search Request; and
    (10) G-1041A, Genealogy Records Request.


Sec.  106.3   Fee waivers and exemptions.

    (a) Fee waiver. No fee relating to any benefit request submitted to 
USCIS may be waived unless otherwise provided in this paragraph.
    (1) An alien may apply for a fee waiver if there is a statutory or 
regulatory provision allowing for fee waivers including as provided by 
section 245(l)(7) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1255(l)(7). Specifically, the 
following categories of requestors may apply for a waiver of any fees 
for an immigration benefit and any associated filing up to and 
including an application for adjustment of status:
    (i) Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) self-petitioners and 
derivatives as defined under section 101(a)(51) and anyone otherwise 
self-petitioning due to battery or extreme cruelty pursuant to the 
procedures in section 204(a) of the Act;
    (ii) T nonimmigrants;
    (iii) U nonimmigrants;
    (iv) Battered spouses of A, G, E-3, or H nonimmigrants;
    (v) Battered spouses or children of a lawful permanent resident or 
U.S. citizen and derivatives as provided under section 240A(b)(2) of 
the Act; and
    (vi) Applicants for Temporary Protected Status, including both 
initial applicants and re-registering TPS beneficiaries.
    (2) The following categories of requestors may apply for a waiver 
of any fees for an immigration benefit and any associated filing up to 
and including an application for adjustment of status:
    (i) Special Immigrant Juveniles (SIJs) who have been placed in out-
of-home care under the supervision of a juvenile court or a state child 
welfare agency at the time of filing; and
    (ii) Afghan or Iraqi Translator or Interpreter, Iraqi National 
employed by or on behalf of the U.S. Government, or Afghan National 
employed by or on behalf of the U.S. government or employed by the 
International Security Assistance Forces.
    (3) Requestors who have been approved for the immigration benefits 
in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section may apply for a waiver of 
any fees for Form N-400, Application for Naturalization, Form N-600 
Application for Certificate of Citizenship, or Form N-600K, Application 
for Citizenship and Issuance of Certificate Under Section 322, as 
applicable.
    (b) Director's exception. The Director of USCIS may authorize the 
waiver, in whole or in part, of a form fee required by 8 CFR 106.2 that 
is not otherwise waivable under this section, if the Director 
determines that such action is an emergent circumstance, or if a major 
natural disaster has been declared in accordance with 44 CFR part 206, 
subpart B. This discretionary authority may be delegated only to the 
USCIS Deputy Director. The Director may not waive the requirements of 
paragraph (c) or (d) of this section. An applicant, petitioner, or 
requestor may not directly submit a request to the Director. In 
addition, a waiver of fees as provided in this paragraph may not be 
provided to a requestor who is seeking an immigration benefit for which 
he or she:
    (1) Is subject to the affidavit of support requirements under 
section 213A of the Act or is already a sponsored immigrant as defined 
in 8 CFR 213a.1 unless the applicant is seeking a waiver of the joint 
filing requirement to remove conditions on his or her residence based 
on abuse; or
    (2) Is subject to the public charge inadmissibility ground under 
section 212(a)(4) of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(4).
    (c) Eligibility for fee waiver. A waiver of fees is limited to an 
alien with an annual gross household income at or below 125 percent of 
the Federal Poverty Guidelines as updated periodically in the Federal 
Register by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under the 
authority of 42 U.S.C. 9902(2).
    (d) Form required. A person must submit a request for a fee waiver 
on the form prescribed by USCIS in accordance with the instructions on 
the form.
    (e) Exemptions. The Director of USCIS may provide an exemption for 
any fee required by 8 CFR 106.2. This discretionary authority may only 
be delegated to the USCIS Deputy Director. The Director must determine 
that such action would be in the public interest, the action is 
consistent with the applicable law, and the exemption is related to one 
of the following:
    (1) Asylees;
    (2) Refugees;
    (3) National security;
    (4) Emergencies or major disasters declared in accordance with 44 
CFR part 206, subpart B;
    (5) An agreement between the U.S. government and another nation or 
nations; or
    (6) USCIS error.
    (f) Documentation of gross household income. A person submitting a 
request for a fee waiver must submit the following documents as 
evidence of annual gross household income:
    (1) A transcript(s) from the United States Internal Revenue Service 
(IRS) of the person's IRS Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return;
    (2) If the person was not required to file a Federal income tax 
return, he or she must submit their most recent IRS Form W-2, Wage and 
Tax Statement, Form 1099G, Certain Government Payments, or Social 
Security Benefit Form SSA-1099, if applicable;
    (3) If the person filed a Federal income tax return, and has 
recently changed employment or had a change in salary, the person must 
also submit copies of consecutive pay statements (stubs) for the most 
recent month or longer;
    (4) If the person does not have income and has not filed income tax 
returns, he or she must submit documentation from the IRS that 
indicates that no Federal income tax transcripts and no IRS Form W-2s 
were found;
    (5) An alien who is applying for or has been granted benefits or 
status as a VAWA self-petitioner or derivative or a T or U 
nonimmigrant, who does not have any income or cannot provide proof of 
income may:
    (i) Describe the situation in sufficient detail as provided in the 
form and form instructions prescribed by DHS to substantiate that he or 
she has income at or below 125 percent of the Federal Poverty 
Guidelines as well as the inability to obtain the required 
documentation; and
    (ii) Provide pay statements (stubs) or affidavits from religious 
institutions, non-profits, or other community-based organizations 
verifying that he or she is currently receiving some benefit or support 
from that entity and attesting to his or her financial situation as 
documentation of income, if available; and
    (6) For applications related to Special Immigrant Juvenile 
classification, the applicant must provide the following in lieu of 
documentation of gross household income:

[[Page 46921]]

    (i) Evidence that the applicant is approved for or filed for 
Special Immigrant Juvenile classification, and
    (ii) Evidence that the applicant remains in out-of-home care such 
as foster care.


Sec.  106.4   Premium processing service.

    (a) General. A person submitting a request to USCIS may request 15 
business-day processing of certain employment-based immigration benefit 
requests.
    (b) Submitting a request. A request must be submitted on the form 
prescribed by USCIS and prepared and submitted in accordance with the 
form instructions. If the request for premium processing is submitted 
together with the underlying benefit request, all required fees in the 
correct amount must be paid.
    (c) Fee amount. The fee amount will be prescribed in the form 
instructions and:
    (1) Must be paid in addition to, and in a separate remittance from, 
other filing fees.
    (2) May be adjusted once per year by notice in the Federal Register 
based on the amount of inflation according to the Consumer Price Index 
(CPI) since the fee was set by law at $1,000 on June 1, 2001.
    (d) 15-day limitation. USCIS will refund the premium processing 
service fee, but continue to process the case if:
    (1) USCIS does not issue a notice of any adjudicative action by the 
end of the 15th business day from the date USCIS accepted a properly 
filed request for premium processing for an eligible employment-based 
immigration benefit request, including all required fees. The 
adjudicative action is evidenced by the notification of, but not 
necessarily receipt of, an approval, denial, request for evidence (RFE) 
or notice of intent to deny (NOID); or
    (2) USCIS does not issue a notice of a subsequent adjudicative 
action by the end of the 15th business-day from the date USCIS received 
the response to an RFE or NOID. In premium processing cases where USCIS 
issues an RFE or NOID within 15 business days from the initial date of 
acceptance, a new 15-day period begins on the date that USCIS receives 
the response to the RFE or NOID.
    (3) USCIS may retain the premium processing fee and not reach a 
conclusion on the request within 15 business days, and not notify the 
person who filed the request, if USCIS opens an investigation for fraud 
or misrepresentation relating to the benefit request.
    (e) Requests eligible for premium processing. (1) USCIS will 
designate the categories of employment-based benefit requests that are 
eligible for premium processing.
    (2) USCIS will announce by its official internet website, currently 
http://www.uscis.gov, those requests for which premium processing may 
be requested, the dates upon which such availability commences and 
ends, and any conditions that may apply.


Sec.  106.5  Authority to certify records.

    The Director of USCIS, or such officials as he or she may 
designate, may certify records when authorized under 5 U.S.C. 552 or 
any other law to provide such records.


Sec.  106.6  DHS severability.

    Each provision of this part is separate and severable from one 
another. If any provision is stayed or determined to be invalid, the 
remaining provisions will continue in effect.

PART 204--IMMIGRANT PETITIONS

0
11. The authority citation for part 204 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1151, 1153, 1154, 1182, 1184, 
1186a, 1255, 1641; 8 CFR part 2.


0
12. Section 204.3 is amended:
0
a. By revising the section heading;
0
b. In paragraph (b), in the definition of ``Orphan petition'', by 
revising the second sentence;
0
c. By revising the fourth and fifth sentences of paragraph (d) 
introductory text; and
0
d. By revising paragraphs (h)(3)(i) and (ii) and (h)(7) and (13).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  204.3   Orphan cases under section 101(b)(1)(F) of the Act (non-
Hague Adoption Convention cases).

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    Orphan petition means * * * The petition must be completed in 
accordance with the form's instructions and submitted with the required 
supporting documentation and, if there is not a pending, or currently 
valid and approved advanced processing application, the fee as required 
in 8 CFR 106.2. * * *
* * * * *
    (d) * * * If the prospective adoptive parents fail to file the 
orphan petition within the approval validity period of the advanced 
processing application, the advanced processing application will be 
deemed abandoned pursuant to paragraph (h)(7) of this section. If the 
prospective adoptive parents file the orphan petition after the 
approval period of the advanced processing application has expired, the 
petition will be denied pursuant to paragraph (h)(13) of this section. 
* * *
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (i) If the advanced processing application is approved:
    (A) The prospective adoptive parents will be advised in writing. A 
notice of approval expires 15 months after the date on which USCIS 
received the FBI response on the applicant's, and any additional adult 
member of the household's, biometrics, unless approval is revoked. If 
USCIS received the responses on different days, the 15-month period 
begins on the earliest response date. The notice of approval will 
specify the expiration date.
    (B) USCIS may extend the validity period for the approval of a Form 
I-600A as provided in paragraph (h)(3)(ii) of this section or if 
requested in accordance with 8 CFR 106.2(a)(23). During this time, the 
prospective adoptive parents may file an orphan petition for one orphan 
without fee.
    (C) If the Form I-600A approval is for more than one orphan, the 
prospective adoptive parents may file a petition for each of the 
additional children, to the maximum number approved.
    (D) If the orphans are birth siblings, no additional fee is 
required. If the orphans are not birth siblings, an additional fee is 
required for each orphan beyond the first orphan.
    (E) It does not guarantee that the orphan petition will be 
approved.
    (ii) In the case of an outbreak affecting a public health or other 
emergency:
    (A) The USCIS Director or his or her designee, may extend the 
validity period of the approval of the advance processing application, 
either in an individual case or for a class of cases if the Director or 
designee determines that the ability of a prospective adoptive parent 
to timely file a petition has been adversely affected.
    (B) An extension of the validity of the approval of the advance 
processing application may be subject to such conditions as the USCIS 
Director, or officer designated by the USCIS Director, may establish.
* * * * *
    (7) Advanced processing application deemed abandoned for failure to 
file orphan petition within the approval validity period of the 
advanced processing application. If an orphan petition is not properly 
filed within 15 months of the approval date of the advanced processing 
application:

[[Page 46922]]

    (i) The application will be deemed abandoned;
    (ii) Supporting documentation will be returned to the prospective 
adoptive parents, except for documentation submitted by a third party 
which will be returned to the third party, and documentation relating 
to the biometrics checks;
    (iii) The director will dispose of documentation relating to 
biometrics checks in accordance with current policy; and
    (iv) Such abandonment will be without prejudice to a new filing at 
any time with fee.
* * * * *
    (13) Orphan petition denied: petitioner files orphan petition after 
the approval of the advanced processing application has expired. If the 
petitioner files the orphan petition after the advanced processing 
application has expired, the petition will be denied. This action will 
be without prejudice to a new filing at any time with fee.
* * * * *

0
13. Section 204.5 is amended:
0
a. In paragraph (m)(5), in the definition of ``Petition'', by removing 
``8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR 106.2''; and
0
b. By revising paragraph (p)(4).
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  204.5  Petitions for employment-based immigrants.

* * * * *
    (p) * * *
    (4) Application for employment authorization. (i) To request 
employment authorization, an eligible applicant described in paragraph 
(p)(1), (2), or (3) of this section must:
    (A) File an application for employment authorization (Form I-765), 
with USCIS, in accordance with 8 CFR 274a.13(a) and the form 
instructions.
    (B) Submit biometric information as may be provided in the 
applicable form instructions.
    (ii) Employment authorization under this paragraph may be granted 
solely in 1-year increments, but not to exceed the period of the 
alien's authorized admission.
* * * * *


Sec.  204.6   [Amended]

0
14. Section 204.6 is amended in paragraph (m)(6)(i)(C) by removing ``8 
CFR 103.7(b)(1)(i)(XX)'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR 106.2''.


Sec.  204.310   [Amended]

0
15. Section 204.310 is amended in paragraph (a)(3)(i) by removing ``8 
CFR 103.7(b)(1)'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR 106.2'' and by 
removing and reserving paragraph (a)(3)(ii).


Sec.  204.311   [Amended]

0
16. Section 204.311 is amended in paragraph (u)(4) by removing ``8 CFR 
103.7(b)(1)'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR 106.2''.

0
17. Section 204.312 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(3) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  204.312  Adjudication of the Form I-800A.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (3)(i) If the 15-month validity period for a Form I-800A approval 
is about to expire, the applicant:
    (A) May file Form I-800A Supplement 3, with the filing fee under 8 
CFR 106.2, if required.
    (B) May not file a Form I-800A Supplement 3 seeking extension of an 
approval notice more than 90 days before the expiration of the validity 
period for the Form I-800A approval, but must do so on or before the 
date on which the validity period expires.
    (C) Is not required to pay the Form I-800A Supplement 3 filing fee 
for the first request to extend the approval of a Form I-800A, or to 
obtain a first time change of Hague Convention country during the Form 
I-800A approval period.
    (D) Must pay the Form I-800A Supplement 3 filing fee, as specified 
in 8 CFR 106.2, for the second, or any subsequent, Form I-800A 
Supplement 3 that is filed, if the applicant files a second or 
subsequent Form I-800A Supplement 3 to obtain a second or subsequent 
extension or a second or subsequent change of Hague Convention country.
    (ii) Any Form I-800A Supplement 3 that is filed to obtain an 
extension of the approval of a Form I-800A or a change of Hague 
Convention country must be accompanied by:
    (A) A statement, signed by the applicant under penalty of perjury, 
detailing any changes to the answers given to the questions on the 
original Form I-800A;
    (B) An updated or amended home study as required under 8 CFR 
204.311(u); and
    (C) A photocopy of the Form I-800A approval notice.
    (iii) If USCIS continues to be satisfied that the applicant remains 
suitable as the adoptive parent of a Convention adoptee, USCIS will 
extend the approval of the Form I-800A to a date not more than 15 
months after the date on which USCIS received the new biometric 
responses. If new responses are received on different dates, the new 
15-month period begins on the earliest response date. The new notice of 
approval will specify the new expiration date.
    (iv) There is no limit to the number of extensions that may be 
requested and granted under this section, so long as each request is 
supported by an updated or amended home study that continues to 
recommend approval of the applicant for intercountry adoption and USCIS 
continues to find that the applicant remain suitable as the adoptive 
parent(s) of a Convention adoptee.
* * * * *


Sec.  204.313   [Amended]

0
18. Section 204.313 is amended in the last sentence of paragraph (a) by 
removing ``8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR 106.2'' 
and by adding the word ``birth'' before ``siblings''.
* * * * *

PART 211--DOCUMENTARY REQUIREMENTS: IMMIGRANTS; WAIVERS

0
19. The authority citation for part 211 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1181, 1182, 1203, 1225, 1257; 8 
CFR part 2.


Sec.  211.1   [Amended]

0
20. Section 211.1 is amended in the second sentence in paragraph (b)(3) 
by removing ``8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR 
106.2''.


Sec.  211.2   [Amended]

0
21. Section 211.2 is amended in the second sentence in paragraph (b) by 
removing ``8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR 106.2''.

PART 212--DOCUMENTARY REQUIREMENTS: NONIMMIGRANTS; WAIVERS; 
ADMISSION OF CERTAIN INADMISSIBLE ALIENS; PAROLE

0
22. The authority citation for part 212 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 6 U.S.C. 111, 202(4) and 271; 8 U.S.C. 1101 and note, 
1102, 1103, 1182 and note, 1184, 1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 
108-458), 1187, 1223, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1255, 1359; 8 CFR part 2.


Sec.  212.2  [Amended]

0
23. Section 212.2 is amended in paragraphs (b)(1), (c)(1)(ii), (d), and 
(g)(1) by removing ``8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)'' and adding in its place ``8 
CFR 106.2''.


Sec.  212.3  [Amended]

0
24. Section 212.3 is amended in paragraph (a) by removing ``8 CFR

[[Page 46923]]

103.7(b)(1)'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR 106.2''.


Sec.  212.4  [Amended]

0
25. Section 212.4 is amended in the first sentence in paragraph (b) by 
removing ``8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR 106.2''.


Sec.  212.7  [Amended]

0
26. Section 212.7 is amended:
0
a. In paragraph (a)(1), by removing ``8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)'' and adding in 
its place ``8 CFR 106.2'' in paragraph (a)(1); and
0
b. In paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(5)(i), by removing ``8 CFR 103.7(b)'' 
and adding in its place ``8 CFR 106.2''.


Sec.  212.15   [Amended]

0
27. Section 212.15 is amended in paragraph (j)(2)(ii) by removing ``8 
CFR 103.7(b)(1)'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR 106.2''.


Sec.  212.18   [Amended]

0
28. Section 212.18 is amended in paragraph (a)(2) by removing ``8 CFR 
103.7(b)(1)'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR 106.2''.

0
29. Section 212.19 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1), (c)(1), 
(e), (h)(1), and (j) to read as follows:


Sec.  212.19   Parole for entrepreneurs.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) Filing of initial parole request form. An alien seeking an 
initial grant of parole as an entrepreneur of a start-up entity must 
file Form I-941, Application for Entrepreneur Parole, with USCIS, with 
the required fee, and supporting documentary evidence in accordance 
with this section and the form instructions, demonstrating eligibility 
as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Filing of re-parole request form. Before expiration of the 
initial period of parole, an entrepreneur parolee may request an 
additional period of parole based on the same start-up entity that 
formed the basis for his or her initial period of parole granted under 
this section. To request such parole, an entrepreneur parolee must 
timely file Form I-941, Application for Entrepreneur Parole, with 
USCIS, with the required fee and supporting documentation in accordance 
with the form instructions, demonstrating eligibility as provided in 
paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
* * * * *
    (e) Collection of biometric information. An alien seeking an 
initial grant of parole or re-parole before October 2, 2020 will be 
required to submit biometric information. An alien seeking an initial 
grant of parole or re-parole may be required to submit biometric 
information.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (1) The entrepreneur's spouse and children who are seeking parole 
as derivatives of such entrepreneur must individually file Form I-131, 
Application for Travel Document. Such application must also include 
evidence that the derivative has a qualifying relationship to the 
entrepreneur and otherwise merits a grant of parole in the exercise of 
discretion. Such spouse or child will be required to appear for 
collection of biometrics in accordance with the form instructions or 
upon request.
* * * * *
    (j) Reporting of material changes. An alien granted parole under 
this section must immediately report any material change(s) to USCIS. 
If the entrepreneur will continue to be employed by the start-up entity 
and maintain a qualifying ownership interest in the start-up entity, 
the entrepreneur must submit a form prescribed by USCIS, with any 
applicable fee in accordance with the form instructions to notify USCIS 
of the material change(s). The entrepreneur parolee must immediately 
notify USCIS in writing if he or she will no longer be employed by the 
start-up entity or ceases to possess a qualifying ownership stake in 
the start-up entity.
* * * * *

PART 214--NONIMMIGRANT CLASSES

0
30. The authority citation for part 214 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 6 U.S.C. 202, 236; 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1102, 1103, 1182, 
1184, 1186a, 1187, 1221, 1281, 1282, 1301-1305, 1356, and 1372; sec. 
643, Pub. L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-708; Public Law 106-386, 114 
Stat. 1477-1480; section 141 of the Compacts of Free Association 
with the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the 
Marshall Islands, and with the Government of Palau, 48 U.S.C. 1901 
note, and 1931 note, respectively; 48 U.S.C. 1806; 8 CFR part 2.


0
31. Section 214.1 is amended:
0
a. In paragraph (c)(1), by removing ``8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)'' and adding in 
its place ``8 CFR 106.2'';
0
b. In paragraph (c)(2), by removing ``Sec.  103.7 of this chapter'' and 
adding in its place ``8 CFR 106.2'';
0
c. By revising paragraph (c)(5); and
0
d. In paragraph (j) introductory text, by removing:
0
i. ``a Form I-129'' and adding in its place ``an application or 
petition'' in the first sentence; and
0
ii. ``Form I-129'' and adding in its place ``application or petition'' 
in the second and third sentences.
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  214.1  Requirements for admission, extension, and maintenance of 
status.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (5) Decision on application for extension or change of status. 
Where an applicant or petitioner demonstrates eligibility for a 
requested extension, it may be granted at the discretion of USCIS. The 
denial of an application for extension of stay may not be appealed.
* * * * *

0
32. Section 214.2 is amended:
0
a. By revising paragraph (e)(8)(iii), the first sentence of paragraph 
(e)(8)(iv) introductory text, and paragraphs (e)(8)(iv)(B) and 
(e)(8)(v);
0
b. In paragraph (e)(20) introductory text and in two places in 
paragraph (e)(21)(i), by removing ``Form I-129 and E Supplement'' and 
adding in its place ``the form prescribed by USCIS'';
0
c. By revising paragraph (e)(23)(viii);
0
d. By removing and reserving paragraph (e)(23)(xv);
0
e. In paragraph (f)(9)(ii)(F)(1), by removing ``8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)'' and 
adding in its place ``8 CFR 106.2'';
0
f. By revising paragraph (h)(2)(i)(A);
0
g. In paragraph (h)(2)(i)(B), by removing ``Form I-129'' and adding in 
its place ``application or petition'' wherever it appears;
0
h. In paragraph (h)(2)(i)(D), by removing ``Form I-129'' and adding in 
its place ``the form prescribed by USCIS'';
0
i. By revising paragraph (h)(2)(ii);
0
j. In paragraph (h)(5)(i)(A), by removing ``Form I-129'' and adding in 
its place ``the form prescribed by USCIS'';
0
k. By revising paragraph (h)(5)(i)(B);
0
l. In paragraph (h)(6)(iii)(E), by removing ``I-129'' and adding in its 
place ``the form prescribed by USCIS'';
0
m. In paragraph (h)(6)(vii), by removing ``Form I-129'' and adding in 
its place ``application or petition'' wherever it appears;
0
n. In paragraphs (h)(11)(i)(A), (h)(14), and (h)(15)(i), by removing 
``Form I-129'' and adding in its place ``the form prescribed by 
USCIS'';
0
o. By revising paragraph (h)(19)(i);
0
p. In paragraph (h)(19)(vi)(A), by removing ``Petition for Nonimmigrant 
Worker (Form I-129)'' and adding in its place ``the form prescribed by 
USCIS'';
0
q. In paragraph (l)(2)(i), by removing ``Form I-129, Petition for 
Nonimmigrant

[[Page 46924]]

Worker'' and adding in its place ``the form prescribed by USCIS'' in 
its place;
0
r. In paragraphs (l)(2)(ii), (l)(3) introductory text, and (l)(4)(iv) 
introductory text by removing ``Form I-129'' and adding in its place 
``the form prescribed by USCIS'';
0
s. In paragraph (l)(5)(ii)(F), by removing ``Form I-129, Petition for 
Nonimmigrant Worker'' and adding in its place ``the form prescribed by 
USCIS'' in its place;
0
t. In paragraph (l)(14)(ii) introductory text, by removing ``Form I-
129'' and adding in its place ``application or petition'' wherever it 
appears;
0
u. In paragraph (l)(17)(i), by removing ``Form I-129'' and adding in 
its place ``the form prescribed by USCIS'' wherever it occurs;
0
v. By revising paragraph (m)(14)(ii) introductory text;
0
w. In paragraph (o)(2)(i), by removing ``Form I-129, Petition for 
Nonimmigrant Worker'' and adding in its place ``the form prescribed by 
USCIS'' in its place;
0
x. In paragraph (o)(2)(iv)(D), by removing ``Form I-129'' and adding in 
its place ``the form prescribed by USCIS'';
0
y. By revising paragraph (o)(2)(iv)(F);
0
z. In paragraph (o)(2)(iv)(G), by removing ``Form I-129'' and adding in 
its place ``application or petition'' wherever it appears;
0
aa. In paragraph (o)(11), by removing ``Form I-129, Petition for 
Nonimmigrant Worker'' and adding in its place ``the form prescribed by 
USCIS'' in its place;
0
bb. In paragraph (o)(12(i), by removing ``Form I-129'' and adding in 
its place ``an application or petition'' in the first sentence;
0
cc. In paragraph (p)(2)(i), by removing ``Form I-129, Petition for 
Nonimmigrant Worker'' and adding in its place ``the form prescribed by 
USCIS'' in its place;
0
dd. In paragraph (p)(2)(iv)(C)(2), by removing ``Form I-129'' and 
adding in its place ``application or petition'' wherever it appears;
0
ee. By revising paragraph (p)(2)(iv)(F);
0
ff. In paragraph (p)(2)(iv)(H), by removing ``Form I-129 petition'' and 
adding in its place ``application or petition'';
0
gg. In paragraphs (p)(13) and (p)(14)(i), by removing ``Form I-129'' 
and adding in its place ``the form prescribed by USCIS'';
0
hh. In paragraph (q)(3)(i), by removing ``Form I-129, Petition for 
Nonimmigrant Worker'' and adding in its place ``the form prescribed by 
USCIS'';
0
ii. In the second sentence of paragraph (q)(3)(i) wherever it appears 
and in paragraph (q)(4)(i), by removing ``Form I-129'' and adding in 
its place ``application or petition'';
0
jj. In paragraph (q)(4)(iii), by removing ``Form I-129'' and adding in 
its place ``the form prescribed by USCIS'';
0
kk. In the first sentence of paragraph (q)(5)(i), by removing ``Form I-
129, Petition for Nonimmigrant Worker'' and adding in its place ``the 
form prescribed by USCIS'';
0
ll. In the second sentence of paragraph (q)(5)(i), by removing ``Form 
I-129'' and adding in its place ``the form prescribed by USCIS'';
0
mm. In paragraph (q)(6), by removing ``Form I-129'' and adding in its 
place ``application or petition'';
0
nn. By revising paragraph (r)(3) introductory text and the definition 
of ``Petition'' in paragraph (r)(3);
0
oo. By revising paragraph (r)(5);
0
pp. In paragraph (r)(13), by removing ``8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)'' and adding 
in its place ``8 CFR 106.2''; and
0
qq. By revising paragraphs (w)(5), (w)(15)(iii), and (w)(16).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  214.2   Special requirements for admission, extension, and 
maintenance of status.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (8) * * *
    (iii) Substantive changes. Approval of USCIS must be obtained where 
there will be a substantive change in the terms or conditions of E 
status. The treaty alien must file a new application in accordance with 
the instructions on the form prescribed by USCIS requesting extension 
of stay in the United States, plus evidence of continued eligibility 
for E classification in the new capacity. Or the alien may obtain a 
visa reflecting the new terms and conditions and subsequently apply for 
admission at a port-of-entry. USCIS will deem there to have been a 
substantive change necessitating the filing of a new application where 
there has been a fundamental change in the employing entity's basic 
characteristics, such as a merger, acquisition, or sale of the division 
where the alien is employed.
    (iv) * * * Neither prior approval nor a new application is required 
if there is no substantive, or fundamental, change in the terms or 
conditions of the alien's employment which would affect the alien's 
eligibility for E classification. * * *
* * * * *
    (B) Request a new approval notice reflecting the non-substantive 
change by filing an application with a description of the change, or;
* * * * *
    (v) Advice. To request advice from USCIS as to whether a change is 
substantive, an alien may file an application with a complete 
description of the change. In cases involving multiple employees, an 
alien may request that USCIS determine if a merger or other corporate 
restructuring requires the filing of separate applications by filing a 
single application and attaching a list of the related receipt numbers 
for the employees involved and an explanation of the change or changes.
* * * * *
    (23) * * *
    (viii) Information for background checks. USCIS may require an 
applicant for E-2 CNMI Investor status, including but not limited to 
any applicant for derivative status as a spouse or child, to submit 
biometrics as required under 8 CFR 103.16.
* * * * *
    (h) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) General. A United States employer seeking to classify an alien 
as an H-1B, H-2A, H-2B, or H-3 temporary employee must file a petition 
on the form prescribed by USCIS in accordance with the form 
instructions.
* * * * *
    (ii) Multiple beneficiaries. Up to 25 named beneficiaries may be 
included in an H-1C, H-2A, H-2B, or H-3 petition if the beneficiaries 
will be performing the same service, or receiving the same training, 
for the same period, and in the same location. If more than 25 named 
beneficiaries are being petitioned for, an additional petition is 
required. Petitions for H-2A and H-2B workers from countries not 
designated in accordance with paragraph (h)(6)(i)(E) of this section 
must be filed separately.
* * * * *
    (5) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) Multiple beneficiaries. The total number of beneficiaries of a 
petition or series of petitions based on the same temporary labor 
certification may not exceed the number of workers indicated on that 
document. A single petition can include more than one named beneficiary 
if the total number is 25 or less and does not exceed the number of 
positions indicated on the relating temporary labor certification.
* * * * *
    (19) * * *
    (i) A United States employer (other than an exempt employer defined 
in paragraph (h)(19)(iii) of this section, or an employer filing a 
petition described in paragraph (h)(19)(v) of this section) who files a 
petition or application must include the additional American

[[Page 46925]]

Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act (ACWIA) fee referenced in 
8 CFR 106.2, if the petition is filed for any of the following 
purposes:
* * * * *
    (m) * * *
    (14) * * *
    (ii) Application. A M-1 student must apply for permission to accept 
employment for practical training on Form I-765, with fee as contained 
in 8 CFR part 106, accompanied by a properly endorsed Form I-20 by the 
designated school official for practical training. The application must 
be submitted before the program end date listed on the student's Form 
I-20 but not more than 90 days before the program end date. The 
designated school official must certify on Form I-538 that--
* * * * *
    (o) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) * * *
    (F) Multiple beneficiaries. More than one O-2 accompanying alien 
may be included on a petition if they are assisting the same O-1 alien 
for the same events or performances, during the same period, and in the 
same location. Up to 25 named beneficiaries may be included per 
petition.
* * * * *
    (p) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) * * *
    (F) Multiple beneficiaries. More than one beneficiary may be 
included in a P petition if they are members of a team or group, or if 
they will provide essential support to P-1, P-2, or P-3 beneficiaries 
performing in the same location and in the same occupation. Up to 25 
named beneficiaries may be included per petition.
* * * * *
    (r) * * *
    (3) Definitions. As used in this section, the term:
* * * * *
    Petition means the form or as may be prescribed by USCIS, a 
supplement containing attestations required by this section, and the 
supporting evidence required by this part.
* * * * *
    (5) Extension of stay or readmission. An R-1 alien who is 
maintaining status or is seeking readmission and who satisfies the 
eligibility requirements of this section may be granted an extension of 
R-1 stay or readmission in R-1 status for the validity period of the 
petition, up to 30 months, provided the total period of time spent in 
R-1 status does not exceed a maximum of five years. A Petition for a 
Nonimmigrant Worker to request an extension of R-1 status must be filed 
by the employer with a supplement prescribed by USCIS containing 
attestations required by this section, the fee specified in 8 CFR part 
106, and the supporting evidence, in accordance with the applicable 
form instructions.
* * * * *
    (w) * * *
    (5) Petition requirements. An employer who seeks to classify an 
alien as a CW-1 worker must file a petition with USCIS and pay the 
requisite petition fee plus the CNMI education funding fee and the 
fraud prevention and detection fee as prescribed in the form 
instructions and 8 CFR part 106. If the beneficiary will perform 
services for more than one employer, each employer must file a separate 
petition with fees with USCIS.
* * * * *
    (15) * * *
    (iii) If the eligible spouse and/or minor child(ren) are present in 
the CNMI, the spouse or child(ren) may apply for CW-2 dependent status 
on Form I-539 (or such alternative form as USCIS may designate) in 
accordance with the form instructions. The CW-2 status may not be 
approved until approval of the CW-1 petition.
    (16) Biometrics and other information. The beneficiary of a CW-1 
petition or the spouse or child applying for a grant or, extension of 
CW-2 status, or a change of status to CW-2 status, must submit 
biometric information as requested by USCIS.
* * * * *


Sec.  214.3   [Amended]

0
33. Section 214.3 is amended:
0
a. In paragraph (h)(1)(i), by removing ``8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)'' and adding 
in its place ``8 CFR 106.2''; and
0
b. In paragraph (h)(2) introductory text, by removing ``8 CFR 
103.7(b)(1)(ii)(B)'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR 103.7(d)(2)''.


Sec.  214.6  [Amended]

0
34. Section 214.6 is amended in paragraphs (g)(1), (h)(1)(i), (h)(2), 
and (i)(2) by removing ``8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)'' and adding in its place 
``8 CFR 106.2''.


Sec.  214.11  [Amended]

0
35. Section 214.11 is amended in paragraphs (d)(2)(iii) and (k)(1) by 
removing ``8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR 106.2''.

0
36. Section 214.14 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1) introductory 
text to read as follows:


Sec.  214.14   Alien victims of certain qualifying criminal activity.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Filing a petition. USCIS has sole jurisdiction over all 
petitions for U nonimmigrant status. An alien seeking U-1 nonimmigrant 
status must submit, Form I-918, Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status, and 
initial evidence to USCIS in accordance with this paragraph and the 
instructions to Form I-918. A petitioner who received interim relief is 
not required to submit initial evidence with Form I-918 if he or she 
wishes to rely on the law enforcement certification and other evidence 
that was submitted with the request for interim relief.
* * * * *

PART 216--CONDITIONAL BASIS OF LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENCE STATUS

0
37. The authority citation for part 216 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1154, 1184, 1186a, 1186b, and 8 
CFR part 2.


Sec.  216.4   [Amended]

0
38. Section 216.4 is amended in paragraph (a)(1) by removing ``Sec.  
103.7(b) of this chapter'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR 106.2''.


Sec.  216.5  [Amended]

0
39. Section 216.5 is amended in paragraph (b) by removing ``Sec.  
103.7(b) of this Chapter'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR 106.2''.


Sec.  216.6   [Amended]

0
40. Section 216.6 is amended in paragraph (a)(1)(i) by removing ``8 CFR 
103.7(b)(1)'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR 106.2''.

PART 217--VISA WAIVER PROGRAM

0
41. The authority citation for part 217 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  8 U.S.C. 1103, 1187; 8 CFR part 2.


Sec.  217.2   [Amended]

0
42. Section 217.2 is amended in paragraph (c)(2) by removing ``Sec.  
103.7(b)(1) of this chapter'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR 
103.7(d)(4)''.

PART 223--REENTRY PERMITS, REFUGEE TRAVEL DOCUMENTS, AND ADVANCE 
PAROLE DOCUMENTS

0
43. The authority citation for part 223 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  8 U.S.C. 1103, 1181, 1182, 1186a, 1203, 1225, 1226, 
1227, 1251; Protocol

[[Page 46926]]

Relating to the Status of Refugees, November 1, 1968, 19 U.S.T. 6223 
(TIAS) 6577; 8 CFR part 2.


Sec.  223.2   [Amended]

0
44. Section 223.2 is amended in paragraph (a) by removing ``8 CFR 
103.7(b)(1)'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR 106.2''.

PART 235--INSPECTION OF PERSONS APPLYING FOR ADMISSION

0
45. The authority citation for part 235 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  8 U.S.C. 1101 and note, 1103, 1183, 1185 (pursuant 
to E.O. 13323, 69 FR 241, 3 CFR, 2004 Comp., p.278), 1201, 1224, 
1225, 1226, 1228, 1365a note, 1365b, 1379, 1731-32; Title VII of 
Public Law 110-229; 8 U.S.C. 1185 note (section 7209 of Pub. L. 108-
458); Pub. L. 112-54.


Sec.  235.1   [Amended]

0
46. Section 235.1 is amended in paragraphs (g)(1)(iii) and (g)(2) by 
removing ``Sec.  103.7(b)(1) of this chapter'' and adding in its place 
``8 CFR 103.7(d)(3)''.


Sec.  235.7   [Amended]

0
47. Section 235.7 is amended in paragraph (a)(4)(v) by removing ``Sec.  
103.7(b)(1) of this chapter'' and ``Sec.  103.7(b)(1)'' and adding in 
their place ``8 CFR 103.7(d)(7)''.


Sec.  235.12   [Amended]

0
48. Section 235.12 is amended in paragraph (d)(2) by removing ``8 CFR 
103.7(b)(1)(ii)(M)'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR 103.7(d)(13)''.


Sec.  235.13   [Amended]

0
49. Section 235.13 is amended in paragraph (c)(5) by removing ``8 CFR 
103.7(b)(1)(ii)(N)'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR 103.7(d)(14)''.

PART 236--APPREHENSION AND DETENTION OF INADMISSIBLE AND DEPORTABLE 
ALIENS; REMOVAL OF ALIENS ORDERED REMOVED

0
50. The authority citation for part 236 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a; 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1182, 1224, 
1225, 1226, 1227, 1231, 1362; 18 U.S.C. 4002, 4013(c)(4); 8 CFR part 
2.


Sec.  236.14  [Amended]

0
51. Section 236.14 is amended in paragraph (a) by removing ``Sec.  
103.7(b)(1) of this chapter'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR 106.2''.


Sec.  236.15   [Amended]

0
52. Section 236.15 is amended in paragraph (e) by removing ``Sec.  
103.7(b)(1) of this chapter'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR 106.2''.

PART 240--VOLUNTARY DEPARTURE, SUSPENSION OF DEPORTATION AND 
SPECIAL RULE CANCELLATION OF REMOVAL

0
53. The authority citation for part 240 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  8 U.S.C. 1103; 1182, 1186a, 1224, 1225, 1226, 1227, 
1251, 1252 note, 1252a, 1252b, 1362; secs. 202 and 203, Pub. L. 105-
100 (111 Stat. 2160, 2193); sec. 902, Pub. L. 105-277 (112 Stat. 
2681); 8 CFR part 2.


0
54. Section 240.63 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  240.63   Application process.

    (a) Form and fees. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this 
section, the application must be made on the form prescribed by USCIS 
for this program and filed in accordance with the instructions for that 
form. An applicant who submitted to EOIR a completed Form EOIR-40, 
Application for Suspension of Deportation, before the effective date of 
the form prescribed by USCIS may apply with the Service by submitting 
the completed Form EOIR-40 attached to a completed first page of the 
application. Each application must be filed with the required fees as 
provided in 8 CFR 106.2.
* * * * *

PART 244--TEMPORARY PROTECTED STATUS FOR NATIONALS OF DESIGNATED 
STATES

0
55. The authority citation for part 244 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  8 U.S.C. 1103, 1254, 1254a note, 8 CFR part 2.


Sec.  244.6   [Amended]

0
56. Section 244.6 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  244.6  Application.

    (a) An application for Temporary Protected Status must be submitted 
in accordance with the form instructions, the applicable country-
specific Federal Register notice that announces the procedures for TPS 
registration or re-registration and, except as otherwise provided in 
this section, with the appropriate fees as described in 8 CFR part 106.
    (b) An applicant for TPS may also request an employment 
authorization document pursuant to 8 CFR 274a by filing an Application 
for Employment Authorization in accordance with the form instructions 
and in accordance with 8 CFR 106.2 and 106.3.

0
57. Section 244.17 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  244.17   Periodic registration.

    (a) Aliens granted Temporary Protected Status must re-register 
periodically in accordance with USCIS instructions. Such registration 
applies to nationals of those foreign states designated for more than 
one year by DHS or where a designation has been extended for a year or 
more. Applicants for re-registration must apply during the period 
provided by USCIS. Re-registration applicants do not need to pay the 
fee that was required for initial registration except the biometric 
services fee, unless that fee is waived in the applicable form 
instructions, and if requesting an employment authorization document, 
the application fee for an Application for Employment Authorization. By 
completing the application, applicants attest to their continuing 
eligibility. Such applicants do not need to submit additional 
supporting documents unless USCIS requests that they do so.
* * * * *

PART 245--ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS TO THAT OF PERSON ADMITTED FOR 
PERMANENT RESIDENCE

0
58. The authority citation for part 204 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1182, 1255; Pub. L. 105-100, 
section 202, 111 Stat. 2160, 2193; Pub. L. 105-277, section 902, 112 
Stat. 2681; Pub. L. 110-229, tit. VII, 122 Stat. 754; 8 CFR part 2.


Sec.  245.7  [Amended]

0
59. Section 245.7 is amended in paragraph (a) by removing ``8 CFR 
103.7(b)(1)'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR 106.2''.


Sec.  245.10   [Amended]

0
60. Section 245.10 is amended in paragraph (c) introductory text by 
removing ``Sec.  103.7(b)(1) of this chapter'' and adding in its place 
``8 CFR 106.2''.


Sec.  245.15   [Amended]

0
61. Section 245.15 is amended:
0
a. In paragraph (c)(2)(iv)(A), by removing ``Sec.  103.7(b)(1) of this 
chapter'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR 106.2'';
0
b. By removing and reserving paragraph (c)(2)(iv)(B);
0
c. In paragraph (g)(1), by removing ``8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)'' and adding in 
its place ``8 CFR 106.2'';
0
d. In paragraph (h)(1), by removing ``Sec.  103.7(b)(1) of this 
chapter'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR 106.2'';
0
e. By removing and reserving paragraph (h)(2); and

[[Page 46927]]

0
f. In paragraphs (n)(1), (t)(1), and (t)(2)(i), by removing ``8 CFR 
103.7(b)(1)'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR 106.2''.


Sec.  245.18   [Amended]

0
62. Section 245.18 is amended in paragraphs (d)(1) and (k) by removing 
``8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR 106.2''.


Sec.  245.21   [Amended]

0
63. Section 245.21 is amended:
0
a. In paragraph (b), by removing ``8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)'' and adding in 
its place ``8 CFR 106.2'' in the first sentence and removing the second 
sentence; and
0
b. In paragraphs (f), (h), and (i), by removing ``8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)'' 
and adding in its place ``8 CFR 106.2''.


Sec.  245.23  [Amended]

0
64. Section 245.23 is amended in paragraph (e)(1)(ii) by removing ``8 
CFR 103.7(b)(1)'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR 106.2'' and by 
removing and reserving paragraph (e)(1)(iii).


Sec.  245.24   [Amended]

0
65. Section 245.24 is amended:
0
a. In paragraph (d)(2), by removing ``8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)'' and adding in 
its place ``8 CFR 106.2'' and by removing and reserving paragraph 
(d)(3); and
0
b. In paragraphs (h)(1)(ii) and (i)(1)(iii), by removing ``8 CFR 
103.7(b)(1)'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR 106.2'' and by removing 
paragraph (i)(1)(iv).

PART 245a--ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS TO THAT OF PERSONS ADMITTED FOR 
TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS UNDER SECTION 245A OF THE 
IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT

0
66. The authority citation for part 245a continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1255a and 1255a note.


0
67. Section 245a.2 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(3) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  245a.2   Application for temporary residence.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (3) A separate application must be filed by each applicant with the 
fees required by 8 CFR 106.2.
* * * * *

0
68. Section 245a.3 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(3) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  245a.3  Application for adjustment from temporary to permanent 
resident status.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (3) A separate application must be filed by each applicant with the 
fees required by 8 CFR 106.2.
* * * * *

0
69. Section 245a.4 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(5)(iii) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  245a.4   Adjustment to lawful resident status of certain 
nationals of countries for which extended voluntary departure has been 
made available.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (5) * * *
    (iii) A separate application must be filed by each applicant with 
the fees required by 8 CFR 106.2.
* * * * *

0
70. Section 245a.12 is amended:
0
a. In paragraphs (b) introductory text and (c), by removing ``Missouri 
Service Center'' and adding in its place ``National Benefit Center'';
0
b. By revising paragraph (d) introductory text;
0
c. In paragraph (d)(1), by removing ``8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)'' and adding in 
its place ``8 CFR 106.2''; and
0
d. By removing and reserving paragraphs (d)(2), (4), and (6).
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  245a.12   Filing and applications.

* * * * *
    (d) Application and supporting documentation. Each applicant for 
LIFE Legalization adjustment of status must submit the form prescribed 
by USCIS completed in accordance with the form instructions accompanied 
by the required evidence.
* * * * *


Sec.  245a.13  [Amended]

0
71. Section 245a.13 is amended:
0
a. In paragraphs (d)(1) and (e)(1), by removing ``Sec.  103.7(b)(1) of 
this chapter'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR 106.2''; and
0
b. In paragraph (e) introductory text and (e)(1), by removing 
``Missouri Service Center'' and adding in its place ``National Benefit 
Center''; and


Sec.  245a.18  [Amended]

0
72. Section 245a.18 is amended in paragraph (c)(1) by removing 
``Missouri Service Center'' and adding in its place ``National Benefit 
Center'' in paragraph (c)(1).


Sec.  245a.19   [Amended]

0
73. Section 245a.19 is amended in paragraph (a) by removing ``Missouri 
Service Center'' and adding in its place ``National Benefit Center''.


Sec.  245a.20   [Amended]

0
74. Section 245a.20 is amended in paragraph (a)(2) by removing ``8 CFR 
103.7(b)(1)'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR 106.2''.


Sec.  245a.33   [Amended]

0
75. Section 245a.33 is amended in paragraph (a) by removing ``Sec.  
103.7(b)(1) of this chapter'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR 106.2'' 
and in paragraphs (a) and (b) by removing ``Missouri Service Center'' 
and adding in its place ``National Benefit Center''.

PART 248--CHANGE OF NONIMMIGRANT CLASSIFICATION

0
76. The authority citation for part 248 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1184, 1258; 8 CFR part 2.


Sec.  248.3  [Amended]

0
77. Section 248.3 is amended in the introductory text by removing ``8 
CFR 103.7(b)'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR 106.2'' in its place and 
in paragraph (h) introductory text by removing ``8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)'' 
and adding in its place ``8 CFR 106.2''.

PART 264--REGISTRATION AND FINGERPRINTING OF ALIENS IN THE UNITED 
STATES

0
78. The authority citation for part 248 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1201, 1303-1305; 8 CFR part 2.


Sec.  264.2   [Amended]

0
79. Section 264.2 is amended in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (c)(2)(i) by 
removing ``8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR 106.2''.


Sec.  264.5   [Amended]

0
80. Section 264.5 is amended in paragraph (a) by removing ``8 CFR 
103.7(b)(1)'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR 106.2''.


Sec.  264.6  [Amended]

0
81. Section 264.6 is amended in paragraph (b) by removing ``8 CFR 
103.7(b)(1)'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR 106.2''.

PART 274a--CONTROL OF EMPLOYMENT OF ALIENS

0
82. The authority citation for part 274a continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1324a; 48 U.S.C. 1806; 8 CFR 
part 2; Pub. L. 101-410,

[[Page 46928]]

104 Stat. 890, as amended by Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 599.


0
83. Section 274a.12 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(9), (13), and 
(14) to read as follows:


Sec.  274a.12   Classes of aliens authorized to accept employment.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (9) A temporary worker or trainee (H-1, H-2A, H-2B, or H-3), 
pursuant to 8 CFR 214.2(h), or a nonimmigrant specialty occupation 
worker pursuant to sections 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b)(1), 
101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(a), 101(a)(15)(H)(ii)(b) and INA 101(a)(15)(H)(iii) 
of the Act. An alien in this status may be employed only by the 
petitioner through whom the status was obtained. In the case of a 
professional H-2B athlete who is traded from one organization to 
another organization, employment authorization for the player will 
automatically continue for a period of 30 days after acquisition by the 
new organization, within which time the new organization must file a 
new petition for H-2B classification. If a new petition is not filed 
within 30 days, employment authorization will cease. If a new petition 
is filed within 30 days, the professional athlete's employment 
authorization will continue until the petition is adjudicated. If the 
new petition is denied, employment authorization will cease. In the 
case of a nonimmigrant with H-1B status, employment authorization will 
automatically continue upon the filing of a qualifying petition under 8 
CFR 214.2(h)(2)(i)(H) until such petition is adjudicated, in accordance 
with section 214(n) of the Act and 8 CFR 214.2(h)(2)(i)(H);
* * * * *
    (13) An alien having extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, 
education, business, or athletics (O-1), and an accompanying alien (O-
2), pursuant to 8 CFR 214.2(o). An alien in this status may be employed 
only by the petitioner through whom the status was obtained. In the 
case of a professional O-1 athlete who is traded from one organization 
to another organization, employment authorization for the player will 
automatically continue for a period of 30 days after the acquisition by 
the new organization, within which time the new organization is 
expected to file a new petition for O nonimmigrant classification. If a 
new petition is not filed within 30 days, employment authorization will 
cease. If a new petition is filed within 30 days, the professional 
athlete's employment authorization will continue until the petition is 
adjudicated. If the new petition is denied, employment authorization 
will cease.
    (14) An athlete, artist, or entertainer (P-1, P-2, or P-3), 
pursuant to 8 CFR 214.2(p). An alien in this status may be employed 
only by the petitioner through whom the status was obtained. In the 
case of a professional P-1 athlete who is traded from one organization 
to another organization, employment authorization for the player will 
automatically continue for a period of 30 days after the acquisition by 
the new organization, within which time the new organization is 
expected to file a new petition for P-1 nonimmigrant classification. If 
a new petition is not filed within 30 days, employment authorization 
will cease. If a new petition is filed within 30 days, the professional 
athlete's employment authorization will continue until the petition is 
adjudicated. If the new petition is denied, employment authorization 
will cease;
* * * * *

PART 286--IMMIGRATION USER FEE

0
84. The authority citation for part 286 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1356; Title VII of Public Law 
110-229; 8 CFR part 2.


Sec.  286.9   [Amended]

0
85. Section 286.9 is amended in paragraph (a) by removing ``Sec.  
103.7(b)(1)'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR 103.7(d)''.

PART 301--NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH

0
86. The authority citation for part 301 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  8 U.S.C. 1103, 1401; 8 CFR part 2.


Sec.  301.1   [Amended]

0
87. Section 301.1 is amended in paragraph (a)(1) by removing ``8 CFR 
103.7(b)(1)'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR 106.2''.

PART 319--SPECIAL CLASSES OF PERSONS WHO MAY BE NATURALIZED: 
SPOUSES OF UNITED STATES CITIZENS

0
88. The authority citation for part 319 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1430, 1443.


Sec.  319.11  [Amended]

0
89. Section 319.11 is amended in paragraph (a) introductory text by 
removing ``8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR 106.2''.

PART 320--CHILD BORN OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES AND RESIDING 
PERMANENTLY IN THE UNITED STATES; REQUIREMENTS FOR AUTOMATIC 
ACQUISITION OF CITIZENSHIP

0
90. The authority citation for part 320 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  8 U.S.C. 1103, 1443; 8 CFR part 2.


Sec.  320.5  [Amended]

0
91. Section 320.5 is amended in paragraphs (b) and (c) by removing ``8 
CFR 103.7(b)(1)'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR 106.2''.

PART 322--CHILD BORN OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES; REQUIREMENTS FOR 
APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATE OF CITIZENSHIP

0
92. The authority citation for part 322 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  8 U.S.C. 1103, 1443; 8 CFR part 2.


Sec.  322.3   [Amended]

0
93. Section 322.3 is amended in paragraph (a) by removing ``8 CFR 
103.7(b)(1)'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR 106.2'' and in paragraph 
(b)(1) introductory text by removing ``Sec.  103.7(b)(1) of this 
chapter'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR 106.2''.


Sec.  322.5  [Amended]

0
94. Section 322.5 is amended in paragraphs (b) and (c) by removing ``8 
CFR 103.7(b)(1)'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR 106.2''.

PART 324--SPECIAL CLASSES OF PERSONS WHO MAY BE NATURALIZED: WOMEN 
WHO HAVE LOST UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP BY MARRIAGE AND FORMER 
CITIZENS WHOSE NATURALIZATION IS AUTHORIZED BY PRIVATE LAW

0
95. The authority citation for part 324 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1435, 1443, 1448, 1101 note.


Sec.  324.2   [Amended]

0
96. Section 324.2 is amended in paragraph (b) by removing ``8 CFR 
103.7(b)(1)'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR 106.2''.

PART 334--APPLICATION FOR NATURALIZATION

0
97. The authority citation for part 334 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  8 U.S.C. 1103, 1443; 8 CFR part 2.

[[Page 46929]]

Sec.  334.2   [Amended]

0
98. Section 334.2 is amended in paragraph (a) by removing ``8 CFR 
103.7(b)(1)'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR 106.2''.

PART 341--CERTIFICATES OF CITIZENSHIP

0
99. The authority citation for part 341 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  Pub. L. 82-414, 66 Stat. 173, 238, 254, 264, as 
amended; 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1409(c), 1443, 1444, 1448, 1452, 1455; 8 CFR 
part 2.


Sec.  341.1   [Amended]

0
100. Section 341.1 is amended by removing ``8 CFR 103.7(b)(1)'' and 
adding in its place ``8 CFR 106.2''.


Sec.  341.5  [Amended]

0
101. Section 341.5 is amended in paragraph (e) by removing ``8 CFR 
103.7'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR 106.2''.

PART 343a--NATURALIZATION AND CITIZENSHIP PAPERS LOST, MUTILATED, 
OR DESTROYED; NEW CERTIFICATE IN CHANGED NAME; CERTIFIED COPY OF 
REPATRIATION PROCEEDINGS

0
102. The authority citation for part 343a continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101 note, 1103, 1435, 1443, 1454, and 1455.


Sec.  343a.1   [Amended]

0
103. Section 343a.1 is amended in paragraph (a) by removing ``8 CFR 
103.7(b)(1)'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR part 106''.

PART 343b--SPECIAL CERTIFICATE OF NATURALIZATION FOR RECOGNITION BY 
A FOREIGN STATE

0
104. The authority citation for part 343b continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1443, 1454, 1455.


Sec.  343b.1   [Amended]

0
105. Section 343b.1 is amended by removing the term ``8 CFR 
103.7(b)(1)'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR 106.2'' in the first 
sentence.

PART 392--SPECIAL CLASSES OF PERSONS WHO MAY BE NATURALIZED: 
PERSONS WHO DIE WHILE SERVING ON ACTIVE DUTY WITH THE UNITED STATES 
ARMED FORCES DURING CERTAIN PERIODS OF HOSTILITIES

0
106. The authority citation for part 392 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1440 and note, and 1440-1; 8 CFR part 
2.


Sec.  392.4  [Amended]

0
107. Section 392.4 is amended in paragraph (e) by removing ``8 CFR 
103.7(b)(1)'' and adding in its place ``8 CFR 106.2''.


Chad R. Mizelle,
Senior Official Performing the Duties of the General Counsel for DHS.
[FR Doc. 2020-16389 Filed 7-31-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-97-P